text:
Talk:Fatalism

hi can someone who knows how to wiki fix this article please? It's pretty bad. Lots of personal opinions reported as facts: "Fate is dictated by the position of every planet, star, moon, solar system and galaxy in the universe," "It is, however, a false argument." I'm sorry I don't know how to actually flag this. 2604:2000:7012:5700:8DC9:BF9:AE9F:E10 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Keith

Taoism
The given definition of "amor fati" fits much more closely with the practice of taoism than with the concept of "fatalism." 136.165.112.85 21:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)jd "In life, nobody gets out alive."

Invalidated
So I am taking course on methods and problems of philosophy, and fatalism has in fact been formally invalidated. I do not remember exactly how, but it went something like this: 1. X happens, this is a contingent truth. 2. if x happens, then x necessarily happened (this is a necessary truth based on a contingent premise) 3. x necessarily happened (this is where the argument falls apart, and it is known as a MODAL FALLACY)

Because fatalism has been formally invalidated, i believe it is of utmost importance and priority to mention this on the page, since it is not there. I am not a wiki user or anybody reliable, but this is true, and you can confirm with a philosophy/logic professor before you dismiss me. Thank you, and i hope someone with authority on the wiki reads this soon! -Amir 160.39.110.137 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there still anyone available to continue this discussion? It appears the last entry was on 2/23/08. I am very much interested in having a discussion on fatalism (by any name) other than the continued disagreement on the correct definition. Anyone there?Zi14 (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Zi14

I am suspicious that the trouble lies not in the concept of fatalism but in the limitations of the english language or your choice of terms...

1.X happens 2.if X happens, then X, maybe not "necessarily" but rather "definitely and most certainly" happened based on the contingent truth 3.X has definitely happened regardless of whether or not it occurred out of necessity

If we had less ambiguous terms to work with it would be less clumsy, I'm sure.70.75.248.254 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)JungGun

The Idle Argument
Is there still anyone available to continue this discussion? It appears the last entry was on 2/23/08. I am very much interested in having a discussion on fatalism (by any name) other than the continued disagreement on the correct definition. Anyone there?Zi14 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Zi14

I know that this is more of a discussion, nevertheless I would like to bring this up.

The Idle Argument states that if you are fated to recover, then you will do so even if you don't call for a doctor. However, would it not be perfectly reasonable to say that you were fated to call a doctor?

I don't believe it would be reasonable to say that you are fated to live or die, as that would be looking at things on such a broad spectrum. However, you can easily break down your 'fate' into smaller actions. Thus, you are fated to survive because you were fated to call a doctor. Or you were fated to survive a gunfight because fate entitled that you'd put on a Kevlar Vest.

I think that 'The Idle Argument' looks at things on far too much of a broad scale.

I'm not an avid wiki user, so do forgive me if I shouldn't be posting this here; I'm simply a 16 year old who'd like an answer to a question that he can't find by using Google.

Quick edit; I've made an account now. --DevilAsh (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be known that the Idle Argument is supremely misrepresented in this article. It is not an argument for fatalism, but rather an argument given by Aristotle to demonstrate the irrationality of deliberation in a fatalistic world. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fatalism and Predestination
I think of fatalism as the following: You might be able to make your own choices, but those choices won't really matter because there will be events that you can't prevent from happening. Those are "fated" events. Fatalism might go so far as to say that the every event we can view as important is fated. This view of fatalism is clearly different from determanism because we could have free will in a fatalistic world.

