Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91→Archive 95

Knee operation

In the latest iteration of the admittedly oft-repeated Michael D. Higgins knee question, the asker's question was replaced by the text "...monotonous repetition excised...." This is the first time I can remember seeing the text of a question replaced by a comment, leaving intact the heading of the question, the sig of the original asker, and the answers of others. Wouldn't we normally put one of those show/hide things there allowing people to see the offending text?--Cam (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I restored it with the edit summary "restoring original question, was last asked in November, maybe now someone who knows or cares will see it. In which case OP wouldn't need to ask again. No need to remove it. Isn't that long." ---Sluzzelin talk 06:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I was hasty, but it seems to be pointless repetitive posting now on the verge of being spam. AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions about religion

Is there something we can do about rude reactions to questions about religion? It seems every time someone asks a question about religion, someone with a chip on their shoulder about the subject chimes in saying something along the line of religion being stupid or lies or fairy tales, no matter how irrelevant to the question. If someone asks a question about whether a particular religion is true, that's one thing, but if something asks a question about the content of the Bible, that shouldn't be seen as an invitation for hostility. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times before (see, for instance, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 65#Criticism of religion on Science desk); and several people have suggested that a separate desk be set up for religion questions, without the suggestions' ever having gained much traction. If anyone asks questions about religion anywhere but the Humanities desk, I guess such responses are to be expected, but I too wish that the anti-religionists could restrain themselves. It seems that that's too much to ask, though. Deor (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As a Wikipedia editor who is myself religious, I find that responding to such responses is counterproductive. It is far better to merely answer religious questions with factual answers referenced to actual religious texts or to tenets of the religion in question, and to not pass judgement one way or the other about the veracity of the religion so referenced. I am a Christian myself, but I have answered questions on Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. and I hope that I answer them in as neutral a manner as possible, without claiming that such modes of religious thought are somehow "invalid" merely because I, myself, do not believe them. Yes, it is very rude to answer earnest questions about religious doctrine with derisive answers which denigrate the religion being asked about. However, I find that it is best to ignore such responses. People who leave such responses are usually trying to pick a fight; it is best not to give them the satisfaction. Leave the response unresponded to, as it only reflects poorly on the person who left it, and don't feed their need to start fights. --Jayron32 05:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Good advice. Regardless of anyone's specific personal beliefs (or lack thereof), religion is an important cultural topic. If someone asks, "How did Jesus walk on the water?", answering "He didn't" is a useless answer, unless the respondent can site sources on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Those sorts of rude answers tend to appear on the Science desk more than anywhere else (although we see them wherever religion questions are asked). I can understand a scientist, or anyone for that matter, having a personal belief that what was written in the Bible about Jesus walking on the water was just so much fantasy on the part of the writer, and it never really happened. But what I can never understand is a person of science, particularly, taking the position that their personal belief about something unknowable equates to the truth, and it's therefore OK to state it as if it were the truth. Scientists, of all people, are the ones who are supposed to have open minds about phenomena that occur throughout the universe, and in particular on Earth. They are the ones we depend on to tell us what actually is the case because there's scientific evidence. Lack of evidence of a thing does not necessarily mean that thing does not exist or never happened; otherwise, why have they spent billions looking the Higgs boson, which has still failed to actually materialise. They can't take the position that "it didn't happen because it couldn't possibly happen, or because there's no scientific evidence of it", and still call themselves men or women of science. These bald denials betray their unprofessionalism and lack of spirit of scientific inquiry. They put themselves in the same category as the "scientists" who assured the world that if automobiles travelled faster than 15 miles per hour, all the occupants would surely die. Of all the people on Earth, scientists are the ones who should most often be saying "I don't know". In this case, they might follow that up with "There is no scientific record of the event, only a story about Jesus walking on the water. We'll never know whether it really did happen or not. People are free to believe whatever they like about it. My belief happens to be X. You might have have a different belief." -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Jack, Thanks for preaching at us, for no reason, about the nature of belief, and trying to bait us into a debate about why religion canon differs from currently unproven scientific theories. That is exactly the sort of thing Mwalcoff was complaining about. APL (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, permit me to disagree 100% with everything you just said. Mwalcoff was talking about people denying the truth of claimed divine or religious events, but with no arguments to back up their denials. It's just "It never happened", period, as if saying something is so makes it so. And I was making the point that, for such an answer to appear on the Science ref desk particularly (although it's also true of any desk) is .. well, 'inappropriate' hardly cuts it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I concur with your comments. The trap that some scientists and/or nonbelievers fall into is the assumption that "I don't see how it could have happened, therefore it didn't happen." Sound familiar? That's exactly what creationists say about evolution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You're both trying to argue philosophy in a thread about etiquette. Sadly, the etiquette under discussion is that you should not pop into a thread to self-righteously lecture about philosophy unless that's specifically called for.
I think you've both clearly illustrated that no rule or policy will ever stop believers and skeptics from taking every opportunity to jump in and take a jab at at the other. APL (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As have you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's where you're wrong! I've stuck to criticizing etiquette, which is the topic of discussion. There's nothing in this thread (Until Jack's post) that encourages a discussion of why skeptics believe the things they do, whether their beliefs are wholly logically consistent, or whether they're right or wrong. The topic was only about whether it was polite to interject those statements (right or wrong) into questions that are clearly from a believer's point of view. (or "in universe")
However, Jack felt the need to pop in and say that a certain group of people were wrong and that they believed stupid and/or inconstant things. That is exactly what is being complained about! APL (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(Complained about at least partially because it derails the discussion with pointless side arguments, which I'm helping you demonstrate. APL (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC))
No, Jack and I are right. It is the philosophy behind some skeptics that triggers their insulting reaction to believers. You can't separate the one factor from the other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I said no such thing as that certain people "believed stupid and/or inconstant things" (whatever that means). Where on Earth did you get the idea I said anything remotely like that? Please confine your responses to the things I say to ... the things I say. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, My reference is basically this entire edit less the first sentence. [1]. (Notice the edit summary!) APL (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you can read my post to mean that, one of us needs to take English language lessons, is all I can say. Where is there any reference to my saying that anyone believes "stupid" things, for example? I was taking no personal position on the veracity of the story about Jesus walking on the water, and no position on the mental status of anyone who believes or disbelieves. I went to the trouble of auggesting that scientists have a position that includes: We'll never know whether it really did happen or not. People are free to believe whatever they like about it (remember that?). But whatever your beliefs are, no-one is entitled to make a post on a reference desk, particularly a Science ref desk, about such a supposed event, saying either "It happened" (as if that were a factual statement not requiring further argument) or "It didn't happen" (as if that were a factual statement not requiring further argument). We get virtually none of the former, but we do get plenty of the latter. And people who call themselves scientists ought to know better. Do you disagree with that? If you want to categorise this as "lecturing", so be it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
How do you feel about the position "it almost certainly didn't happen"?  Card Zero  (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Scientifically speaking, you have no basis for such a conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I was going to ask whether the Harry Potter story should be treated in the same way - "we can't be sure it didn't happen" or "it almost certainly didn't happen" or "it didn't happen"?  Card Zero  (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no issue with people making such statements, as long as they don't just leave it at that, without saying why they've come to that conclusion. Look, it's simple. ANY statement, about ANY subject, but particularly about claimed religious, mystical, divine, miraculous or unknowable events, that has the appearance of "This is the case because I say it is the case", is just not on. It doesn't matter to me whether they're saying "It DID happen" or "It did NOT happen"; any such statements require evidence or at least arguments. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
To those who say that something couldn't possibly have happened, one could quote the old-time radio character Baron Munchausen, who would say to those who doubted his tall tales, "Vas you dere, Charlie?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Why particularly those events? The distinguishing feature is controversy, I think (otherwise other fiction would be included on the list). So ghosts make the list, I assume, and superman doesn't since hardly anyone believes he is real. You're right: absolutism is a terrible thing, ra ra fallibility, etc., but it's difficult to express a fallible attitude in ordinary language without making every other word "possibly" and over-burdening sentences with disclaimers. I notice you say we should avoid anything "which has the appearance" of dogma, but it's a tough target to set people.  Card Zero  (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not "tough" in the slightest. Instead of saying "Jesus never walked on water", say instead "I doubt/disbelieve Jesus ever walked on water" or words to that effect. Instead of saying "The moon landings were a hoax", say instead "I believe the moon landings were a hoax". How hard is that? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you mean to say "I doubt that it's tough in the slightest, but you might have a different belief?" Aaaaaaah. [2] What you're asking for here - with the particular emphasis on appearance rather than just writing in good faith - is to avoid saying anything that might possibly offend somebody (by inadvertently failing to express doubt somewhere), despite the wide range of unlikely things that people elect to be offended by. Hence, it's a tough target. In a better language, doubt would be built-in and assumed by default, and dogmatism would have to be expressed explicitly.  Card Zero  (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Who are the believers and who are the skeptics in this discussion, APL? I hope you haven't allocated me to either group. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Likewise, I defy APL to conclusively put me in either category. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I put you both in the category of people who, when asked if it's polite to say "Install Linux; Problem Solved" in response to a windows configuration issue, respond by taking the opportunity to explain why they don't like Linux. APL (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know from Linux, but my experience with Unix is that it sucks, so I'm supposing Linux does too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What we can do is ask that the questions be treated with the same respect as any other questions about a story. This is a civil way of saying "it's all fairy tales", so it should constitute a mutual preference and keep everybody happy. It can be said pre-emptively, before anybody says the same thing in a blunter way, or it can be said as an admonishment: for instance in the recent "Age of Adam at creation" question on the misc desk, ToE says "A polite respondent would assume the question to be set in the narrative universe."  Card Zero  (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't answer many religious-based questions due to ignorance, but where I can provide input, I find it useful to respond "in-universe" as I would for works of fiction. Matt Deres (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
But how far does this protection of the sensibilities of religious believers go? What if a Jehovah's witness asked about whether he was one of the 144,000 chosen by his god for a nice afterlife? (Sorry if I have the technical details wrong.) Or an, admittedly radical, Muslim asking for ideas on which building they could fly planes into next? Or a radical Christian seeking advice on re-taking the holy land? How about how Santa Claus manages his delivery schedule on time? Or a member of the Exclusive Brethren...? (Unlikely, I know) It's all very well protecting the mainstreamers, but one of the many reasons I fell away from religion is that the mainstreamers very rarely condemn the nutcases. Especially here, the mainstream Christians insist on counting almost anyone who has ever been inside a church as one of the adherents of their faith, rather than condemning where appropriate. (I reckon those numbers of adherents here on Wikipedia are some of our worst content.) Religion distorts a lot of our content. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think religious questions should be considered (to use another Wikipedia term) "in-universe" that can get in-universe answers. If someone asks a question about, say, why Vulcans look different in the original Star Trek from later Star Trek series, you can give whatever the official Star Trek explanation for that is. You can also say that it's because they're better at makeup and costumes than they were in the 60s. But you shouldn't say, "STAR TREK IS A MADE UP SHOW FOR DORKS!" or something. Similarly, if someone asks a religious question, you can answer with what the Bible says, or what a commentary about the Bible says, or whatever. Or you can provide a "scholarly" answer along the lines of "That was likely part of the 'P' source and may have been put in the Bible to assert the authority of the priestly class." But you shouldn't be rude. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
[nerd reply]Actually the Vulcans look nearly identical from one itteration of the show to the next. They're probably the franchise's most iconic non-human species. Most of the other species have changed over the years, though. (Notably the Klingons.) [/nerd reply] APL (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not necessarily a matter of "protecting sensibilities", but of trying to answer the question. If a JW asks about the famous 144,000, then direct him to an article, if there is one. If it's about Santa, send the OP to an article on Santa. If it's someone asking about fomenting war, point out that we don't provide legal advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
There's an OP over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Water-fueled car - Where are they? currently being told very bluntly that his belief in this technology is just plain wrong. What's the difference between that and bluntly telling someone that their literal belief in the Bible is just plain wrong? HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no difference. Nobody likes being told "you're wrong", without something to explain why they're wrong. To fail to provide this explanation is the very rudeness Mwalcoff complains about. One anon editor on the Science thread wrote: Where are they? They're nowhere. They're impossible, and he falls foul of the standard we need. The other respondents all backed up their denials with some argument, which is all anyone can ever ask of them, but it's also the least they should do consistent with common courtesy and decency. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As noted in the cited article, water-based engines can "work", so the flippant response is factually incorrect. The problem with water-based engines is that you have to put more energy in than you can get back. So they're not practical. But they can still work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Only for a very tortured definitions of "work" and "water-fueled". In such cars a fuel source is being consumed, and it ain't water. (Sometimes water is allowed to escape as exhaust, to give the impression that the water is consumed.) Usually the fuel is some sort of expensive metal hydride. Those cars aren't fueled by water any more than they're fueled by their windshield wiper fluid.
In the context of a power source the phrase "you have to put more energy in than you can get back" is code for "It doesn't work at all unless you cheat by hiding batteries under the seat." APL (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Au contraire! Here is an example of a power source that combines the concepts of water and perpetual motion! Might not be that practical for a car, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, some of the cars we see on the road here in America might be getting large enough to have their own weather patterns, so maybe that would work. APL (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
A similar type of rudeness is as typified by Von Restorff on the E.T. thread on the Science desk: Us discovering them, in the near future? 0% chance. That's it. A bald denial that there's any possibility of this happening, but without a single word of explanation as to why s/he has come to this conclusion. Very helpful - I don't think so. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You're right. Basically a dogmatic response, seemingly based on nothing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
More explanations? That sounds great. Everybody should explain everything, all the time - except there must be some limit to the utility of this, much the same as Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Being aware of the needs of the audience is the thing.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure it is. But the question in this case was "What are the probabilities of discovering an alien species, capable of replying to a message, in the near future?". Kitty was told it's 0%. Surely she deserves better than that. She must have thought there was some possibility, for her to have asked the question at all. She's being told (not in so many words but the effect is exactly the same) that she's wrong, but without a single word of explanation. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
In this particular case, I don't think it matters anyway. If we the OP hasn't learnt from their plenty of attempts to convince us the wonders of washlets that we can be blunt, they should have from when they asked about their get rich/pay off student loan schemes or when they wanted a taser to scare someone in a minor petrol station dispute or when they ask something a simple search can find. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Quality of individual responses on the RefDesks varies widely for any given question (and any given respondent), but usually the collective response gets the job done. I'm not sure there's any particular need to single out questions about religious belief as needing special consideration. I'd be more concerned with people so eager to have the parser process their own 4 tildes that they don't notice that someone else already said the exact same damn thing 20 minutes earlier.
Posters of non-scientific questions to the Science desk need to first be made aware that there is no science-based answer to their question, and this is done more- or less-well by individual responders. "In universe" responses can follow, but I think the basic problem needs to be stated up front. Card Zero is making a good point just above about "needs of the audience". If someone asks "Under special relativity, when I get to heaven, how much older will I be than my puppy that just got killed by a car", on the Science desk, the first priority would be to point out that there is no scientific concept of heaven, so the question is moot. Beyond that, someone may wish to discuss the fact that we are unaware of the relative velocity of heaven compared to earth, that an anthropocentric cosmology would imply it is zero, or that using a given set of parameters the answer would be T=<long thing with weird symbols>. But "because there is no heaven" is a sufficient, though low-quality, answer.
Similarly, if someone asks about the probability of contacting ETs in the near future, the correct first approximation is indeed zero, and should be conveyed up-front. Beyond that, links to relevant articles and sources are good, and even a discussion about the quantity of zero only really being defined in mathematics, and everything else is stamp-collecting. Or as APL pointed out, it's not possible to calculate a probability without even a single data point. If someone links to a video about a water-fuelled car and asks why we don't see more of these on the street, the most relevant answer is "because it's a scam". There's no particular burden on the responder to provide a detailed proof based on the laws of thermodynamics, though again, not the best quality response.
I'm all for the participants here to keep thinking about how they can improve the quality of their responses, and really, if you find a question unworthy of anything but a curt dismissal, why don't you just ignore it? However, I think the first priority on the Science desk should be to point out which parts of a question are unanswerable in absolute terms, only in-context. Franamax (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The difference between a question about the Garden of Eden and a question about, say, perpetual motion is that a Bible question can be answered "in-universe," like a question about any other book. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
But shouldn't the Q be moved then? If it's a question about a book and the answers will be in-universe, that should go to RD/Ent or Rd/Hum, no? Rd/Sci needs to keep its focus on providing scientific answers, as a scientific resource. I've no problem with providing in-universe answers, so long as the limitations are made clear up-front. In both examples you postulate, (to me) a correct answer would be "it's all bullshit - but if you believe it, here's one plausible way to explain the unexplainable if you ignore everything else, keeping in mind this is all bullshit". We're all somewhat lazy here, so I wouldn't dismiss an abbreviation to "it's all bullshit" - again, not an optimal response though. The Science desk needs to hew to the standards of science (and note above where I said there ain't no such thing as zero). I'd rather tackle the perpetual motion one, using either the Casimir force or dark energy as a launch-pad. Franamax (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, religion questions should be moved to the humanities desk, unless it's something along the lines of, "Could the plague of locusts from Exodus theoretically happen?" But under no circumstances should someone respond to a religion question with "It's all bullshit," no matter what you say after that. That would be a big violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Just leave the question alone if it bothers you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, fair point, I used "bullshit" for rhetorical effect, not as a suggestion for actual practice. Mea culpa Franamax (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion the parts few days wondering if I should bother to respond. I don't think it's always so simple, as not all religious questions rely completely on the bible, or some other single holy book. Plenty depend somewhat on teachings and supporting documents which form a complicated universe. I would suggest a better example is something like astrology or homeopathy or tarot reading. Most of these have their own 'universe' of sorts even if there is potentially less consistency in beliefs then with defined religions. Personally I find most religious discussions on the RD somewhat boring and rarely answer them except to point out when something is mentioned in our of our articles and I do agree just saying 'it's bullshit' or otherwise being rude isn't helpful. But I'm reluctant to say people shouldn't point out, within reason, there's no real objective support for the beliefs whether it's astrology or religion even when the question is outside the science desk, when it doesn't appear the OP is aware of that. I see APL has already mentioned this and I agree there are some similarity with the 'install software A' examples when people take it too far and start to debate religion rather then simply pointing out the lack of object support. Even in cases of the 'install software A' I think there are cases when it's probably okay, and there are cases when it's a pointless and potentially annoying answer. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The science desk exists as recognition of the legitimacy of questions that a reader may wish to pose about science. The person about to ask the question at the science desk is provided with a degree of assurance that they have "come to the right place" to ask a certain type of question that they feel should be responded to in what they feel is the "atmosphere" of science. But a person asking a question about religion has no appropriate desk to post on. The "Humanities" are largely antagonistic to religion, with exceptions, of course. Furthermore the very notion of relegating "religion" questions to the "Humanities" reference desk constitutes a potential slight to a sizable segment of those posing such questions. Many people about to pose a question on the subject of religion may prefer the atmosphere of objectivity promised by a "Science" desk to a presumption of subjectivity expected of those subjects that fall under the "Humanities". To give the religion question space to breathe on its own terms there should be one desk called the "Religion" reference desk. One argument that I have heard against a "religion" reference desk is that there are too few questions posted that would belong on that sort of desk. I think that could be simply adjusted for by setting archiving times to infrequent removal of only very old topics. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I really don't think we want to deliberately subdivide ourselves into the Objective Reference Desk and the Subjective Reference Desk. If the regulars (or, more likely, some subset thereof) at the Humanities desk are spending too much time on their own personal opinions and using the Ref Desk as a chat room or forum, that's a different problem that won't be solved by simply moving humanities questions to the wrong desk. Some editors need to be reminded (gently, but firmly) from time to time that we are a reference desk, and that throwing out the first off-the-cuff opinion that comes to mind is often counterproductive to our aims here.
That's not to say that there aren't questions related to religion which do belong on the Science desk. For example, someone might legitimately ask a question about tests that have been (or might be) performed on the Shroud of Turin to verify its age or examine its manufacturing methods. On the other hand, a question about the chain of ownership of the Shroud – its provenance – would fall in the realm of the humanities. Questions about so-called creation science also tend to belong on the Science desk; the politeness with which they're answered generally depends on the politeness with which they're asked. (If someone says, "I've heard such-and-such, is it true?" we're generally a lot more patient than with someone who says "I've heard such-and-such, why are biologists such fools?") TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that "religion" questions be moved to the "science" desk. There are all shades of questions. I'm suggesting that a purely religious question deserves its own reference desk. Many questions span more than one "desk". All that we can hope to do is keep them on their most appropriate desk. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It could be worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that we've had the discussion about creating a Religion Reference Desk before, and I can't help but note that Bus stop took the opportunity to participate in all but the first of those discussions.
Have the concerns raised in those previous discussions disappeared? Is there a reason to believe that consensus might have changed? If anything, the Ref Desks are seeing less traffic than they did the last time this topic came up; concerns about creating a low-traffic, low-interest walled garden dominated by the opinions or attitudes of a very small number of editors are therefore sharper than they were the last time around. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades—I agree with you that a "religion" reference desk would be relatively low traffic. I guess that would also correspond with "low interest" if we measure "interest" by "traffic". "Walled garden" is an interesting concept. Would you not consider the Science reference desk and the Entertainment reference desk separated by a wall? Not an impenetrable wall, but a distinction. Are we opposed to setting aside areas for questions and answers of a particular type? Obviously not. You speak of this "walled garden" being "dominated by the opinions or attitudes of a very small number of editors". Is that not precisely what we see at the Mathematics, Computing, and Science reference desks? These are consequences of real distinctions. I am not conjuring up a distinction that does not already have a life of its own. I am just acknowledging it. And I am trying to set aside an area in which it can optimally exist. It is understandable, to an extent, that at a Science reference desk a question about religion is not going to receive a sympathetic response. And even at a Humanities reference desk—ostensibly a proper forum—a less than sympathetic response can be expected to a question that is more or less purely of a religious nature. That is because the prevailing attitude in the works found in the contemporary humanities tends to give short shrift to serious religious considerations. That leaves serious religious queries nowhere to turn. You can't expect people to abandon their own prejudices 100%. A person with little tolerance for discussion of religion can still choose to post on a "Religion" reference desk. But there would be a clear understanding at such a desk that refuting religion outright is frowned upon at that desk. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
At the very least, religion questions probably should go to the Humanities desk, where it's one of the listed topics. Posting on the Science desk is almost asking for trouble. If someone posts a question about the NFL on the Science desk, they would probably be told to move it to the Entertainment desk. Maybe religion questions should be handled likewise? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we currently handle the situation pretty well. Factual questions about religion asked on the Humanities desk receive factual answers about religion. People asking theological questions on the Humanities desk are either told to talk to their priest/rabbi/etc. or are given examples of what specific religions teach on that subject. People asking religious questions on the Science desk are told the mainstream scientific position on that subject, which is usually that it's a load of nonsense (although it probably wouldn't hurt us to phrase it a little more gently than that, which is something we could improve on). I don't see a problem here. --Tango (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing rude replies?