Is fatalism really the result of predestination? I think determanism is the result of predestination. If I write this comment, but God already knew I would write this comment, then do I lack the power to refrain from doing so? No. I have the power to refrain from writing this comment as long as I could have refrained if I chose to. (The fact that I couldn't choose to is beside the point because we usually only care that we can do what we choose to do.) This is how some people argue that freedom and determinism are compatible. The same argument can be used when there is predestination in order to show that people can still make a difference in the world. --dragonlord 05:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * That isn't fatalism at all. It's defeatism or predetermination. Fatalism is simply the denial of free-will and chance. There's no choice, the outcome can only be one way. Defeatism says that you can't make a difference. Fatalism doesn't imply that at all. Predestination says that events are a result of God's will, or a supreme being who operates outside of causality. Events are a product of many different actions and processes. People can make a difference, but that doesn't mean they are free. Those are separate issues. What you think and what you do can change how you feel or even the world. There is no reason to believe in free will. It's a superfluous idea which fails the test of Ockham's razor. We can explain everything without reference to free will. Utopianist 09:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You're wrong. Fatalism is not the same as determinism.  Classically, fatalism (e.g. the Stoics) is the view that your choices are free but irrelevant to your fate.  Act however you wish, you cannot avoid your fate.  People who conflate fatalism with determinism usually have an "ax to grind."  The oppose determinism so they like label it as "fatalism" because fatalism has more negative connotations.  The distinction between determinism and fatalism is important and shouldn;t be glossed over because one doesn't like determinism.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.239.139 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * This is the first line of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on fatalism: "Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do." The article goes on to identify three ways of arguing for fatalism, and notes that those who argue for causal determinism often forgo the term "fatalism" in favor of "determinism."  This does not change the fact, however, that determinism in this sense is a species of fatalism.  This could be made clearer in our article, but the current lack of clarity does not change the facts.  Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've read many of your writings and have gotten a good prospective of your opintions. Please excuse my bad spelling... now I will tell you on how I've preceved fatalism [note] these hyoposisis of mine could possibly be wrong or could be misunderstude. The way I precive life as a fatalist is that life IS a jail sentance. The more years you live here on earth alive says how bad your crime was before you were born into this world... maybe in some kind of past life... It's unknown to me what REALLY happens to you when you die. From what infomation I've gathered, when you are born, the lenght of your life here on earth alive is the number of years you were sentenced to. For example let's say you live for 74 years and then die, that means you had a 74 year sentance. The word "sentance" refers to a jail sentance. The same sentance you would recive for commting a crime on this planet. The way, time, and the amount of pain you feel when you die usally tells you how bad your crime was in a possible past life. To die and come bad from the dead and tell people about where you go when you die is forbidden. Those who some how manage to die and come back form the dead and tell everone where and what happens to you when you die is stickly forbidden. The punishment for doing just that is unknown to me, but I'm guessing its prolbly very harsh. The term to discribe imformation you would possibly bring back from the dead is simpliy called "THE FORBIDDEN KNOWLAGE" There is rumored to be one "person" who did die and come back from the dead... Jesus Christ as noted in one of the many copies of the bible. But as far as I know he didn't tell anyone about the forbidden knowlage. Also if you are "sent" or born on earth, leaving here before your sentence is up is punishable by being reborn here the earth again. Porposly leaving or comminting suiside is a very bad and shamful escape form life. This is punishable by a full jail sentance and a slow, long, and very painful death. If you stop and take a look at your own body you will notice many things. 1. You can feel emotions which can cause a large amount of disconfert. 2. you can feel pain in many many different forms 3. almost every materalistic thing on the earth can hurt of kill you 4. many things in your life can happen to you or people that you love that can also cause you phyiscal and emotional pain 5. you could possibly be born or have some kind of cercumstance in you life that would give you somekind of handiecapp [note] I am not saying that its wrong or bad to have a handiecapp Think of your body of yours as a jail cell, and in that jail cell could possibly be your essents or your soul.

for more information contact me at joker8of8fate@yahoo.com

Fatalism and logic.
I am a disgruntled fatalist. It is my belief that the present is the only possible present, and that there isn't any other present there could be. I believe in one future or 'fate'. I believe that the past governs our future directly.

Aristotle said that: If it is fated for you to recover from your illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not. Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so even if you call a doctor. So, calling a doctor makes no difference.

What Aristotle didn't get into this is that whether or not your fated to recover, your fate also dictates whether you get a doctor or not.

Excuse my disjointed explanation.

Here's what leads me towards fatalism. Let's look at how to find the area of a square. B*H=A. Base times heighth equals area. Simple enough. This is never wrong. Base times heighth is always area. No matter what. If it's not the area then your square is screwed up, not the formula. And chances are that there's a formula for every shape possible in the second dimension. We might not know the formula, but it exists. Let's take this to the third dimension. Add width into our square equation and you have another infallible theory. Let's stray away from that for a bit and talk about something else. Suppose I take a piece of paper and write 3+X=5. I send it to a bank in Sweden and lock it away forever. I then shoot myself and everyone that knew about the paper. Because noone can solve our locked equation doesn't mean that it isn't answerable. Whether or not people find that piece of paper the answer is still X=2. What if X didn't equal 2? Then the universe and all reality would disapear. You see, reality is like a roman arch. Take out one mathematical law and the whole thing tumbles. If three plus two didn't make five than something is wrong with the formula, not the numbers. I wrote the numbers down. They are defenite. But maybe addition isn't addition and there are factors here that we don't know. That's when we get to my Swedish bank account. Whether or not we know the formula for something it's there, and whether or not we can measure things exactly, they weigh as much as they weigh. Here's what we have.

1.) Mathematics is a pure language. 2.) Whether or not we can solve a problem there is a defenite answer and no other answer is possible. 3.) Whether or not we measure something it still is just as much as it is. 4.) There is an equation for everything, whether we know it or not it is still there. 5.) It is impossible to measure every variable.

Next little part of my godless existance is chemistry. We can break things down into atoms. Let's say that we take some flourine (a set amount) and put it with some other reactant chemical (of another defenite amount). We can guess pretty damn acuratly at what'll happen, down to how much pressure is let off. And if we get it wrong then that's because something wrong with our formulas or measurements. Sound like something else?

So physics is math. Break things down to the smallest unit possible. Things act in a certain way because that's the only way they can act. Whether or not we know every variable they're still there. So let's say I drop a rock on my foot. It's falling in a certain place. We might not be able to tell exactly where it'll fall, but we can get damn close. Damn close isn't good enough for reality though. Look up at my roman arch metaphor. The answer must be exact, fate doesn't round to the nearest tenth.

Let's put a lot of this together. Let's say I go to a simple math class and give them this problem. "Chicago is 100 miles from Detroit. A train leaves Detroit for Chicago at 9:00 and is going 30mph. At 9:45 a train leaves Chicago and travels towards Detroit at 40mph. Where will the trains pass? When will they pass?" the little mans would hop to it and give me an answer. But let's say that it's a windy day. I have the same problem but want to give it to some advanced physics students. I say that there's a 20mph easterly wind. They can crack the numbers and give me an answer. It'll be more precise than what the math kids gave me. Why? Because they know more variables. Remember my Swedish bank thingy? Whether or not we know the problem there is a definate answer. So let's say we actually take two trains and do that. The physics kids will be pretty close to right, but they won't be completely right. Why? Because they didn't have all of the variables.

Butterfly effect, a butterfly on one side of the world can cause a hurricane on the other.

So that means that there is an almost infinite amount of variables. Notice the word almost. Matter is only so big, and no matter how big it is it's a finite number. So there are a set amount of variables, they're just so staggering that no one can even comprehend how many they are. But look at our Swedish bank. We don't know all of the variables, but they're still there. We don't know the all of the formulas to put the variables in, but they're still there. And besides, if we break things down to the smallest pieces possible then we have nice round numbers, just a hell of a lot more variables. But whether or not we can solve this impossible math equation doesn't matter because there's still a definate answer.

Fate doesn't mean that we can see the future. It says that there is no 'if', and that there is nothing possible but what is.

So we have an impossibly big math equation just for these two trains. Now let's say we punch everything into our calculator. Put existance into the perfect calculator and you get fate. And because whether we can measure it or not doesn't matter. Whether we know what to do with the numbers or not doesn't matter either.

The only holes in this argument are me giving a bad explanation, and faith. We can fix the first one, just send me all of your questions. The second one is a little trickier though. It boils down to the question "Is there more to existance than reality?" No one knows, but all facts point towards "No." Why? Because that grayish brain of yours is still a physical thing, and thus must follow these impossible equations

So, Aristotle, there is no choice of choosing a doctor or not in the first place. It doesn't matter. Either you'll get a doctor or you won't. And whatever happens is fated to happen

The only viable argument that I've found with this theory is positive thinking. And pesimists are more often confused with realists than optimists are.

 * 1. What you are talking about sounds like determinism, not fatalism.
 * 2. Premise 4 (there is an equation for everything) is unproven. It is how we explain almost everything in science, but that doesn't mean everything can be explained in science. There is good reason to think this is false because some things appear to be irreducible. Searle's Chinese room argument concludes that you can't get sematics from syntax. Is he wrong?
 * 3. What is the equation for the creation of the universe? Why would the universe exist instead of not exist? Any explanation for this will fail. The creation of the universe required energy, but where did it come from? We could assume the universe always existed, but entropy seems to make that impossible.
 * 4. The fact that something is physical does not mean it is reducible (to mathmatics). --dragonlord 05:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