I came here to initiate a debate and found it was already under way. Thank you, Mwalcoff.

Religious questions are not the only ones that can receive rude responses. And yes, I'm fairly sure I've been guilty myself in the past with sarcy responses to homework questions especially.

We all have an obligation to keep these desks not only responsive and helpful (which they are) but unbitey. And we sometimes fall down on that. We should remember that someone who has found their way to these pages and clicked "edit" is a candidate editor - and we are not oversupplied with them.

I wondered if we might build consensus that rude replies should be removed, rather than ignored or admonished - something which often leads to debate and further rudeness or justification of it. --Dweller (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've learned that if you correct another editor or comment critically on anything they have posted, you need a thick skin, because the inevitable reply assumes bad faith and accuses you of harassing them, however polite the note you put on their talk page. So if you remove a rude reply, or ask the offending editor to remove his own post which is somehow contrary to Ref Desk guidelines, you can expect a shitstorm. Edison (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Not that I'm advocating disruption, but perhaps the "shitstorm" should be whenever someone posts a rude reply? We should not tolerate it [any more]. And us regulars can set the lead by deciding not to do it again. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


In that spirit, I've removed two unhelpful, trolling replies to what appears to be a completely valid question about care of a male sex toy. I've reproduced them below. APL (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Real life vaginas don't have such problems... 88.9.214.197 (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That blue stuff is a toxin that slowly consumes flesh. Hope you haven't touched it with any part of your body. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The question is likely a trolling one. Edison (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That's certainly a possibility, but I see no particular reason to assume that.
In either case, There's no good reason to mock the question-asker. APL (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with Dweller's premise on "rude" responses, since 1) define rude; and 2) yeah, civility patrol has worked so well for the rest of the wiki. However I support the removals on their own, as the removed responses comment on the (moraility/maturity/intelligence of the) OP, rather than the question they are asking. Also agree it's likely a troll question, but that should not affect on-page answers. This talk page is the place to diocuss trolling. Franamax (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
You forgot to remove StuRat's answer, which is probably even cleverer than 88's. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not your quintessential religion question. Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That depends on what one worships. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely true, and I apologize for "diluting" the subject at hand. However I felt that it fit under the banner of "removing rude replies". Especially since those replies were functionally identical to the "IT'S JUST A FAIRY TALE!" answers to bible questions. Instead of answering or leaving it alone, they serve to slap down the question and imply that it's invalid or that there's something wrong with the poster. Just as the Just-A-Fairy-Tale knee-jerk answers try to imply that religious questions are invalid and that the poster is a dupe for believing in all that stuff.
If anything, it demonstrates that there's more than one category of question that causes a worthless knee-jerk reaction. APL (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Your inability to recognize trolling questions when you see them, is your own problem, not ours. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
And your inability to act like a grown up when somebody asks about sex or masturbation is your own.
It's an entirely reasonable question, only unanswerable because he failed to give a brand-name of the consumer product he needed help cleaning. Roughly a gazillion of such things are sold (Believe it or not, they're now also marketed towards married men as performance-enhancing practice devices.), is it really so unimaginable that someone would spill something on one of them and want to know how to repair it? Perhaps you'd be ashamed to ask, many people would not. APL (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't know a trolling question if it smacked you in the face. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but better that than outright mocking of anyone who dares ask a question that offends Victorian sensibilities.
Better to be polite to a dozen trolls than make crude, sexual jokes at the expense of a single honest questioner. APL (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You wouldn't know an insincere question if it smacked you in the face. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he wouldn't know a smack in the face if it smacked him in the face... --Jayron32 03:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe depends on who's doing the smacking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to explain why you're so very confident that this question is insincere, instead of simply repeating it over and over.
A quick perusal of FleshLight.com tells me that cleaning these devices without damaging their texture is a bit iffy, and it's a frequently asked question. So, given that, in general, this is a real question that real people ask, how does this specific question differ than from one that was asked seriously?
I also notice they've got one intended to simulate the aliens from Avatar. Weren't those aliens twice the size of a human? That seems ... intimidating. APL (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
As usual, you defend the trolls and attack the regulars. Good for you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, 99% of questions about anal sex, sex toys and so on are trolling. I'm amazed they are answered seriously. 86.179.112.189 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a meager chance that some bodily function questions are sincere, but most of them are on the same sincerity level as asking what color the White House is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
From memory of the page, most of those aren't supposed to be reused anyway, at least not when a condom was used, and even then it sounds like it breaks fairly quick so I'm not sure if that's what the OP is claiming to have. I don't think the OP ever clarified what sort of 'artificial vagina' they were referring to, I only linked to that page because it was one example of an artificial vagina which did recommend usage of a condom that I found. Personally I suspect/ed the OP is trolling, the question was suspicious enough but the mention of 'blue' stains pushed it over the edge for me, but I still replied seriously anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that when a person posing a question does not continue to remain engaged in the ensuing discussion, that is an indication that the pursuit of the question may be ill-advised. An exception might be if the posed question sparks a conversation that is deemed interesting or constructive or of some merit with or without clarification or ongoing input from the person who posed the initial question on the Reference desk. This discussion wouldn't meet that sort of requirement because to the best of my knowledge this IP address only has that one posting, unless additional postings were under other addresses. A good part of this discussion concerns whether that is a "trolling" question. The absence of further input or clarification is an indication that it may be a question that doesn't really expect an answer. I certainly don't think that we should avoid all questions that are poorly worded. But failure to provide clarification, feedback, or any other sort of additional help to those ostensibly trying to helpfully respond to a question posed, I think should make editors doubt the wisdom of pursuing the discussion. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I fed the troll