(To be read along the second bullet point above)Also see David Hume's Italic textTreatise On Human Nature'Italic text for a discussion on the limits of inductive reasoning in regards to causation. This will cause some problems for your belief in Science as having all the answers. Lastly, 'science' counts against your deterministic beliefs since quantum physics has found the movement of the smallest parts of the make up of atoms to be utterly indetermined. Tommy

 * Fatalism and determinism rely on the same premises, that events are inevitable and unalterable. However, determinists believe they can predict the future with enough information. They don't say everything is predictable. Quantum indeterminacy and uncertainty show there are things we can't predict. That doesn't prove that we're free, however. It also doesn't prove a truly random event. Just because we can't understand something or predict it doesn't prove that it's free or random.

 * In regards to your question of why the universe exists, my answer is that void implies existence (positive and negative). It has been proved that positive and negative particles are created from nothing all the time. The void implies all possible universes. That is why things exist, rather than not exist. Because zero implies -1 and +1, -2 and +2, etc. The energy to create the universe can be spontaneously created from nothing, just like quantum virtual particles. Utopianist 09:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't like fatalism. I wrote this sentence; was that predetermined? I culd have made a speling error. Was that predetermined?""The answer is obviously yes, even if you did it deliberately. Anyone who believes or claims anything to the contrary has either not understood the issue or is dishonest. I don't mean to morally judge such people, the vast majority of humanity, in any way. That would undermine the philosophical view I embrace.

Among the small minority of people who seem to understand determinism and infer proper fatalism (not the Aristotelian idle-argument) from it, there is again a minority who actually likes fatalism. Most people do not like fatalism at all. I'm very puzzled at this, since fatalism is not hard to understand and also has some very positive aspects to it. In my opinion, peace of mind depends on accepting reality as it is, including the unalterable reality of all past and future actions of everyone of us. But how am I to accept it if I'm convinced things could really have been different? Only the conviction that things could not have been different at all -- fatalism -- provides a theoretical framework for unconditional acceptance. This means theoretical freedom from guilt and anger, although such reactions are often very entrenched and hard to get rid of altogether (which some say would constitute spiritual enlightenment).

- I completely agree with you, aside from where you say "my godless existance"; I fully accept fatalism and all theory surrounding it HOWEVER I would not say that this should lead one to believe there wasn't (or even isn't) a 'God'. In my view 'God' should be looked at as the force that brought something from nothing. The cause of the first, and LAST truely random event: the creation of the universe. I don't know enough about creation theory to make detailed analysis, however the 2 elements that 'started' the universe could easily be looked at as the God-Devil metaphor maybe?

Here's a quote from Einstein:

"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein

- posted by mookid on 27th feb 2006

 * The void created something from nothing. We don't need to posit the concept of God, any more than we need to posit the concept of free-will or chance. The void implies all possible universes. It is proven that positive and negative quantum virtual particles are created from nothing all the time. We can go from that to the idea that the whole universe is just one of infinite possible universes. In the beginning, there was the void. "And then nothing turned itself inside out." Utopianist 08:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As an Objectivist who simply reads these articles to laugh at their clear irrationality I say that the topic of this discussion is a contradiction. Fatalism is entirely opposed to logic. Please, please read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand70.151.125.19 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

 * Even if fatalism is illogical, it still deserves an article. Or were you just spouting off? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Einstein did not accept quantum dynamics. Quantum electrodynamics shows us,in simplest form,that we know 4% of light is reflected off of one flat surface of one side of a piece of glass, but we can never know which individual photons they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevequark (talk • contribs) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Revamp...
I am not an expert on fatalism, but I feel this article could be drasitcally edited. I am thinking of elaborating a bit on what fatalism is, move the "idle argument" to it's own page, and talk more about fatalism and less about the examples associated with it. What does everyone think? Any helpers? --Kevin L. 03:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Please, do. We need to get rid of this clown (Peter D Jones) who keeps hijacking the whole article with the straw-man "idle argument" and saying it doesn't matter what you do. That is not fatalism at all. Fatalism is the belief in only one possible past, present, and future. Every thing that happens is inevitable, unalterable, fixed, predetermined... I don't see the idle-argument as a justification for fatalism or a conclusion of belief in fatalism. It has more in common with Defeatism, and Divine Predestination. The strict definition of fatalism does not imply that human actions are pointless or that things just happen, outside of causality - as this author continually asserts. He is posting a biased concept of fatalism. Utopianist 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Dragon Lord
That still isn't fatalism. I think you're confusing your definition of fatalism with certain aspects of determinism. The determinists on naturalism.org, (who are extremely well researched and thought-provoking, give excellent explanations of determinism and provide a great way to live meaningful, moral lives while relinquishing free will. They argue that free will isn't a necessary illusion like some people believe.) would vehemently disagree with you.