Can we ban him again, or is being annoying not enough (in which case I'll try to restrain myself next time he appears)? The tone is certainly rude enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment&diff=prev&oldid=471968902 Mingmingla (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC) FWW, I don't think it's a troll so much as a singularly obsessed poor soul. The effect is the same even if the intent isn't. Mingmingla (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

He's a troll because he's been told before how to find out the answers he wants. That he ignores this advice, and continues to post the exact same questions over and over again shows that he is a troll. It is best to delete on sight and ignore him. Eventually he'll get bored and actually get the answers to his questions, which are easy to find and which he's been told about before. --Jayron32 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That could rune his whole day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Reminds me of the well-known song: "I fed the troll, and the troll won"... 86.146.109.199 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Chess on the ref desk

Hi all, Welcome back after the "blackout", aka a chance to turn off javascript and read Wikipedia anyway :) I've noticed there's no precise place for asking chess/ board game q's on the ref desk. Can we decide on a place, either entertainment or misc, and add it to the ref desk main page? I just realised I was checking two ref desks just to see if there were any chess qs, since we've had a couple of late, and it seems silly to get stuck doing this if there's a better way. The main page lists under entertainment that video games are part of its domain, so that would be the most logical place for all games. Do we have agreement? How should it be worded? Should we change "video games" to "games"? IBE (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If the question is about chess as a form of entertainment, it belongs on the entertainment desk. If it's about the cultural and historical implications of chess, it belongs on humanities. If it's about the computational implementation of chess, it probably belongs on the computer desk; if it's about the mathematics of chess, it probably belongs on the math desk.
The reference desk subject-areas by their very nature are somewhat vague, and there are no clear-cut demarcations for many borderline topics. If you post a particular question on some desk, and it's unlikely to get good answers there, you will often be directed to another.
If you want to find questions about chess, you can search for chess on the current and archived desks. Nimur (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of chess articles. Outline of chess is a good place to get started. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Stale pages

Today I go to wp:rd/l and I see a page whose last entry is on December 26. I know Wikipedia is free, and funded by donations, and yadda yadda, but this stale page bug (which affects all pages; it's just more noticeable here) has been in place for about ten years, and I really do think it is time it was fixed. I've ranted on about it every place I can think of on Wikipedia, but to absolutely no avail. Am I the only person who cares about it? What can be done? 86.179.112.189 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It works better if you create a user account and log in. This is probably why long-time users don't care. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything on that page that's labeled December 26th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, if I click on the OP's link above, I too get to a version of the Language RefDesk whose last comment on the last topic is dated 26 Decenber 2011. If however I use the usual link on the RefDesk contents page, I get the up-to-date version. Why, I haven't the foggiest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.252 (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I too have noticed this problem recently. I've only noticed it with Internet explorer (version 8 and 9), but haven't tested it with firefox (not yet installed on my new PC or my work PC). The shortcut links such as WP:RD/L return old versions of the reference desk pages. However, if you from the old page that appears when typing WP:RD/L in the search box, use the list of links to the different desks (top right of page), and go to, say the science desk, and then back to the language desk, you get the most recent version of the page. A similar thing happens with this talk page. Typing WT:RD results in an old version. Also, selecting the "Talk" tab from one of the desks returns an old version. However, if I go to the page that links to the different desks WP:RD, and select the "Talk" tab there, I get the most recent version. Conclusion: The shortcut links are redirects. So are the "Talk" tabs on the individual desks. The list of links on the individuals desks are direct links. So is the "Talk" tab on the "Parent" refdesk page. The problem only appears with the links that are redirects. --91.186.78.4 (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (NorwegianBlue, not logged in)
When I go to wp:rd/l I get the current page. What are you seeing in the table of contents? Can you jump to the earliest entry and post its URL here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I also see the current page when logged out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, I too get the current page. However, last night, the behaviour was as described above. I've seen the symptoms previously from my work PC, not my from my home PC, and I'm not sure whether it has to do with using IE vs Firefox or being logged in or not (haven't tested this, my browsing habits imply that I'm usually not logged in when using IE). I only recently figured out that the problem only occurred with redirects. Clearing the cache had no effect. When this happens, the TOC is out of date too. If I then click a link to a section which since has been archived, I get an error message that the link is invalid (or something to that effect). --91.186.78.4 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (NorwegianBlue)
It does sound like a cache issue, though. I've seen discrepancies somewhat like this, but it only lasts for at most a few minutes until the servers get back in sync. If it's your work PC, maybe there's something going on (or not) at your server level. As suggested below, this sounds like a good question to run past the techies. Another possibility is the Computer ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I doubt that it's a cache issue, because if I access a page (1) via a redirect (WP:RD/L), (2) then access the same page via a direct link, and (3) then via a shortcut again, I get (1) old version, (2) current version, (3) old version. If a cache issue was the problem, I would expect (1) old version, (2) new version, (3) new version. --NorwegianBlue talk 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this an issue for WP:VP/T? --Dweller (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can try, although considering it's been discussed for over a year here and I'm pretty sure has been mentioned at VP/T before and there is an open bugzilla [3], I don't know if you'll get much help. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 75#Discussion page (this) - technical question Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 70#Redirect problem. 82.4x may know more, it may only happen with redirects. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
For me, it is more prevalent with redirects like wp:rd/l. It seems to happen more often, and be more prone to reverting to pages that are very old (like weeks old sometimes). However, the problem to some extent pervades the whole of Wikipedia -- all articles, all talk pages, sometimes even edit history pages. Most of the time people probably do not notice that it's happening. If you go to a random article, would you notice that you were seeing last week's version? Probably not. I see it reasonably regularly on articles that I know I have edited. I go back, and I see that my changes have vanished. I think they have been reverted, but then I discover I'm seeing an old version of the article. I have never knowingly seen any similar problem on any other website, including news sites, forums, etc., where updates are regular. In my estimation, though it is hard to be absolutely certain, what I see is purely a Wikipedia bug. 86.181.206.2 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this problem started up again yesterday. I too am getting stuff from December on the language desk when going via that redirect. Visiting the desks directly is giving me pages which are several hours out of date. This is from the computing desk: 

<!-- Saved in parser cache with key enwiki:pcache:idhash:6041086-0!*!0!!en!*!* and timestamp 20120117053320 generated by mw3 -->

which shows I am being served a page which was generated at 05:33, when the current version should be at 17:14. The only solutions which seem to work are continually purging the server cache or using an account to view pages 82.45.62.107 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the sort of info which could get some traction in solving the problem, as you are demonstrating an out-of-date cached page. Right off the bat, it's generated by mw3, which is not listed as having a server role[4] (my pages come from one of the srv's). Next time it happens, empty your browser cache and retry, then note that line and the "cache key" line farther down the page. Then purge the redirect page and record the up-to-date info. Note also the redirect you're hitting and the exact time. That is hard data that the devs can work with. It's possible that your ISP is caching wrong too (all 3 IPs reporting here are UK-based, though 3 different ISPs - who could all be using the same edge-caching service), but it's enough data to investigate at WM ops. I could possibly even bring it up at #wikimedia-tech. If you want to discuss it yourself on IRC, be very polite and clear as that's the operations channel. Franamax (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Using Firefox 9.0.1 with browser cache cleared;
Wikipedia:Rd/l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rd/l) at 19:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
cache key: enwiki:resourceloader:filter:minify-css:4:c88e2bcd56513749bec09a7e29cb3ffa
<!-- Saved in parser cache with key enwiki:pcache:idhash:2515121-0!*!0!!en!4!* and timestamp 20111226125457 generated by srv197 -->
Wikipedia:Rd/l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rd/l) after purge (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Rd/l&action=purge) at 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
cache key: enwiki:resourceloader:filter:minify-css:4:c88e2bcd56513749bec09a7e29cb3ffa
<!-- Saved in parser cache with key enwiki:pcache:idhash:2515121-0!*!0!!en!4!* and timestamp 20120117192449 generated by mw36 -->
82.45.62.107 (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. We'll see how far this VP/T thread goes... Franamax (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I encounter the same problem when not logged in, here in NZ but my ISP as with a number of NZ ones, has a transparent caching proxy. I believe I encountered the problem in Malaysia earlier this year but can't remember for sure. I have no idea if they used transparent caching proxy there, I think they used to, but they're also fairly incompetent so I think had problems with it. Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Or at least I used to, I was unable to reproduce from a few quick tests, including wp:rd/l. Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) Ideally, several different IP editors would gather the same data as above, at the same time, for the same page, with a clean browser cache, without purging the wiki-redirect. Geographically separated IPs showing the same timestamp would be definitive proof that the problem is on the WM side, and the server names and keys could help people smarter than I to nail down the problem.
(after e/c, to Nil Einne) There is no point in trying to test when everyone on the internet has already tried it for themselves. :) Once the parser cache page gets invalidated, it will regenerate for the first person who requests it. To catch a stale (non-invalidated cached) page, some time needs to pass, then several people have to test it without purging the wiki page.Franamax (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's it though. I tried redirects to this page from places like one of the Computer archives pages. For good measure I just tested Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 January 11, Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 January 11 and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 December 12 all of which found Franamax's comment while logged out. (And I'm sure I didn't set up any autopurging or anything like that.) P.S. With the blackout due soon and WMF tech people probably busy, I'm guessing this isn't a great time to investigate it with them anyway, so I'll leave it be for now. Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


I found another stale redirect, Wikipedia talk:RD, "last modified on 13 January 2012 at 06:13";

Extended content

Wikipedia talk:RD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RD) at 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 

cache key: enwiki:resourceloader:filter:minify-css:4:c88e2bcd56513749bec09a7e29cb3ffa
<!-- Saved in parser cache with key enwiki:pcache:idhash:4599013-0!*!0!!en!4!* and timestamp 20120113061327 generated by srv242 -->
cache key: enwiki:resourceloader:filter:minify-js:4:b41a86ec4e0fe8329bc3ce917e792339

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk) at 00:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC) 

cache key: enwiki:resourceloader:filter:minify-css:4:c88e2bcd56513749bec09a7e29cb3ffa
<!-- Saved in parser cache with key enwiki:pcache:idhash:4599013-0!*!0!!en!4!* and timestamp 20120117234414 generated by mw10 -->
cache key: enwiki:resourceloader:filter:minify-js:4:b41a86ec4e0fe8329bc3ce917e792339

I also tested the HTTP headers with http://web-sniffer.net/ and it reported the last-modified header as "Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:13:27 GMT" 82.45.62.107 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, after posting that it seems to have updated itself to the most recent version. I didn't purge the cache 82.45.62.107 (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
You yourself probably didn't mean it that way, but when discussing this problem we all need to get away from the idea that "purging the cache" is some kind of acceptable solution. It's not. It's a horrible kludge -- and one that you often don't even know you need to apply, since you don't even know that the page is out of date. The underlying bug should be fixed, but in ten years no one has seemed interested in doing so. 86.146.104.233 (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The only way to do it (that I can see) is with controlled testing. That means waiting a while ('til the redirects go stale again) then gathering the session cache data from a few widely separated IP addresses for the same stale redirect before someone purges it. It does no good to have everyone looking at the problem, because someone somwwhere is going to purge the redirect and destroy the problem state. If (let's say) Canada, UK and AU/NZ can all retrieve a stale session state within a few minutes of each other, then there's a chance of assembling coherent data. Otherwise (and unfortunately) it's just random editors complaining randomly. Franamax (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If there was a project-wide instruction for all interested users, "When you find a stale page, do this", I would be more than happy to contribute. Where could that be organised and documented? 86.146.109.199 (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know of such a project-wide instruction. The basics (as I understand) are that when a page gets changed, the parser processes the wiki-markup in the page and the user preferences (all defaults for anons) to produce a parsed version for the user who changed the page. Then, the redirect table is processed and any incoming redirects are supposed to be placed on the job queue, so that all other cached parser pages for the redirect get invalidated. Then, when someone calls up the redirect page, the system sees the invalidated page in the parser cache and the underlying page is reprocessed. When the job queue is super-busy, the redirect-invalidation step could take up to a few hours (or sometimes a day or two in exceptional cases) and a stale page could result. Your example above is weeks-stale, so not just an overloaded queue. I spent 30 minutes today on #wikimedia-tech trying to get some traction, without much luck. I can't reproduce the discussion as it's not publicly logged, but one comment was "before job runners were fixed last time, Roan found a WP:ANI redirect which was cached and several weeks old" (Roan is Roan Kattouw, one of the tech-gods) - so this is not a new problem. However the nature of this problem is that it's transient and depends on varying load factors - so it's not simple to trace - so it's not that likely someone will volunteer to tackle it, since by the time they look at it, the problem is gone.
All I can say as a way forward is for 3 or 4 of us to collect data on a single instance as I've described above. Contact me and perhaps Nil Einne (if they're willing) on our talk pages next time, asking any other readers to NOT purge the redirect, or register an account just to send me/us email. This may turn out to be too elusive of a problem to fix, but getting better data might help. I can't think of any better way to go, sorry... Franamax (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest. One thing I'm uncertain about -- do you think that the specific problem with ref desk redirects (or redirects in general) is technically of a different nature from the general problem that Wikipedia sometimes serves stale article or talk pages even when no redirect was used? 86.146.104.200 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

crazy

What do people think as far as whether this thread has gotten to the point of crossing the line into giving medical advice, by attempting to help diagnose whether the OP has a mental illness or not, by using "ability to function well in society" and "willingness to question one's sanity" as diagnostic criteria? Red Act (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's technically no medical condition called "crazy". However, you've got a point, and I've boxed it up with advice to come here and discuss it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
My two cents is that the OP's question, although colloquially couched in personal terms, was entirely philosophical – he/she did not, for example, claim any particular signs or symptoms. Whether or not some of the responders mistakenly veered towards answering in a diagnostic manner is debatable, but I myself don't think the query or the thread's general thrust was diagnostic, and disagree with its termination on "medical advice" grounds. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.242 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I interpreted the question in the same way. I don't think it was really a request for medical advice, but akin to famous philosophical questions like the dream argument and the brain in a vat. Had there been any elements in it which suggested actual questions about actual mental illness (e.g. "classical" symptoms of schizophrenia or OCD or depression or whatever) I would be inclined to categorize it as medical advice, but it seemed rather distinctly philosophical to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The OP asked "how do i know that im not crazy?" Now lets see, I myself may believe I might be saving this planet from chaos, so how do I know that I'm not crazy? Maybe I'm actually deluded and my perceptions are a figment of my warped imagination? No? Maybe I should be the one asking this very question here about myself? Since both the question and the answers were not impersonal and even though the topic of craziness can be discussed in less personal terms, the thread ultimately revolved around the OP's perceptions, medical or not, and not simply on our possibly incorrect interpretation of it, thus I applaud the closure. Thanks. --Modocc (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Question is back. If someone believes there's medical advise within the asnwers, he could collapse the specific answer, but I see no need to collapse such an interesting thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk)
I have recollapsed the thread, which I think is appropriate while it's being discussed, since there isn't a consensus to keep it uncollapsed at this time. So far, it looks like it's about 50/50 between people who think it's at least potentially a medical advice issue, and people who see it as purely philosophical. To me, it looks like there are two paragraphs (Looie496's paragraph, and Mr98's second paragraph) among the answers that are purely philosophical in nature; the remaining paragraphs are at least partially considering the matter as a mental health question. I think it'd be tricky and contentious to try to edit out or collapse the mental health aspects of the thread, while keeping the philosophical paragraphs. Red Act (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
My first paragraph is also philosophical, but of a different bent. It is related to deeper questions about the reality of mental illnesses, which is something which has been pursued at some length by historians and philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Madness and Civilization). I happen to think that such forms of analyses go a little bit too far in their trivialization of mental illness-as-social-phenomenom, but that's the vein in which I was discussing it. It was not meant to be addressing mental illness on a clinical or medical level. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mr.98 and 90.197.66.242 that this does not seem to be a request for medical advice or treatment but rather asking for a general discussion of how we perceive reality and rationality. It was phrased in the first person, which is unfortunate, by someone who seems to be a non-native speaker of English, but no symptoms are diagnoses were presented by the OP. Personally, I agree with Mr.98 that he seems to be asking the equivalent of "how do I know I'm not a brain in a vat". To the degree that some of the responses have hedged their bets, and recommended that if he is in fact looking for a personal diagnosis then he should seek out a psychiatrist, that seems fine; however, I don't really think that this OP is looking for medical advice. Dragons flight (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This question should not have been posted on the Science Desk. Current scientific consensus in 2012 is that mental health issues are a matter of psychiatry. As has been discussed before, our psychiatry article explains clearly, "Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study and treatment of mental disorders." If the question seeks a scientific answer, then it's seeking medical advice. Question should be closed.
If the question is seeking references about the philosophy of consciousness, it belongs on the Humanities desk.
If the question simply wants to discuss or debate the issue, it does not belong on the reference desk. The reference desk is not a discussion forum. Nimur (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
If it were phrased in the third person, i.e. "Are crazy people able to recognize when they are crazy?", then personally, I would say there is no problem at all (and do think it is a Science question). Personally, I believe that this is what the poster meant, even though they phrased it in a way that is somewhat ambiguous. Nimur, do you see any problem answering the question as I believe it was intended? Dragons flight (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a small note on the question for the OP which more or less says the above. If they want to pursue this, they can post it at Humanities in a less ambiguous way, and it can be a discussion about philosophy exclusively. I will just note that this isn't a "reword it in the 3rd person so it isn't medical advice" sort of issue — the question is what kind of discussion it is at all. If it is truly about philosophy of consciousness then there isn't any chance at all that medical advice will be given or used. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The "fear of being crazy", so to speak, is likely a product of cultural norms and sentiments. Yet I don't think we are allowed to diagnose culture-bound syndromes, either, including fan death and penis panic. ~AH1 (discuss!) 03:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the OP is really in fear, but anyway, it's not our place to diagnose them in any capacity, really. No diagnoses is needed to have a conversation about this. (One might as well diagnose why certain posters are endlessly fascinated by nuclear weapons.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see this topic at Talk:Help desk

WT:Help desk#Referring questions to refdesks but they never get there - It's about moving relevant topics from Help desk to Refdesk. Roger (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A clockwork field to complete the film title; Italian?

A lady called Dona has asked a question on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment about problems she has registering with the Britmovie forum. Having done a little research, I believe her native language is Italian. Whilst I don't wish to post this info on the main page, in case I fall foul of WP:OUTING, might it be possible for someone better than me in Italian to see if they can explain the procedure? (Which, for the sake of completeness, is to answer the question 'Complete this film title: Clockwork...' with the word 'Orange'). Thanks. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been answered now. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If Dona had quoted the question verbatim, there would have been no issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Unfortunately, though, it seems like she hadn't understood the question well enough to articulate it, both in terms of her level of English, and of her film knowledge - not realising that Clockwork Orange was a film. When I went to t

he Britmovie site I could see immediately what the problem was, as I reckon had most others. It's just that we and Dona seemed to be communicating somehow on different planes. Hey ho. Cultural differences, eh? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What was the question, verbatim, from that site? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Complete this film title: A Clockwork...: Then there's a text-box, pre-filled with Apple, below which it says Add the missing word of this film title: A Clockwork... I thought it was pretty clear what's required, but if you're struggling to understand and have never heard of Clockwork Orange, well, I guess... - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, the point being that if Dona had simply quoted the actual question, instead of trying to rephrase it, the answer would have come immediately. When I saw Dona's question, I had to ask what she(?) was getting at, because "A Clockwork Orange" came to mind immediately, but the question didn't make sense as it was worded. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Share this page"

Should this question be deleted Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Silambarasan_Tesingu_Rajendar? It's not a question and Wikipedia isn't a photo-sharing site. I can't actually see the photos at the moment as Facebook is blocked here, but I'm worried it's being posted to embarrass or victimize somebody. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed as spam. Fram (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible new Troll

I've just answered a query on the Miscellaneous RefDesk about the potential of a claimed original story (it's not) for public performance, while straining to assume good faith. It may be that the OP genuinely has a very poor grasp of English as well as other matters, but deliberate spoofing seems to me to be a strong possibility, so I apologise if I've been dispensing troll nutrient, and won't quarrel if anyone wants to handle the post differently. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}. 90.197.66.103 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a "repeat customer"? We tend to not bother removing posts from "hit and run" one-off trolls (unless its really eggregious stuff). I don't recognize this as a pattern of any sorts, and I don't know that we need to "do" anything if this person doesn't become disruptive. --Jayron32 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on contribution history, I'm confident enough to classify this as intentionally running the source material back and forth through machine translation for kicks, and so I'm off to remove it. Reversions are welcome if people disagree. — Lomn 19:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The user's second contribution[5] also requires effort to assume good faith, since it could be interpreted as someone intentionally making the inflammatory statement "people who like baseball are stupid" by posing it as a question. Red Act (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
He asked it as a "loaded" question, i.e. Why does watching baseball...? I pointed out to him that he probably meant to say soccer, and then I think someone wisely zapped the whole thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Based on that second contribution especially, I'm thinking this editor might already have some frequent-flyer points added up, yes. The horrific boredom of baseball is known to be a sore point around here. :) Too bad if true, I had imagined for a while that the editor I'm thinking of might actually be trying to reform. Franamax (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine much of anything more boring than soccer. Chess is more exciting than soccer. Soccer crowds are interesting, though, as you never know when a riot will break out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone has a webcam supposedly aimed at a painted wall, so you could watch in real time as the paint peels. Baseball games, in person at least, are more exciting than that, since vendors come through the stands. Edison (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If you like lots of scoring in your bat-and-ball games, cricket is a good alternative. The inherent problem with soccer is that most of the game time is spent trying to get the ball from one end of the field to the other. If a soccer ball could move at the speed of a hockey puck or a thrown ball of any kind, it would make things more interesting. It's the slow speed of the ball that leads to the dilemma where overtime is concerned. Unlike other sports that have overtime, the longer you play a soccer game, the less likely you are to get a score. That leads to the unfortunate situation of two tired / tied teams waiting for the clock to run out so they can have their "shootout" - which, ironically, is a lot more interesting than the preceding hours. Another inherent problem with soccer is the secrecy in which the refs keep the actual game time. That situation is ripe for corruption as well as being contemptuous of the fans and players. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean stoppage time/injury time? If so, while it's true the length is only revealed at the end of normal time (although in high level professional games it's not a secret when it is revealed, a big sign is usen to show it), and is at the sole discretion of the referee (who doesn't have to stop the game at the precise end of stoppage time either), I think you overestimate how controversial this is. Yes the may be occasionally controversy [6] [7] but compared to controversial red cards, penalties, missed offsides which result in a goal, handballs, players in the goal during a scoring or possible scoring activity, actions taken from players allegedly 'simulating' etc it's generally a minor point. Results can be changed in stoppage time, but this is far less likely then most of the aforementioned which are also clearly at risk of corruption and tends to annoy fans and player far more. And if you don't mean stoppage time, I don't get what you're talking about since there is no secrecy. The referee blows the whistle and you play for 45 minutes (per half). It's extremely rare for the clock to be stopped, even if there's a streaker or someone has a major accident and needs to be taken out on a stretcher or the players on one side walk off because of laser usage by the fans on the other side the clock usually continues. In other words, you can look at a wall clock when the referee blows the whistle to start, add 45 minutes to the time and know when the 45 minutes ends in nearly every case. In that regard, it's far simpler then in other games like rugby or I think most sports common in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
And the prize goes to...(drum roll)...The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195!! [8] Franamax (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Section about racism removed

I've removed this section. I don't think there should be anything controversial about it (see my edit summary for the reasons), but last time I removed a section I was asked to post about such things here in future, so here I am. --Tango (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I was at the very least about to hat/hab everything that seemed soapboxing, which is just about all of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Good removal. Garbage posted by an SPA who started here a couple of weeks ago and will be lucky to still be allowed to edit by the time the Super Bowl rolls around. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I closed this, as it clearly is asks for legal advice. If anybody disagrees, feel free to reopen it. Falconusp t c 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good closure. The laws regarding being declared legally dead, and wills, and estates, and such stuff as that, will vary depending on the state and/or nation. Only a local lawyer can give proper advice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Polling / canvassing / recruiting

I have collapsed this, as it claims that we have been randomly selected for a poll, and eligible for president of an organization. I am having a difficult time knowing for sure what this individual is looking for, but I see no sign of a question anywhere. Falconusp t c 17:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that the OP was maybe not referring to us being randomly polled, but a generic "you" in relation to being pulled for duty. My instinct is to leave it collapsed, as there is no question, but feel free to uncollapse it if you think I am being unfair. Falconusp t c 17:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
If we can find out the OP's native language there may be a Refdesk at that language WP that could do a better job. Roger (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the OP's native language isn't English. The vocabulary that he or she is using is quite advanced - in my experience I would expect somebody learning English to know how to spell "being" and "were" long before knowing vocabulary such as "allegation" and "contractor", which they obviously didn't look up, given the spelling mistakes. To me it looks like somebody who speaks English trying to write by sounding out each word. I think that he or she also mentions applying to FEMA after Katrina, which would put him or her in a potentially English-speaking setting. I don't know what to do with it, it's tough. I think that I will undo the collapse if nobody objects, and ask one more time to reiterate the question. Falconusp t c 19:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:SPAM and WP:Patent nonsense - such content should be deleted, not collapsed. I have deleted the section. Nimur (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I guess that solves the problem then. Falconusp t c 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Spam at WP:RD/M

User:84.61.139.62 has been posting a lot of nonsense about elevators on the Miscellaneous desk. I have tried to remove it as User:Falconus did with the question below, but I'm afraid I just can't work out the code needed for that. And I found a RefDesk delete template but that seems only suitable for medical/legal questions. Hope someone can help out! Thanks. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, just use the hat and hab templates. Those stand for "hidden archive" top and bottom respectively. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Or just delete it. Only hide sections if you think it would be useful to keep it there for people to read. If it's just nonsense, delete it. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I could do that, except that TOAT actually tried to respond, so I think he should do the deletion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and delete all the recently-added nonsense questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. Now I've had some sleep I'll go take a look at how that thing works. Thanks! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that this user is defacto banned from wikipedia for this and other nonsense (including in the encylopaedia proper) so particularly if no one has responded, feel free to delete on sight. Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to delete. I won't do it, thanks to fallout from the LC brouhaha a few months back, but somone else can. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help above. There's been a further outbreak at WP:RD/L#Hebrew, which I have used my new-found knowledge to deal with. This time it seems that 84.61.139.62 has found a tag-team buddy in 77.126.39.58. I presume someone should be notified about this re Nil Einne's comment above, but I'm not sure who or where. Any assistance gratefully received as always. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Religion on the Science Refdesk again!