Then again you wrote that about 5 months, but I just wanted to say my piece.

 * I would have to agree with you that what User:Dragonlord reffered to was in fact determinism rather than fatalism, in the belief that all events, including human action, are pre-determined and that this world is the only world that could have formed. However, a question that this provoked me to ask is; can certain fatalists believe in free will, yet also hold the belief that a person's choices are so inconsequential that no matter what they do, thier decisions cannot alter their fate? I ask this because, if so, it seems as though there should be a mention on this page that where determinism and libertarian free will are mutually exclusive, that may not be the case for fatalism. (Note that I do not hold the aforementioned viewpoint, I simply want to bring into question whether or not the reltionship between fatalism and free will should be mentioned.) 66.24.229.233 01:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Fatalism and free will are incompatible. People can't choose anything. This doesn't mean we can't change anything. We can change our minds. We can influence other people. We can do things. Fatalism doesn't imply defeatism or feeling that events just "happen." There are some things we can't change, but we can undermine them or disengage from them. Those who oppose fatalism mostly misunderstand it. There is nothing depressing or negative about accepting that events are inevitable. Utopianist 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Would editors please refrain from deleting material they personally disagree with, and from inserting their own opinions in line with the normal WP:OR policy. If you think something on the page is wrong, find a reliable source to back up your claim.1Z 00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The idle argument is a straw-man. It doesn't represent what real fatalists believe. It should be deleted entirely. No rational fatalist would argue that human action has no effect on reality. The main feature of fatalism is denial of free will and chance. Your information should be deleted and will, no matter how many times you post it. Get your head out of your ass, peter d jones. You don't understand fatalism at all, and using straw-men arguments just makes you look silly. cal

 * I didn't write that argument in this page, or originally. It is on the page because it has long featurd in discussion of the subject. It is not a-my-opinion-versus-your-opinion issue, it is an opinion-versus-fact issue. If you can find citations to prove that your version of fatlaism is more correct, you can amend the page accordingly. Otherwise not. 1Z 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The problem is that you deep-link within the article and emphasize ONE argument for fatalism, which has long been discredited and criticized by real fatalists. The idle-argument is a straw-man, and it doesn't deserve to be emphasized as if it has anything to do with fatalism. In fact, it is inconsistent with the definition of fatalism and the first paragraph of the Stanford article. This should not be emphasized like it is, dominating the whole article.

 * If you can cite a verifiable source supporting your version of what "real fatalists" think,you can add it to

the page. But the relevance of the Idle Argument is already supported, so it should not be removed.1Z 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Your statement that fatalists believe in defeatism is also contentious and not relevant to the issue of fatalism. Please stop posting contradictory information. YOu cite an article that says in the first paragraph fatalism is the belief that all events are inevitable, but you say instead that fatalists believe you might as well not DO anything, because whatever happens TO YOU is fate. That's a distortion of what fatalism means and you know it. Deep-linking proves that you are trying to give a distorted picture of fatalism. Just link to the beginning of the article and let people read for themselves. You should not emphasize an ancient discredited argument. Utopianist 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not "my" statement. 1Z 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with anonymous. From the first source, SEP, "Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other that what we actually do." This does not mean that "actions are pointless and ineffectual in determining events," as this article current says, but merely that when we determine events, we cannot determine them any other way. The idle argument is a defeatist attitude possibly resulting from fatalism; it is not an argument for fatalism, but "a corollary of the conclusion," as Aristotle says in that source. These misinterpretations appear to violate WP:NOR. Pomte 06:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You may not like these interpretations, but it is a historical fact that they have been made and that is justification for referring to them in an encyclopedia article.1Z 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Those arguments have been discredited and ignored by real fatalists, they are not necessary to fit the definition of fatalism in the dictionary, and they are so flimsy as to be straw-men. You are emphasizing those arguments and views, which are not essential to fatalism, and saying that's what fatalism is all about. Saying that action and deliberation are pointless is NOT the same as saying that events are inevitable and people can only act the way they DO act. Whoever put forth the idle argument apparently didn't understand fatalism or believe in it. It's a straw-man. There are vastly more compelling arguments for fatalism, and esp dismissing the idea of free-will. Utopianist 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Explain where you are getting your information about "real fatalists".1Z 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Exactly. All that talk about "truth" is also meaningless and irrelevant. Peter D Jones obviously has a biased agenda and he is not describing fatalism accurately. Any dictionary refutes him. I do not see defeatism as a corollary to fatalism or a consequence of it. Fatalism means accepting the way things are, were, and will be, because that's the only way they could have been. It doesn't say "human deliberation and action is pointless and ineffectual." Fatalism doesn't imply sitting by and letting things happen. That's defeatism, plain and simple. Utopianist 09:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "All that talk about "truth" is also meaningless and irrelevant".