Closed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is there nothing that can be done about people posting deliberately provocative questions and answers involving religion on the Science desk such as this one: WP:Reference desk/Science#Mustard seed. Roger (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume that in this case you are not suggesting that the question was provocative, but that an answer went too far given that the question, whatever its motivation, was purely secular. -- ToE 11:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Indeed, the question can be completely answered by referring to purely scientific sources. I'm really sick of people abusing the science desk with religious bullshit (both pro and anti). Roger (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I am kind of sick of people wasting my time, people who are deliberately trying to create controversy and trolls in general. And the common cold. Von Restorff (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
For those not in the know, relevant links are Mustard seed, Parable of the mustard seed, and Biblical inerrency -- ToE 12:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
For those people who are unaware of the fact -or unwilling to accept the fact- that this is a religious question, please read the articles linked to above by Thinking of England. Von Restorff (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I just collapsed the brewing argument on WP:RD/S with a to link here. I included Von Restorff's more off topic reply in the collapse, and welcome criticism of that action. -- ToE 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, like I said on my talkpage the summary is incorrect, other than that idgaf, but I wish people would stop wasting my time. Von Restorff (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The original questioner's contribution history shows them to be an occassional and responsible ref desk user. I think we should assume good faith and treat this as a factual botanical question. Unless the questioner themselves brings their religious views onto the ref desks, I think they are irrelevant. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you see his userpage? I did not assume bad faith, I was just aware of the fact this is a religious question. I actually read the bible, that is why I know I do not believe it. The questioner himself brought his religious question on the science refdesk... Von Restorff (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I read User:Roscoe x. But "Is Mustard seed the smallest seed in the world?" is not a religious question, and whatever the questioner has on their user page (as long as it stays within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies) should not affect how we treat them on the ref desks. You are massively overreacting here. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, that actually made me laugh out loud. Are you sure I am the one overreacting? I was under the impression the guys who made this tempest in a teapot were the ones who were overreacting. Deny it all you want, but "Is Mustard seed the smallest seed in the world?" is a religious question, because the claim that it is is made in a religious work. Unfortunately for those who believe in that book the claim is totally incorrect, and some people find it hard to accept that fact. They think: "If the bible is the world of god, and god is allknowing, how can he make such a mistake?" Slippery slope, et cetera. Von Restorff (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
A person with a religious orientation is allowed to avail themselves of the science reference desk to check the veracity of a religious assertion or presumption. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Von Restorff (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
A person with a religious orientation is allowed to avail themselves of the science reference desk to check the veracity of a religious assertion or presumption without being insulted. Still agree? Staecker (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think it may be useful to point out the fact that there is a difference between being insulted and feeling insulted or feeling offended. As an example: if you say "After reading this I concluded you must be a big fan of Nelly" I can feel insulted, even if you never insulted me and never intended to insult me. If I watch television I frequently feel offended by stupidity and uglyness, but it is probably not the intention of the people who made the TV program, and I do not have the right to not be offended. So I just turn the TV off. Von Restorff (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
But I think the question we are grappling with is whether or not it is advisable to make reference to the presumed although not stated religious context. Bus stop (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Well, in some cases it is certainly not advisable, because some people take every chance they get to stir up a tempest in a teapot by nagging and whining, which is a huge waste of time and very unproductive. Von Restorff (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Particularly when that "make reference to" is done with the deliberate intention of ridiculing and/or insulting the aforementioned presumed belief (or lack thereof, in the case of atheists). IMNSHO it is a plain and simple violation of WP:CIVIL. Roger (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Now that you mention WP:Civil, would you be so kind to stop wasting my time by trying to stir up a tempest in a teapot? I think it is rather uncivil that you are ABFing and deliberately trying to create a controversy and wasting my time, it is valuable. Many thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. If you want to talk to me about improving the encyclopaedia you are welcome of course!
I don't think there is anything wrong with referencing the parable of the mustard seed, and similar elements, surrounding the likely context. However, I am bothered by the fact that many of Von Restorff's replies and links have a tone that appears hostile to some common religious beliefs. That seems unnecessary and going too far for a question that didn't even require a religious response. It creates an unfriendly environment. Personally, I think it is valuable for everyone - believers and non-believers - to question the factual accuracy of various religious traditions. However, if someone wants to investigate such facts I wouldn't reply in a way that implies all their beliefs are stupid. It only serves to discourage such questioning in the future. Dragons flight (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I've been really nice, but some people need to back away from the horse carcass. If you have any proof whatsoever that I actually replied to the original question in a way that implies that all his beliefs are stupid I would be like to see a difflink. If you can provide me with that difflink I will apologize to the person who asked the original question for implying all his beliefs are stupid. Many thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Of course I did double check that this is not the case... Von Restorff (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"The bible is full of claims that are not true", "God prefers atheists", and "Ignosticism" are all oppositional to many mainstream Christian beliefs. I read these comments as implying that traditional Christian beliefs are stupid. While the first is on topic, albeit unnecessarily harsh given the question actually posed, the latter two seem to be offered simply to challenge the poster's perceived worldview and as such I would regard them as unnecessary and hostile. Dragons flight (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading the fact that the bible is full of claims that are not true may offend certain religious extremists, but Wikipedia is not censored and it is extremely ontopic to say that the source that the asker of a question used is full of errors and very unreliable. For most christians the cartoon is not offensive, and I would dare to argue that at least some of the lessons learned from the cartoon are not necessarily oppositional to the belief itself. Are you claiming that being moral without the fear of spiritual retribution is oppositional to christianity? I think it perfectly possible to be a christian without ever waging war in gods name. And I am pretty sure lots of christians use exercise and diets instead of prayer to solve weight problems. Ignosticism is of course a bit more humble than claiming to know the answers to big questions, but I am not sure why it would be considered offensive to recommend reading that article to someone. If the article is offensive to you please do propose improvements on the talkpage or be bold and make them. If your conclusion after reading my comments is that christianity is stupid that is rather extreme. Do you honestly think that reading about alternative religious or philosophical viewpoints is insulting, offensive or hostile? I read the torah and the quran and the bible. I think it is rather interesting to see what other people have come up with, and I am not that easily offended. If you are that easily offended I imagine you must have a horrible life, because there are plenty of people with different religious ideas than you (or me), and I would recommend trying to avoid Wikipedia because it contains detailed information about religions you may disagree with. Von Restorff (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
At the end of your comment, you are making assumptions about my own beliefs and then criticizing them. This is essentially the same thing you did to the original poster. Do you understand why this can seem uncivil? Personally, I'm not very bothered by these comments (not least of which because your assumptions are very wrong), but I could certainly see how other people might be. That's the point we are ultimately trying to get across here. You responded to the original poster in a way that has considerable potential to cause offense, as least for a certain class of people, and there was no need to do that. One could very easily have given a complete response to the factual question and provided links to associated materials on the parable of the mustard seed without having to come across as negative and judgmental about religion. Dragons flight (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense, I made an IF...THEN statement. Are you familiar with BASIC? You are making stuff up. Von Restorff (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Here you go: diff. Staecker (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Was that a reply to the original question? Did I imply all the beliefs held by the poster of the original question are stupid? Von Restorff (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess not. Do you really think this discussion is about threading? Do you want to split hairs on "stupid" vs. "nonsense"? It is hostile to the OP regardless. Staecker (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I think this discussion is about how unproductive beating a dead horse is. How is it hostile to the OP that he has the ability to read that I wrote to someone else that I think that people should stop believing nonsense like the idea that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world because it is 2012? Do you think he will think it is better that people keep believing that even though he knows it is not true? That is kind of insulting. Von Restorff (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Von Restorff - I agree with Dragons flight and Staecker. In particular, the "God prefers atheists" link was gratuitously offensive in the context in which you used it. Don't try to hide behind "Wikipedia is not censored" - it is not the contents of Wikipedia articles that is at issue here, it is you own lack of civility. You owe the questioner an apology. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
That is your opinion. In reality you guys owe me an apology for wasting my valuable time. But I've been nice and I've spent some time explaining you guys stuff that you could've and should've figured out on your own. Von Restorff (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Note that the questioner did not even respond. Other people like to whine and nag and to make tempest in a teapot, people who follow the bible turn the other cheek.
I also think that you owe an apology. If I were a newcomer to this desk, I'd probably not respond either after that. If you insist on proselytizing, fine - while highly annoying, it is not a crime. However, Wikipedia is not a place for that. Even if bringing the Bible into this discussion was relevant, which I find doubtful, there is a huge difference between providing theological and scientific positions concerning the size of a mustard seed, and just saying "you are wrong". While you didn't say those words exactly, it was pretty strongly implied. Falconusp t c 17:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
That is your opinion. I informed an editor who believed he used a reliable source his source was not reliable at all, and I proved a source that is more reliable. Von Restorff (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I really have trouble seeing the question itself as provocative. To recap:
  • What was asked: Is Mustard seed the smallest seed in the world?
  • What wasn't asked:: The Bible tells us that the mustard seed is the smallest seed; why is it that so-called "science" gets this important fact wrong?
For some reason that I am at a complete loss to explain, Von Restorff appears to be misreading the former question as the latter. Yes, I am aware that Roscoe x self-identifies as holding certain religious (Christian, probably Catholic) beliefs on his user page. I am not aware, however, of any reason why Christians (even Catholics) should not be allowed to demonstrate basic curiosity. While there's little reason to doubt that the question arose from Biblical writings, that does not render the question invalid. Speaking as an atheist, were I presented with the parable of the mustard seed I too would have been tempted to seek an answer to precisely the same question. Roscoe x didn't demand that we engage with the question in a way that conformed with (whatever we might imagine were) his religious beliefs might be; he just asked the question.
The real pity is that Von Restorff's first post actually contained a link to a good answer to the question asked. If he hadn't been so quick to attack Roscoe x, he could have just let the provided reference explicitly and politely note that this is an instance where the Bible got it wrong. I'm just gobsmacked by his postscript above, implying that it's all right for us to abuse Christian believers here at the Reference Desk because they'll just 'turn the other cheek'. To be clear, whatever Von Restorff believes that a good Christian might do, I will state now that if he ever engages in such unprovoked attacks again I will block him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You obviously did not spend much time reading before you wrote this. AFAIK no one claimed the question itself was provocative. You are apparently unaware of this theological debate, but I am not. This is why you are at a complete loss to explain why this is a religious question. You can read the Wikipedia page linked to above, it should provide you with some basic information. No one claimed religious people shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate basic curiosity. No one claimed Roscoe x demanded that we engaged with the question in a way that conformed with what his religious beliefs might be. You claim I attacked Roscoe x. I am going to ask you to provide a difflink of me attacking Roscoe x in response to his question. If you cannot provide that difflink I am going to ask you to retract your comment by striking it through. You also claimed that my postscript contained the implication "that it's all right for us to abuse Christian believers here at the Reference Desk". Again I am going to ask you to provide a difflink; if you cannot provide it I will ask you to retract your comment. Your empty threat of blocking me for an offence you made up is rather ridiculous, and if you would've made that mistake I probably would've been unblocked very quickly and a lengthy discussion about adminabuse would follow. I am going to ask you again to provide a difflink, or retract your comment. Abusing a mop is very uncool. Von Restorff (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The crazy thing about these types of issues is that science is seen as being intolerant. Were science openminded, science would confine itself to that which was known to be factual and would avoid making statements that had not been rigorously vetted for objective truth. An openminded science would consider the possibility that the Bible knows its botany well—until that botany was proven by objective methods to be shown to be incorrect. The response given reflects poorly on science because the realm of science is not one of passionately held opinions but rather about those points of information that have been objectively arrived at. Bus stop (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Science and religion don't mix really well. Science in general is rather openminded, but not always confined to stuff that is either true or not true like a boolean. It has been proven by objective methods that the claim made in the bible is totally incorrect. But as I have explained before this is a religious question, and a religious debate, based on a religious book. Von Restorff (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The question should have been answered as a purely botanical question, and Von Restorff's comments on religion were not warranted. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Even though it was not a botanical question it should be answered as one? Feel free to belief that, but it is obviously a religious question so I treated it as such. Von Restorff (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I examined the discussion in question. Von Restorff's respose was unnecessary. Even if the question had a religious motivation, you don't know that. Please remember to assume good faith. If you don't think you can do that with a particular question, then just ignore the question and let someone else answer it. EverGreg handled the question the right way (as did others). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. AGF has nothing to do with this, except that you guys seem to ABF. Lots of people are aware of this religious debate, I am not the only one. I gave the correct answer with a reliable source and explained that his source was very unreliable. Von Restorff (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
<sigh> Unfortunately, not everyone responds well to constructive criticism. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
In general that statement is true. But lets try it out, you and me. Please give me some constructive criticism, we'll see how I respond to it. You seem to be under the impression that you have, but you haven't. You just wrote a tl;dr reply that has no value for me. Von Restorff (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The OP did not cite any source at all. Roger (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Von Restorff (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
So when are you going to retract your above claim about the OP's nonexistent source? Roger (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Why should I? That is obviously the source of the claim that this is the smallest seed. When are you going to apologize for wasting my time? When are you going to improve the encyclopaedia? Von Restorff (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No, you didn't explain his source was unreliable, rather you attacked the Bible (which he didn't explicitly cite) without any references that address the larger issues of Biblical accuracy. You said: "No, of course not. The bible is full of claims that are not true, because the people who wrote and rewrote and edited and censored and translated the bible were often incorrect. Read this" That's very different than saying something like: "The claim that the mustard seed is the smallest seed is one of many factual claims that are made in the Bible (i.e. the parable of the mustard seed) that were later found to be untrue [9]. For further discussion of biblical accuracy, see: [10][11]." Do you see the difference? Either version can effectively make your point, but your version was unnecessarily hostile to religious belief. A person of faith who is honestly trying to explore these issues would have a good chance of being turned off by your response, and you didn't really give them a good way to explore the larger issues. Dragons flight (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually did say the source of the claim about the mustard seed is "full of claims that are not true". I believe that a source that is "full of claims that are not true" is unreliable, I hope we can agree on that. I also mentioned several reasons why that source is so unreliable. I see the difference, but your claim that my version was unnecessarily hostile to religious belief is incorrect, because it was not hostile at all. Von Restorff (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Roger, you're correct in saying that the OP did not cite any source, but when I saw the question, I thought "What? Why would anyone ask this?" And, upon a little investigation (looking at the User's page) the ONLY answer is that it came from the Bible. That also explained the response already given. Without knowing about the Biblical connection, neither the question nor the answer made sense. OF COURSE it's a religion based question. Maybe an innocent one, but it made no sense unless reading it in the religious context. And it's on the Science desk. Now, what's the title of this thread? Hmmmm.... HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but it is really hard for some people to admit they were wrong, and even harder to admit I knew something they did not. Von Restorff (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Another point. In my country, Australia, supermarkets have jars of mustard with seeds in. I have one in the fridge right now and can see how big the seeds are. The OP seems to have a background in Indonesia and Taiwan. Maybe the same product isn't available there. Innocent question probably, as I said, but still a religion based one. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Even if one acknowledges the likelihood that a question concerning whether mustard seeds are the smallest of seeds is one deriving from a biblical reference, I think one nevertheless has to also acknowledge that no reference to the Bible was contained in the question itself as formulated and presented on the science desk. We should be basing our responses primarily on what is explicitly asked. Our reading into a question can dredge up a murky mix of unpredictables based on our own backgrounds. And this does not even take into consideration the background of the person posing the question. In this discussion, we are assuming that we know the person posing the question when in fact we probably do not. We are basing our knowledge on a stereotype probably formed by some other person that we have met who we feel is similar to the person posing the question. We would be doing each person posing a question a favor if we assume from the outset that they are a completely unique person, unlike anyone we have ever met before. Bus stop (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let's try it this way... Questions about mustard seeds are not under the domain of botany just because there is a religious significance to a mustard seed? If someone asked about the composition of red wine, would it not be completely inappropriate to respond "When blessed, it is 100% the blood of Jesus, see transubstantiation?" and then justify that response by linking the OP to a bunch of things making an unnecessarily aggressive case that [insert OP's probable viewpoint here] is wrong and saying "it looked like a science question, but I know that the OP really was asking because he/she didn't understand the religious aspect," and complain to anybody that wants to cite the chemical composition that he/she [the person replying] has to explain stuff that 'you could've and should've figured out on your own'"? Ludicrous example, I know, but then again not all that different from what you are doing; only the viewpoints are reversed. Falconusp t c 00:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This whole thread is pretty amazing. I see nothing problematic about the original question, even if it has religious connotations. Just answer factually and be done with it. If anyone is trolling it seems to me to be Von Restorff, who wrote above: "I am kind of sick of people wasting my time, people who are deliberately trying to create controversy and trolls in general." Sounds like you're describing yourself. Pfly (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Be careful. You seem to forget that I am not the one who refuses to drop the stick and insists on stirring up as much drama as possible. Von Restorff (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some of the responses to the original question remind me of something I say about atheists from time to time: They know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. The parable is not about whether the mustard seed is literally the smallest seed - it's about how faith can grow. This concept is by no means unique to Christianity or to religion itself for that matter - it's common to successful people around the world. There's a similar saying: "Mighty oaks from little acorns grow." I suppose the atheists would label that old proverb a "religious message" also, and thus reject it - following atheists' quasi-religious dogma that says if something has to do with religion, it's automatically "wrong"... and at the same time wonder why guys like Gates and Jobs took their own personal "mustard seeds" and grew them into billions-of-dollars enterprises, while the skeptics are relegated to working well down the corporate totem pole for guys like that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You clearly do not know many atheists. Who here claimed that the parable was to be taken literally? Are you aware that this is not a general discussion forum but an encyclopaedia? Von Restorff (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well put, BB. While I'm thinking about this let me add--given people looking at the OP's user page and making assumptions I find it almost funny to look at Von Restorff's talk page and see him or her say, in reference to this very thread, I just like debating. No, really? Pfly (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, really, but I prefer to have opponents on the same level, not people who just whine and repeat themselves after they have been proven wrong. Von Restorff (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Presumably you're talking about yourself there. You initiated the drama by copping a bad attitude toward a reasonable questioner, and have been pretty well beaten up for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Whahaha. Do you really believe that? That is pretty funny. In reality the people who initiated the drama have made a lot of mistakes and I have corrected a few of them and pointed out even more mistakes they made. You are one of the people who is responsible for creating drama. I will tell you this is an encyclopaedia and not a general discussion forum again and again. You should drop your stick and improve Wikipedia. Von Restorff (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
How did your attack on the OP qualify as "improving" Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not attack the OP. Duh. Von Restorff (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's see... "No, of course not." [unreferenced] "The bible is full of claims that are not true..." [condescending and off the track] Yeh, that kind of answer definitely improves wikipedia. Keep up the good works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The "no, of course not" was actually referenced. Mentioning the fact that the bible is full of claims that are not true is not off the track, it is extremely on topic. It is also not condescending. Thank you, I will. Please start doing some good work yourself, so I can say "keep up the good work" to you too. Von Restorff (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
After you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, your generalizations about atheists are as offensive as Von Restoff's attacks on Christians. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, but he does not understand. Von Restorff (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Not all atheists, just the ones who think they're so freakin' smart yet totally missed the point of the parable and focused on the detail of whether the mustard seed was technically the smallest seed in the world. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
At least I am so freakin' smart I know this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum. Von Restorff (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