 * It is mentioned in the SEP artivle by professional phuloosphers. What is your authority?1Z 20:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Philosophy is frequently nonsensical, arguing that we can learn about reality based on word games and semantics. All we learn from that is the structure of language, or a tautology. The whole argument that if God knows the future, then it's inevitable, is a fallacy. Knowledge or prediction does not imply inevitability. Utopianist 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * That is clearly your personal POV. You have no right to amend the article to match. 1Z 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "I do not see defeatism as a corollary to fatalism or a consequence of it".

 * What you "see" is your own personal POV. It does not entitle you to remove other POV's from the article. If you think the article is unbalanced, add material putting forward the other POV, don't censor what is there.1Z 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It's a neutral POV. Find me some fatalists who say the idle argument is a credible reason for believing in fatalism. You deep-linked the article at Stanford and created a very distorted idea of the idle argument's importance and relevance. Read the first paragraph and inform your views based on the basic definition of fatalism. The idle-argument is a straw man. It does not follow from the basic definition of fatalism that one believe it's pointless to DO anything or THINK about anything. The idle argument is not a credible justification of fatalism. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone else who endorses it. In fact, it's easy to find arguments that debunk it. Utopianist 23:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "It's a neutral POV."

 * Obviously not, since some people disagree.1Z 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * If these interpretations are indeed historical consensus, please cite sources in support. Take another claim, "Fatalists think that even if you could change the present or the past, the future would still be the same." Why would fatalists even consider that you could change the present/past in the first place? If they did assume that, then they would have to grant the spontaneity of the future as well. Please provide reliable sources that fatalism is as forward-looking as this sentence claims. All content should be WP:NPOV. You have just admitted that your additions are POV, so adding opposite POVs won't help. It is policy to "censor" POV. The lack of reliable sources is key here. The onus is not on others to find sources to disprove you, but on you to back up your content. Pomte 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "Please cite sources in support".

 * The sources in the original article supported the claim,

 * The article at Stanford says "Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do." That is hardly consistent with your contentious definition of fatalism. You are over-emphasizing one discredited argument and its conclusions. The idle-argument is not a necessary component of fatalism. It's ONE argument out of hundreds. In fact, it has very little in common with the strict definition of fatalism as believing that events are inevitable. You should not emphasize the idle argument as if it's the definitive argument or conclusion of fatalism. It's merely a straw-man or tangential issues to the topic of fatalism. Utopianist 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "Why would fatalists even consider that you could change the present/past in the first place"

 * Not relevant. The antecdent of a hypothetical propostion does not have to be true.

 * Fatalists believe that the past, present, and future are inevitable. That does not mean they believe human action or deliberation is irrelevant and pointless, as you have suggested. That is obviously your own POV, because it contradicts the source cited at Stanford. I'm a fatalist and I don't believe that human action is irrelevant, because things will HAPPEN, "despite causality" to use your words. That is a contentious definition of and argument for fatalism. It's a tangential issue to fatalism and a misguided straw man. Utopianist 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not "my" suggestion. You have still not explained why your statements about the beliefs of fatalists are more authorative than those of professional philosophers.1Z 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You have just admitted that your additions are POV,

 * No. And all I have added is a paragraph emphasising soemthign that was already impplicit. I did not write the original article.

 * What you have emphasized is not implicit to fatalism or the original article. It's ONE argument and has been widely discredited by fatalist and non-fatalist philosophers. Deep-linking an article about fatalism shows that your position is biased. You should start with the agreed on definition of fatalism from a dictionary, then start at the BEGINNING of the article, not deep-link into it. The beginning of the Stanford article completely brushes aside arguments based on science and says it's only going to discuss logical or metaphysical arguments. The first paragraph of that article is also inconsistent with the idea that human action and deliberation is pointless. That is not a necessary argument for fatalism or a conclusion of it. Utopianist 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * "You have just admitted that your additions are POV, so adding opposite POVs won't help."

 * NPOV means citing all POV's with significant support, so it does help.

 * The orginal article was appropriately sourced.1Z 21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Deep-linking is not an appropriate means of citing a source. Writing 5 paragraphs about one straw man argument and some obscure philosophical issues is a distortion of the whole topic. It's not at all neutral or appropriately sourced. I suggest you read up on fatalism and tone down considerably any talk about the idle-argument, which is NOT a necessary or implied component of fatalism. Utopianist 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The second revision of the 15th of Feb was had appropriate external refs, it ws not "deep linked".1Z 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Towards an Understanding of Fatalism
Here is my justification for fatalism. "We can't change the past. We can't change the present. The future hasn't happened. It's nonsensical to say that we can "change" the future. Human actions and deliberation have important effects, but we can't show that they involve free will. It's easier to assume that everything is inevitable. Free will is superfluous." Utopianist 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you for sharing your personal beliefs, And for keeping them out of the article.1Z 14:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

by P. Roman
in the absence of religion, human beings attempt to answer what they cannot answer by stating that what is was always determined to be, and what will be will be because it was fated to be. kind of a circular argument. even though human existence cannot escape its limitations of space and time, does not mean we have no free will. does anyone think evolution affirms free will? the idea that human beings have no free will is a good way to control the unwashed masses. Human beings do have free will by virtue of our intellectual birth.

Theological fatalism
I'm not sure if you'd want to merge these necessarily, but they are obviously related (and did not link to one another). --24.57.157.81 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * These views are related and they should definitely be linked to one another. I don't think it matters whether they are merged. Do you think it would really help people to tie these ideas together that closely? I don't see why, but I could be missing something. I also suspect, having looked at the talk pages, that combining the two pages will lead to extensive and unhelpful discussions - but maybe this isn't relevant. Anarchia 10:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

French wikipedia article
The article on fatalism on the french wikipedia (entitled 'fatalisme') is labelled as an "article de qualité" - I'm a novice at this stuff so what I want to know is how do I go about using it as a source/shamelessly copying it? Julian Roberts 08:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Free will, morality, and such
People do what is inevitable. Tell a Christian to start sinning... or to stop sinning, for that matter. If they say they care about a chance – about indeterministic, random, fatal events – then it is a gigantic lie... Everything has value only because of what it causes: that their moral determination has effects is the only reason it was ever introduced – and the only reason to keep it.

(Let's take deterministic brain as the starting point. Now, if you add some randomness to this picture, what actually does it change? Of course, you can say that the true thing is beyond materialistic world etc., but still -- what does it change?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.115.47.252 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Famous Fatalists?
I don't know much about the subject and came to the page to look for possible philosophers or just famous people that were fatalists. Do none exist? If there are any I think it would be fitting to list them, or if none adhere to the belief at least put philosophers names that developed the idea. 207.255.62.9 (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See also recent entry (entries) on the talk page of Theological fatalism.

77.114.107.233 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bell's Theorem and the Aspect Experiment
In particular, it would be nice if someone included a section on Bell's Theorem and the Aspect experiment on the topic of fatalism. It is well accepted within the Physics community based on Bell's Theorem and the subsequent violation found when tested that bivalence of future propositions MUST be rejected.