But not smart enough to realize that YOU caused the drama. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Repeating nonsense does not make it true BB. I answered a question, people created a tempest in a teapot (drama) about my answer. Your refusal to drop your stick is disruptive. Von Restorff (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I would be tempted to tell you to take more care to be specific in what you "say about atheists" (would you want Christianity to be judged based on the Westboro Baptist Church, or Islam on Osama bin Laden?), except that would be missing the point. I took rather a lot of time in writing my comment above to avoid the temptation to fall into making personal attacks on Von Restorff, despite being absolutely disgusted by his attitude. Your post, Bugs, just drags you (and the conversation) down to his level. It's a problematic part of your approach in general—you have a nasty tendency to fall into incivility and personal attacks once you believe that someone else's conduct falls short of Wikipedia's expectations, and it's really frustrating for those of us who may agree with your assessments but hate to be associated with your attitude. (That sort of frustration is particularly relevant in this particular situation.) Your desire to get a cheap shot off at an individual or group you dislike or disagree with interferes with our ability to resolve problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
LOL. You actually spend a lot of time writing a comment that is so wrong? You keep generating drama, but we are building an encyclopaedia here. Von Restorff (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, my sometimes-aggressive approach is intended to evoke how folks really feel about things. I learned that approach from watching Walter Cronkite conduct interviews. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But the right approach to this whole megillah would be for someone to provide a factual answer, and box up or delete anything that attacks the OP for daring to ask a perfectly reasonable and fair question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm still curious. Why on earth DOES the Bible say that mustard seeds are the smallest? HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the parable of the mustard seed article, it's not exactly "the Bible" that says this, it's the Gospel writer Mark, who quotes Jesus that way. The Gospel of Matthew was based in part on the Gospel of Mark, so Mark is the guy to aim at. Note that Luke doesn't repeat that part of the alleged quote - he merely has Jesus talking about the mustard seed growing into a large plant, and the size of the seed is left to a presumption that audience already knows that it's a really small seed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The preponderance of evidence presented in this thread is that the mustard seed question is indeed a religious question, in the same way that "was the universe created in seven days" is a religious question. Sources have been provided that show that the idea that the mustard seed is the smallest seed is a notion presented in the bible, and no one has put forth any evidence that that mistaken notion is common among the non-christians of the world. However, I think whether the mustard seed question is a religious question or not is an irrelevant distraction in this thread, because the religious origins of the question really wouldn't have mattered either way:
For example, if the question was the more obviously religious "was the universe created in seven days", it would still have been a problem to answer with "No, of course not. The bible is full of claims that are not true, because the people who wrote and rewrote and edited and censored and translated the bible were often incorrect. Read this."
In contrast, I think most people wouldn't have objected to pointing out the religious origins of the mustard seed question, or to pointing out the inaccuracy of the bible, as long as the discussion of the bible's inaccuracy remained limited to just the mustard seed question. For example, I think most people wouldn't have had much of an objection to the answer "No, the parable of the mustard seed is inaccurate. The smallest seeds come from certain orchids.[12]" Some christians might have responded to that answer with alternative translations, alternative interpretations and/or alternative perspectives of the parable, to promote the view that the parable wasn't really inaccurate after all, but a focused discussion of just the parable of the mustard seed would have at least been less likely to have blown up into a nine-page argument on the talk page. Red Act (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it would not be a problem at all to say: "No, of course not. The bible is full of claims that are not true, because the people who wrote and rewrote and edited and censored and translated the bible were often incorrect. Read this." Maybe this fact is hard to accept for some people, but we shouldn't censor ourselves to the point where we bow down to religious extremist so much that that answer is not acceptable. The nine-page arguments is caused by people who are refusing to drop their stick because they do not like the fact that they were wrong. Von Restorff (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Beware of answering a question about Genesis with "of course not", as it's the atheistic quasi-religious dogma trap. The right answer is not "of course not", it's not even "no". The right answer is, "the best scientific theory we have, based on the best information we have, is that the universe was created billions of years ago, by an event popularly known as The Big Bang." That would be a good summary, and then you could point them to the articles that discuss the conventional theory or theories about the evolution of the universe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
But to the seven days question you could just say "No, the biblical story of creation is inaccurate; the universe is actually about 13.75 billion years old". That answer, and my suggested alternative answer to the mustard seed question, would each create minimal drama, would accurately answer the question, would not "bow down to religious extremists" by granting any possibility whatsoever that the bible might be accurate about the matter in question, and wouldn't venture off-topic by bringing up the accuracy or lack thereof of parts of the bible that weren't asked about. It's on-topic to point out that the specific part of the bible being asked about is scientifically inaccurate, but venturing beyond that is soapboxing. Red Act (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
When I first read the OP's question (before any answers were posted), it appeared to be a simple yes-or-no question. I did not know the answer, but I figured someone would reply either "Yes, it is" or "No, such-and-such is smaller." That is all the OP asked, nothing more.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ 02:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It was a totally fair and reasonable question to ask, and it was not necessary for the religion-haters to pounce on it. Jesus could have said something about the mustard seed being the smallest "except for certain species in other countries which you've never seen before", but that would be a total distraction from the message, which wasn't about mustard seeds, but about taking something small and insubstantial and making something big and strong from it. Good leaders make their points succinctly without sidetracking the audience with nitpicky details. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
If he would've said that then he would've been wrong. Read the source I provided. Even in Jesuses time it was not the smallest seed known in Palestine. Von Restorff (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
On the page in question, I have asked a variation of the question that even the nitpicking and missing-the-whole-point-of-the-parable atheists might consider to be fair: Was the mustard seed the smallest seed that would have been known to the people of Palestine or the Middle East in Biblical times? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you trying to say I am missing the point of the parable? Did you read the source I provided?
Some have argued, despite the clear meaning of the quote, that Jesus was only referring to the seeds known to his audience. Well then, was the mustard seed the smallest seed known in Palestine? No, not even in Jesus’ time.
Von Restorff (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
If Von Restorff's response hadn't been so unnecessarily inflammatory, readers would actually already know the answer to that question; it's in the first link he provided, which notes that the people (at least, the botanists) of that era should have been familiar with the smaller seeds of the black orchid. In some ways, that's the most disappointing part of all this—a really good and useful resource was lost because it was buried in an unnecessary and unpleasant attack on another editor's beliefs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That is almost correct. If people wouldn't have insisted on creating as much drama as possible by whining and nagging and creating a tempest in a teapot then we all could've spent our time more productively. This is an encyclopaedia, not a general discussion forum. WP:ENC. Von Restorff (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
To me the most disappointing part is that (1) the self-styled highly-intelligent attackers totally missed the point of the parable; and that (2) they still are, as they continue to argue about the size of specific seeds. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
To me the most disappointing part is that everyone here is not building the encyclopaedia because they are too addicted to drama. Von Restorff (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Bugs, it's quite easy to miss the point of the parable when it uses the confusing word "smallest" rather than the equally suitable and more accurate "small". Were listeners to the parable or readers of the Bible not meant to have questioning minds? HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Getting hung up on the question of what the smallest seed technically is, rather than on what the point of the parable is, doesn't indicate a "questioning" mind, but a "nitpicking" mind. The average listener isn't likely to miss the point, except the types who go into convulsions when "its" and "it's" are used incorrectly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Lets all agree that:
Mustard seeds are pretty small, but not the smallest, not even in Palestine in those days.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soap.
Creating all this drama has been highly unproductive.
Even though some people did not like my answer, the claim that I attacked the person who asked it are nonsensical and unfounded.
Refusing to get the point that this is a religious question, not a scientific one, is disruptive.
It would probably be a good idea for the people who are addicted to drama to drop their sticks and back away from the horse carcass.
Von Restorff (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Ummm...So who created the drama which has been highly unproductive? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, you can scroll to the top of this discussion to see who started this discussion that was a total waste of our time. Von Restorff (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Total comments: 76 (= or minus 1 02 2) 77 78 79
Von Restorff: 31 32 33
All 15 others (including mine): 46 47
Q.E.D. Bielle (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I stopped updating the numbers for comments placed above this post of mine as of the time of this comment. Bielle (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Counting the revisions instead of the comments makes it even more dramatic. Thanks for proving my point. All 76+2 comments are unnecessary if people would've resisted the temptation to create drama. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is not a general discussion forum. We are trying to build an encyclopaedia here. Please drop your sticks and back away from the horse carcass. The people who created this tempest in a teapot are responsible for distracting a lot of users from our common goal: improving Wikipedia, and their refusal to get the point is certainly disruptive. Von Restorff (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Note Bielle is updating that comment to keep the score, even after I replied to it.
Had you not made the condescending and pointless comment to the OP, maybe the so-called drama would not have been started. Or at least not started by you. If you really think the point of that parable was to define the world's smallest seed, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand why the parable used the word "smallest" HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
As Restoff notes, there could be any number of reasons. Why does it matter? Why do you not understand the actual point of the parable? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
People have told me the actual point. I can handle it. But that claim still gets in the way. I'm always trying to understand why Christians are so willing to accept such a weird book. HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It does not get in the way of understanding the point of the parable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
How can you say that? You can't tell how my mind works. (I certainly can't!) I'm a pretty pedantic sort of guy, with a scientific interest, and if a story contains a "fact" that isn't, it distracts my thinking onto pathways the story teller would probably not have intended. You remind me a little of my Sunday School teachers. I annoyed them too. I would ask questions regarding details of Biblical stories that didn't make sense to me, and they would just tell me to try to just accept God's message rather than looking at all the detail. But I'm not like that. They didn't suck me in. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Nor did they suck me in either. As I told you, Mark had the quote one way and Luke had it another way. Some would find that irksome. Maybe you do. I don't. Meanwhile, I suspect that if someone made a statement to you that ended with "...as sure as the sun rises in the east every day..." you would immediately launch into a lecture about how the sun "rising" is an illusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Nah. That's a matter of the perspective of the observer. In a way, it's equivalent to the part of this discussion where we discussed whether Middle Eastern residents 2000 years ago would have known of smaller seeds than mustard seeds. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, as you probably know, most of Jesus' followers were botanists and orchid growers. That's why he kept making analogies about shepherding and fishing and so on. Oh, wait... :) One thing I'll readily concede is that your Sunday School teacher was insufficiently prepared. I guess I was lucky to have gone to a somewhat more progressive church, where teachers would welcome a question like that, as it would allow discussion over the nature of the Bible. Forget the freakin' mustard seeds - the Gospels can't even agree on the names of the Disciples. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for continuing the drama. Good work! Did I claim the point of the parable was to define the world's smallest seed? Nope, but you have to make stuff up in order to continue creating drama. As you are well aware the drama was not started by me, and I repeatedly told people this is an encyclopaedia not a general discussion forum. But for you I am willing to repeat it yet again. Stop beating the dead horse. If you have nothing useful to contribute do not say anything at all. You guys have wasted enough time, mine and your own. Von Restorff (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. @HiLo48: The text of the bible has changed over time. It is not impossible that this is caused by a translation error and older versions of the bible simply said small or tiny. Another possible explanation is that the person who wrote the parable believed this misconception.
Do you deny being the first respondent to the OP on that page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not deny being the first respondent to the OP on that page. Do you have a difflink of me saying that or did you made that up? Are you not willing to drop your stick? Von Restorff (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Then I'll take that as a concession that it was you that started all this trouble, and that you regret it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Whahaha. You have a good sense of humor. Now stop creating drama, you are wasting my time. This is an encyclopaedia, not a general discussion forum. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We're wasting YOUR time? How? What's keeping you here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Good question. I have AGFed, I should probably start ignoring you at some pointWP:DNF. Von Restorff (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free not to respond to anyone here that you consider to be a bigger drama-monger than you. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, the question could have — and should have — been answered yes or no.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ 06:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That is your opinion, I disagree, but whatever, I mean, this is an encyclopaedia, lets spend our time improving it instead of wasting time on useless debates caused by people who like to stir up a tempest in a teapot. Von Restorff (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So what's stopping you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes people who are addicted to drama who refuse to drop their stick. But do not worry, I can handle them. Von Restorff (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, no one's keeping you here except yourself, Mr. Addict. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Von Restorff—when a person posts a question on the reference desk they can use any formulation of language that they wish. This person inquired if mustard were the smallest seeds. Certainly it is understandable that a culturally literate person reading such a question would think of the biblical reference. But the person formulating the question avoided mentioning the Bible. What significance do you ascribe to the avoidance of any reference to religion (the Bible) on the part of the individual who formulated and posted this question on the Science reference desk? Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
By using the word "avoidance" you make it seem deliberate. You do not know if that is the case. Von Restorff (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Since in my mind it's certain that the question was based on the Biblical source, I put it down to a failure on the part of the OP to put the question in its correct context. I suspect it was an innocent but unfortunate mistake. HiLo48 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I assume it was deliberate. I think the OP wanted an answer of a factual nature. The Science reference desk is the place to come to when one seeks hard facts such as the relative size of the seeds of various plants. If the OP wanted an opinion on religion or the place of mustard seeds within religious parables they easily could have formulated a question incorporating into it references to those elements, and they easily could have posted their question on the Humanities reference desk. Just being "based on the Biblical source" is insufficient reason for launching into a diatribe that includes: "It is 2012, people should've stopped believing this kind of nonsense a long time ago." The question was simple: "Is Mustard seed the smallest seed in the world?" That question was posted on the Science reference desk. You can be 100% sure that this question derives from a religious context. Nevertheless the core question is what is of primary importance. Extended commentary may or may not be welcome. Therefore we should be cautious in offering opinions that may not be welcome. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The quote you are using was not a response to the OP, and you are taking it out of context. The context was that someone said: "Is it really necessary to turn a simple scientific question into a religious issue?" to which I replied: "I assume you were probably not aware that this is a religious issue and not a simple scientific question but it is. I wish it wasn't, and I assume you do too. It is 2012, people should've stopped believing this kind of nonsense a long time ago." But honestly, don't you think people should stop believing in a misconception this old? I mean, lets say we spread some misinformation today, and a couple of thousand years later people still believe it, wouldn't that be a bit too long? Von Restorff (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Correcting a misconception: "No, we now know about seeds that are smaller, such as [insert examples] as referenced by this."
Making sure that the OP never asks a question about something like this again: "::After reading your userpage: read this... Did you know God prefers atheists?"
If you have accomplished anything, I would guess that you have put the OP on the defensive (people on the defensive are unlikely to consider opposing viewpoints), and taught him or her that critical thinking about presupposed beliefs will likely put them in conflict with people, and gave them a reason not to do it. Congratulations; you may have truly influenced this individual! Falconusp t c 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations to you too, for having found a great discussion forum! We actually like to pretend it is an encyclopaedia, but we could not fool you into believing it is! Von Restorff (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Lets not pretend christians do not have a sense of humor. Are you saying I missed my chance to convert this person to believing in the invisible pink unicorn?
(edit conflict) Mistake? Where on the Reference Desk policy does it say that "all questions must be provided with a detailed description of why it is being asked"? Did the OP make a mistake when he/she asked this without explaining why? Perhaps the salt in his or her cupboard no longer tastes right, or maybe his or her taste buds are functioning differently, or maybe something else entirely. Does he/she have to tell us? Absolutely not! The only mistake here is taking what the OP asked (is the mustard seed the smallest seed?), and assuming that the OP wanted an answer about the Bible. It's pretty simple. "Yes, it's the smallest seed," or "no, it's not the smallest seed". Pick the one that your proper and reliable references say is correct. If the OP wants more information ("but then why does the Bible say it is?"), then the OP can ask. Besides, while many of us might reference (note that I said "reference", not "attempt to make a point about religion with") the parable anyway in answering this question (whether or not it is a good idea), this thread is not really about the origins of the question, it's about the highly inappropriate response attacking the OP's beliefs on the part of Von Restorff. Falconusp t c 20:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I didn't notice the religious nature of the responses to the question in the "saltiness" thread that I linked to until after I posted this. Hmmm... Anyway, it seems that I could have picked a better example, but it doesn't really change what I was trying to say. Falconusp t c 20:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Lol. I did not actually attack anyone's beliefs in my response to the OP, as you may have noticed, most christians I know do not believe in biblical inerrancy. Luckily there are quite a few christians that are aware that if you take everything literally you miss the point of (some of) the stories. Von Restorff (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
You posted something about how God loves athiests better by pointing out perceived problems with Christianity. That was attacking beliefs. You might as well have said "I think that atheists do things a lot better than Christians; take the hint; you should be an atheist". Falconusp t c 21:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That was the name of the cartoon, as you may have noticed, it is conventional to link to something using its name/title. It would be rather weird to have a link with "pineapple" as linktext that links to merriamwebster.com. I will repeat myself: For most christians the cartoon is not offensive, and I would dare to argue that at least some of the lessons learned from the cartoon are not necessarily oppositional to the belief itself. Are you claiming that being moral without the fear of spiritual retribution is oppositional to christianity? I think it perfectly possible to be a christian without ever waging war in gods name. And I am pretty sure lots of christians use exercise and diets instead of prayer to solve weight problems. Ignosticism is of course a bit more humble than claiming to know the answers to big questions, but I am not sure why it would be considered offensive to recommend reading that article to someone. If the article is offensive to you please do propose improvements on the talkpage or be bold and make them. Do you honestly think that reading about alternative religious or philosophical viewpoints is insulting, offensive or hostile? I read the torah and the quran and the bible. I think it is rather interesting to see what other people have come up with, and I am not that easily offended. I think it is highly unlikely anyone would be converted because of reading that cartoon. Von Restorff (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that cartoon may be plenty entertaining for Christians; I rather like it myself. However, there is a time and a place. You clearly directed that in response to the user's beliefs, after you made a statement that the Bible was rife with inaccuracies. Of all the interpretations of that action, an attempt at humor is quite a stretch. You clearly were trying to make a criticism of what the OP may believe. The Ignosticism article seems to be making not so subtle hints that the OP may be assuming too much about the existence of God. No, the article is not offensive. However, your link to it was at the very best pushing something that you had no business pushing. No, reading alternative religious or philosophical viewpoints is not insulting, indeed I highly recommend it; however if I ask a question about a mustard seed because I am trying to sort out my religious views, I would not welcome somebody saying "tsk, tsk, tsk, that's all wrong, read about [insert religion here]." Falconusp t c 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone asked if a claim made in a religious book is correct. I said no, of course not, the book is full claims that are not true and I listed a few of the many reasons why it is an unreliable source. After discovering this person believed the book I posted a link to ignosticism and a funny cartoon. You seem to think that ignosticism is a religion, it clearly is not. If I would've linked to islam and said that believing in the quran is the only way to get into the paradise and tried to convert the OP into believing in it then maybe you would've had a point, then it would be an attempt to convert the OP. I am going to do the same terrible thing I did to the OP again, right here, right now. I am going to recommend to you that you read the article about ignosticism, just to confirm it is not a religion. Von Restorff (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It may not be a religion as such, but it certainly says that "every other theological position [than Ignosticism]" assumes too much about God, and that the question of who is God - very important to Christians - is more or less irrelevant. You might as well have posted any other philosophy or religion that the OP doesn't believe in. Whether or not it is labelled as a "religion" or "philosophy" doesn't really make a difference here. You don't have to involve deities and an afterlife to try to alter someone's beliefs. Oh, and I already did read enough of it to get a sense of what it is. Falconusp t c 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a theological position. So first I recommend reading about a theological position that tries to avoid the mistake of assuming too much about the existence of a god, and then I link to a funny cartoon that jokes that god prefers atheists (who do not believe in a god). Is that offensive to you? I am rather surprised about that. For me it is really funny. Just for some context, a good friend of mine is a christian and he likes to debate and he likes guitarmusic. In general I am not a fan of guitarmusic, but I do like the Beastie Boys. He does not like the Beastie Boys. The one guitar song we both truly appreciate is this terrible terrible song [NSFW Warning! Highly offensive to Pokemon! DO NOT WATCH!]. Maybe people in Amsterdam (where we both live) are hard to offend, I don't know, but we both agree this song has great lyrics. Von Restorff (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC) −

Great... As I said, neither of those things are offensive by themselves. Honestly, the Ignosticism article is quite interesting, and the cartoon is good too. It is just in the manner that you used them that is inappropriate. I don't know your context, and neither did the OP, so it wasn't relevant. Also, a debate about religion is quite interesting, and a good thing to do for reflecting. I only ever debate people that want to debate. I don't just say "hey, you with the mustard seed, you should read about this theology." That's my issue. I have no issue with your cartoon, article, views, etc. The problem is entirely how and where you present them. Falconusp t c 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Great, we agree that ignosticism and the cartoon are not offensive by themselves. I think we agree that combining them is also totally not offensive. So if I understand you correctly, the only thing we possibly disagree about is if my timing was correct. To be honest, we can debate endlessly about that, but that is not really useful because we just don't know. It is up to the OP to decide if he likes the cartoon or not. If he does not he may want to complain about it, to me, on my talkpage. But people who are not the OP should not nag and whine; those people have wasted an enormous amount of time on a discussion that was completely useless. Von Restorff (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the "religious" responses in the "saltiness" thread are an overflow from this thread. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that is not the case. Von Restorff (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Exactly why I said that I could have probably picked a better example - it's too related to this topic at hand. Falconusp t c 21:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dead horse indeed

Von Restorff wants us to stop beating a dead horse, and I think he's right. The dead horse is his repeated claim that he gave an appropriate answer about mustard seeds. Clear consensus above is that VR was being uncivil and his responses were inappropriate. It's also clear that he is not going to agree no matter what everybody else says about it. He now knows that this sort of thing upsets most people, and maybe for that reason he will refrain in the future. Further discussion here is unlikely to be productive. Staecker (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol. You can try to fool people into believing that, but it is unlikely to work. If you read the discussion above you won't see me claiming over and over again that I gave an appropriate answer, and other people defending against that and telling me to drop my stick and turn my attention back to improving the encyclopaedia which would be the case if you were correct. It is the other way around, the people claiming over and over again that my answer was inappropriate are the ones who kept beating the dead horse, and I told them many times to drop their sticks and do something more productive. The people who started this discussion are to blame for this enormous waste of time, and they know it, but it is unlikely they will apologize to me for wasting my valuable time. No one has give any evidence whatsoever that I was incivil. The people who like to create as much drama as possible did not even bother to ask the OP his opinion, which is the only thing that matters, they should have minded their own business. Assuming christians in general do not have a sense of humor is kind of insulting. Refusing to get the point is disruptive. Continuing to beat the dead horse is stupid. This is an encyclopaedia, not a general discussion forum. I am never going to bow down to religious extremists who think I am not allowed to say that the bible contains many errors. I will continue having a sense of humor, and I hope everyone else has one too, or develops one. Von Restorff (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We are religious extremists? Seriously? I was quite careful not to bring up the word "extremism", but now that you did, read over the whole conversation again, and consider the whole time who is the very vocal "blameless" "absolutely correct" minority voice railing against opposing views (everybody else), who feels that the cause of the problem is everyone else, and feels that all the opposition are by default religious extremists (even those claiming to be atheists, it would seem). They also disregard any and all statements made by opposing viewpoints as not qualifying as evidence. Anyway, Staecker is right... It is probably time to let this go. I don't intend to contribute to this discussion much further unless I really need to, and it's unlikely that the conversation will progress further. Falconusp t c 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I did not say you were religious extremists. Please reread what I wrote. Von Restorff (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, fine. I'll strike it. That's what it looks like you were implying, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I am done with this conversation as of now. Falconusp t c 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Good decision. You never claimed that I am not allowed to mention the fact the bible contains many errors. Opinions are not really important, what matters are the facts. Fact 1: The problem is this useless discussion. Fact 2: The cause of that problem is the people who started it, and those who continued beating the dead horse even after I repeatedly told them to drop their stick. Von Restorff (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
YOU started it. I hope you've enjoyed it all. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC).
Do you honestly think I started a discussion about the appropriateness of my own comment? LOL! Like I said before: repeating nonsense does not make it true, BB. This reminds me of Scoobius Pip who rapped: thou shalt not make repetitive generic music \ thou shalt not make repetitive generic music \ thou shalt not make repetitive generic music \ thou shalt not make repetitive generic music. Von Restorff (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Von Restorff—I consider myself a staunch supporter of our policy of Ignore All Rules. Nevertheless I can't ignore your blatant misuse of the Science reference desk. These desks address different subject areas. "Religion" belongs on the Humanities reference desk. When a person comes to the Science reference desk to ask a question, and confines their question to elements that do not indicate any interest in receiving a reply concerning "religion", the responder is acting improperly when they foist upon that questioner a boatload of personal opinions that hail solely from the area of religion. You claim to be convinced that questions about the size of mustard seeds must be understood as "religious" questions. If that be the case then it was incumbent on you to refer the OP to the Humanities references desk. Different reference desks have different abilities and different sensibilities. It is not that all knowledge is not related. But we make these artificial breakdowns for sensible reasons. When I say "we" I am not referring to Wikipedia but to anyplace that information is organized. The Humanities are more geared to addressing an OP's question about "religion" than are the Sciences. The Sciences are particularly insensitive about answering questions about "religion". That is the reason that your reading into the question as stated is problematic. It was asked on the Science desk and it was in fact formulated properly for answering in the context of science, specifically botany. This is not to say that additional comments are always out of place. But additional comments, in this case, have to be advanced sensitively, and in this case I don't think they were at all. The question was simply "Is Mustard seed the smallest seed in the world?" Much of what you added, spread over several posts, and in argument with several editors who implored you to quit embellishing on a primarily "scientific" answer to the question, was gratuitous. No one needs to be browbeaten with gratuitous advice on whether to believe in the Bible or not when they ask a question that can be answered more concisely. On the Science desk a response to the posed question concerns itself primarily with relative size of plant seeds. No response in that area is likely to be considered gratuitous. One need not evaluate purely objective responses on how the size of the mustard seed compares to the size of other plant seeds to see if we have overstepped our bounds in answering the question. But when we introduce information on the Bible in response to that question, on the Science desk, we open ourselves up to a greater degree of scrutiny. My opinion and the opinion of other editors posting above is that your opinions on religion were out of place. We can ignore rules but we can't ignore the sensibilities of a multitude of editors. I feel it is a misuse of the Science desk to offer opinions on religion beyond a certain point. I feel you overstepped that point. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Before I respond to your comment I would like to give you an opportunity to revert yourself and drop your stick, if you do you can delete my comment as well. Von Restorff (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Von Restorff—you can't construe this discussion as about nothing. There is an underlying subject matter. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I need a clear answer. Are you willing to drop your stick and revert yourself or do you want me to reply to your comment dated 00:39, 1 February 2012? Von Restorff (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Von Restorff—I won't engage in banter. I feel that I am making a valid point, but you should only respond if you have one or more valid points to make. Bus stop (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you trying to claim I foisted a boatload of personal opinions that hail solely from the area of religion upon the OP? Would you please be so kind to reread what I wrote while replying to the OP and to doublecheck that claim?
You wrote: "You claim to be convinced that questions about the size of mustard seeds must be understood as "religious" questions". Would you be so kind to provide a difflink to me claiming that? If someone asked "what is bigger, melons or mustard seeds?" I certainly would not interpret that as a religious question, would you?
Are you claiming I browbeated the OP with gratuitous advice on whether to believe in the Bible or not? Would you please be so kind to reread what I wrote while replying to the OP and to doublecheck that claim?
Von Restorff (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No one has given any evidence whatsoever that I was incivil. Is that your claim, Von Restorff? How's this, then? The question was: Is Mustard seed the smallest seed in the world? Your answer was: No, of course not (followed by stuff about the bible, something that the OP never mentioned). How is that not incivil already? If it was so obvious that the answer is No that you needed to qualify it with an "of course", then you're saying the OP is stupid or ignorant or has some ulterior agenda in asking the question. How is that not incivil?
OK, he might have been led to ask this question because of something he read in the Bible - but so what! I give him cred for not just blindly accepting the Bible, but querying stuff like this. How could anyone without specialist botanical qualifications or knowledge possibly know whether this claim is true or not? I wouldn't have the faintest idea personally, and I'd need to seek answers in some suitable reference source. Such as the Wikipedia reference desk. We're here to help people answer questions like these. We have spectacularly failed in our mission on this occasion.
I am astonished at the amount of heat that's been generated in this thread. I actually take exception to Roger's opening post (Is there nothing that can be done about people posting deliberately provocative questions and answers involving religion on the Science desk such as this one …). If someone asks a simple nine-word question that could have been minimally answered with a Yes/No answer (or better with some sourced technical detail about the relative sizes of mustard seeds vs other seeds) – but people respond to that simple nine-word question with an enormous pile of crap about the OP's suspected motives or whatever else about the OP – then they can hardly blame the OP for being "deliberately provocative". If you allow yourself to become provoked when you had total control over your responses, that is a matter for YOU to answer for. There is zero evidence that the OP wanted any outcome other than to know whether or not the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world. That is all we know. But IF his intention was to foment a great deal of heat and virtually no light, you folks have just handed it to him on a rolled gold platter. If he is indeed a troll (and again, there is no evidence that that's the case), you have just legitimated him as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible. Congratulations. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Telling someone the fact that the source of the claim they want to see confirmed or debunked is not reliable and mentioning several reasons why it is unreliable is not incivil. Are you claiming the words "of course" were incivil? That is kind of ridiculous, but I guess you will think pointing out that fact is incivil too.

Do you honestly think that Roger was saying this question was provocative? I think you misunderstand him.

AFAIK no one here expressed the opinion that the OP was a troll, I do not know where you get that idea from. Von Restorff (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. Before you write something here, think about the fact that this is not a general discussion forum. What is your goal by posting a comment here? Are you likely to achieve that goal? Now that everything has been said, and repeated, and repeated yet again, and misunderstood, and explained, and repeated again, do you think you can improve the encyclopedia by posting here? Isn't it better to drop your stick and improve the encyclopedia?

That was Jack's first comment and well over your 100th. You are by far the main driver of this pointless thread. It is clear that you must have the last word. I suggest to everyone else to stop feeding. Pfly (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you honestly think that gives Jack the right to continue beating a dead horse? Interesting. I will have to defend myself against incorrect accusations like his. The driver is the person who takes the initiative to do something, so I am not the driver. I just replied to the nonsense posted here, and I am not the one who is refusing to drop his stick. If I would not have replied at all we would just have a bunch of people agreeing about something, now we have a discussion were a bunch of people are proven wrong. Your repeated personal attacks do not help you, if you would've been correct you would not have to resort to namecalling. But everyone should stop posting here, and I do hope this is the last comment made about this topic here. Von Restorff (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Not so fast. Your user page tells us "This user does not understand English (or understands it with considerable difficulty)". I don't quite believe that, but I'll assume it's true anyway. If your command of English is as poor as you claim, then maybe you are not aware that putting "of course" in a response like yours was indeed incivil. It may not be incivil in some other languages, but it is in English, in the context under discussion where yours was the very first response to the OP's question. It was tantamount to writing "Oh, don't be so ridiculous! Everyone knows it's not the smallest seed in the world". If everyone knows stuff like this, there'd be no need to ask questions, and no need for a ref desk. So, you were either writing in total ignorance of an important feature of the English language, or you were being deliberately incivil. Which was it? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this is a misconception, but I've been told that most English and American people learn one language, and they make mistakes once in a while (e.g. its v.s. it's). When I was in school, a long time ago, I learned six different languages, I blame that for my imperfect command of the English language. I am slowly improving, but native speakers quickly notice I am not a native speaker. And no, I was not aware that writing "of course" was extremely incivil in this context, if I literally translate it to my native language it does not sound incivil at all. I am very surprised that you say it is so very incivil; I've used it before and I never heard any complaints about it. Von Restorff (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Since I'm here anyway reading this slow-motion train wreck, I'll mention at this point that I myself thought your initial contribution that generated all this, Von Restorff, was in context unnecessarily provocative and borderline insulting to the OP, and I speak as a non-Christian who has, in the appropriate fora, been actively sceptical about supposed Biblical accuracy for over 40 years. For the Goddess' sake, knock it off already! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.57 (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well, my intention was not to offend anyone but to help someone who asked a question, so I feel rather insulted by the treatment I got. If someone would've simply explained that using "of course" is extremely impolite in this context I would've deleted it. I agree, it has been time to drop the sticks for a long time. Von Restorff (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't just the "of course not" but the comment's entire underlying assumption (of the OP's supposed Biblical credulity that you presumed without evidence) and pre-emptive anti-religious attitude as a whole. I personally agree with the summarised facts of your comment in every detail, but they didn't need to be inserted before any Biblical aspects of the question had been explicitly raised, and even then need not have been so abrupt and patronising in tone.
You might also want to keep in mind that the Bible is still a seminal literary and cultural text for many people who (like me) don't accept its religious message or historicity, so enquiries deriving from its contents do not necessarily signify credulous Bibical literalism.
OK, let's all knock this on the head and go and have a nice cup of tea (or in my case cocoa, since I'm actually on UT :-) ). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.57 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
When writing the comment dated 09:24, 30 January 2012 I did not assume credulity on the OP's part, and AFAIK it contains no indication I did, except maybe for the "of course", which meant something completely different according to JackofOz than what I wanted it to mean because it seems saying "of course" is very rude, even though its direct translation in my native language is not rude at all in this context. After reading the userpage I wrote the comment dated 09:32, 30 January 2012 which I believe has no "pre-emptive anti-religious attitude"; the cartoon is not insulting to believers and I would dare to argue that most christians would agree being moral without the fear of spiritual retribution, not waging war in gods name and using exercise and diets instead of prayer to solve weight problems are not oppositional to christianity (I think millions of christians have done at least one of those things!). This is not a mean joke about catholic priests abusing children, it is just harmless fun, and unlikely to offend. Unfortunately a couple of people who are addicted to creating tempests in teapots made a huge fuzz instead of simply explaining that "of course" was extremely impolite in this context; that combined with their refusal to drop their sticks wasted an enormous amount of time. Von Restorff (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow that section over me has too much letters!

When the desk is getting archived it's loong now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.60.93.218 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

MiszaBot II archives threads after 10 days of idleness, or so I think. Someone closed and hatted that long section above you, so it will probably be archived away within the next 10 days or so. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Carbon dating

For the record, I am aware of the claims that Noah's flood corrupted all the carbon dating and makes everything look older than it is. I chose to assume good faith on the part of the OP and answered this question accordingly. --Tango (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Can the meta-issue please go away now? — Lomn 19:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Noooooo! This passive-aggressive-religiosity drama has been my source of entertainment at the office for the past two weeks! Now I might actually have to be productive! SamuelRiv (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

More medical advice

I have closed this thread as it is clearly asking for medical advice. I have also removed a response giving a diagnosis. Falconusp t c 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrected your link
Yes, we don't give medical advice but I do think you left in the less than helpful comment that psychiatrists are not good doctors. D'oh! never mind - you've since remove that too. Astronaut (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I originally just took out the diagnosis, then decided that I should probably remove the whole comment. You probably caught it in between those two edits. Falconusp t c 18:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
That guy's story sounds like an elaborate variation on the earwig legend. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've heard the exact same story with spiders before. Obviously fake. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, even Snopes has a similar one. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
So, should it stay closed as per "no medical advice", or should it be zapped altogether, or should the OP be confronted as pushing an urban legend? I would favor the latter, just in case the question comes up again and someone wants to look for it in the archives. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that it should either remain closed or deleted. Reopening it would do no good. There are two possibilities that I see; first, the OP was asking a sincere medical question, in which case we have no business telling the OP what we think the situation really is, or second the OP was screwing around. If that is the case, it will become clear because there will be more questions like that, and further action should be taken as necessary. Falconusp t c 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
All that reopening the conversation did, Bugs, was get a response from the OP reiterating that he feels he seriously needs medical help. Please don't reopen it without at least some concensus that it should be reopnened. The OP has however asked this type of question before, so I'm not sure what to do about that, other than to leave a message on his talk page. It is not for us to tell him whether or not 1) he needs medical help and 2) what the problem is. And, I might point out that just because there are urban legends out there doesn't mean the OP is making this up. Whether or not the OP is, or if there is a health problem (spider related or otherwise) is for health care professionals - NOT us - to determine. Falconusp t c 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
So you deleted my comment, yet you let stand a comment that specifically recommended seeing a psychiatrist? Did you let it stand because Seb az86556 is an admin and I'm not? Can you say "hypocrite"? Can you say "double standard" I didn't "reopen" it, I called him on it. So he brought this up 5 years ago, eh? Well, if he still thinks he needs medical help after all this time, then tell him to see a doctor. Again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I closed the conversation to prevent people from commenting on it further. Had you made that comment before I closed it, I would have likely left it stay, or else removed all three. The reason I removed your comment this time is because you commented on it further. If I had let that stay, I might as well have removed the hat/hab, and said "have at it", because the conversation would have surely restarted as if I hadn't closed it. Also, for the little that it is worth, I had no clue that az86446 is an admin, and that doesn't make a difference. Had he or she done what you did, I would have deleted it too, regardless of admin status. If you feel that it is not a request for medical advice, feel free to bring it up here, and we can discuss it here. If y'all think that I am wrong, by all means reopen it, but that requires a discussion and at least some sort of concensus. Falconusp t c 00:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, you are right to imply that I should have removed at least part of the az86446 response; I thought about it at the time, but I was more concerned about the response below it. Looking at what was written, there's no way that I should have left it. Thanks for removing the part of it that you did. Falconusp t c 00:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Roger. I think it's trolling. In any case, the guy was told 5 years ago that we don't give medical advice. I don't know what he thought might have changed in the interim. I would also have to give a strictly non-medical opinion that if the guy has had critters hatching from inside him for 10 years or more, and is still here to talk about it, it doesn't seem to have done him much physical harm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, I googled [body hatching spiders] and as with snopes, it is abundantly clear from various refereances that it is impossible for spiders to hatch from inside the body. I think the question should be reopened and the OP told once again that it is not possible, and that whatever issues he has can only be resolved by a doctor, and that if he's not satisfied with the advice he's gotten so far, then he should find a different doctor. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think anyone who has had spiders hatching inside him for 10 years is obviously an alien, and therefore the laws of the human world do not apply to him. But neither do its protections. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ooh, good point. Does wikipedia have any policies at all, regarding extraterrestrial editors? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The OP has already been informed that they need to take this elsewhere. I still think that reopening it is not a good idea. Falconusp t c 12:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
He was informed of that, FIVE YEARS AGO, and you can see how much good it did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
On the internet, no-one can tell you're a Venusian Canoid. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.42 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think he should have been directed to get professional help from an exterminator, not just a shrink. Because a skilled exterminator can tell him, for sure, whether there are bugs that can feed on him in his sleep in this way with these effects, and can take resolute action to preclude the possibility. Knowing something is a delusion - or not - does much to calm the imagination. And what kind of delusional parasitosis leaves marks a dermatologist can see on your back?

I removed a question just asking "Is this real?" which linked to a photo of a sexual device with the promoter's phone number prominently displayed, which was added by a new IP editor. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a promotional site, and promotion seemed a likely purpose of the "question." I have notified the IP editor. Edison (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe Assume Good Faith means we don't delete things which are "possible" promotional links, only things we are sure are. StuRat (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It didn't seem promotional to me, either. RudolfRed (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't there a similar posting a week or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
First post by an anon - hmmm... hydnjo (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
If others here feel it is an appropriate "question" then I have no objection to restoring it, if anyone sees fit, so referenced answers as to whether or not "it is real" can be provided. Edison (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_89&oldid=1136420735"