Including this under "The logical argument" would be nice. I would do it myself, but I don't have enough eloquence with words to portray how the violation of Bell's Theorem necessitates the reject of bivalence (as it pertains to future events) Eluusive (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
No, I'm not complaining that this section exists. I want to call attention to the drastic lack of evidence for the claims in the IPC section. These are broad statements about the natures of several fictional characters with no sourcing or evidence. One of them, about the character Tweak from South Park, is phrased as outright conjecture. Unless some of this can be shown to be more than conjecture, I don't think it belongs. It's rare, but I'm currently on the side of voting for this section to be removed. I'll leave most of it untouched until it's discussed, but I'm going to remove the Tweak statement immediately. 207.178.110.153 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would second a motion to scrap or extensively revise most of this section. It appears to have been written predominantly by one person, as a lot of it is expressed through categorical modality, which really isn't appropraite given that most of the statements are interpretations of fictional material. I can't say I'm familiar with the majority of the examples given (some of which seem fine, albeit lacking evidential material or sources), but two of the examples I do know need revision: The Matrix and Donnie Darko. The former is expressed incorrectly; fair enough, Morpheus probably is a fatalist, but it would be better expressed by saying something along the lines of 'Morpheus believes in a fatalist prophecy'. The latter example is just terrible; firstly, you just cannot say a literary text is 'about' a certain type of interpretation. You could say, for example, 'Donnie Darko is about a teenage boy' because that is factual, but stating 'Donnie Darko is about fatalism' is terrible phrasing. Secondly, to me the film expresses the complete opposite to fatalism; (SPOILER WARNING) Donnie goes back in time to die so that the girl he becomes involved with after that date doesn't get killed, which happens as a direct result of their being together. I'm no philosophy-whizz, but that seems to express Donnie's reliance upon causal logic as a means to save the girl and I always thought fatalism and causality were like binary opposites (correct me if I'm wrong, however). The Coj (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed Section on Modern Science
I read this today, and noticed there were no citations to any sources (not to mention the lack of reliable sources.) Thus, I have removed the section. This sentence particularly troubled me: "Philosophers who write the idea off with arguments that stem from the arbitrary dictates of human reason should educate themselves further on the tragedy of modern science." Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I wrote the section on modern science and was expecting it to be eliminated. There aren't any reliable sources to back this up for a few reasons. The major reason is that nobody has ever really thought about it in those terms before (there are several extant texts discussing the current mutual level of ignorance that philosophers and scientists have of each other) and the secondary reason is that fatalism in these terms completely contradicts the concept of free will that developed in western thought during the enlightenment, which despite arguments to the contrary is largely a reformulation of biblical concepts using classical methods. To argue in favour of fatalism in this manner would be to completely abandon our philosophical heritage as meaningless bickering. It may sound extreme, and from a philosopher's perspective it may even be frightening, but advances in 20th century physics actually necessitate precisely this. The logical proof against fatalism is correct; experimental evidence proves that logic is useless in understanding the universe.

 * It's very frustrating for a philosopher to conceive of the idea of fatalism. Yet, many physicists have difficulty with it. How did free will arise? Let me take a step back.

 * Consider a lifeless universe, which was of course the state of the universe before life evolved. I don't think an argument is necessary to demonstrate that such a universe would be wholly fatalist. Without intelligence, there is no choice - illusory or not. So, there's obviously only one way that it could possibly arise. Probabilistic arguments do not suggest indeterminacy; probability theory is a tool in determining determinacy when it is unclear what the precise factors actually are.

 * If you wish to prove that humans have free will, you'll therefore need to find a scientific mechanism that proves that free will can arise out of a fatalist universe, which would be very difficult because it is a contradiction in terms.

 * You will not find a physics textbook that discusses the concept of free will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2010

Bias
Wow this article is biased and one sided. The uncertainty principle is a mathematical proof of fatalism? If you're going to make a claim like that, you might want to explain it first. And then later on in that paragraph, it says (likely written by the same person) "Philosophers ... should educate themselves further on the tragedy of modern science." Not saying the person who typed that is right or wrong, but before we even discuss the validity of it, how about the condescending nature of such a statement? It doesn't belong on wikipedia, especially if you're not going to provide an explanation backing it up. --97.112.121.215 (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I noticed this as well while reading the article. I removed the offending section. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The reason that the uncertainty principle is a mathematical proof for fatalism is that it proves that causes can be separated from their effect; things happen for absolutely no determinable reason, which means they could not happen in any other way. This was not the conclusion initially drawn and it does remain controversial. The above logical disproof of fatalism is correct (I am a logician). However, the uncertainty principle (and the totality of modern physics in general) is also a strong argument against logic. Logic works very well in the attempt to understand numbers so long as you don't try to formally axiomatize it (see Godel) but it does not work very well in the attempt to understand the universe because we've conclusively proven that the universe does not follow the logical laws that we've arbitrarily constructed in our own minds over the last several millennia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2010

 * The Uncertainty Principle does not state that "things happen for absolutely no determinable reason", it merely states that our accuracy in measurements can never be 100%, particularly with subatomic particles (Electron orbitals for example). Thinking that the Uncertainty Principle implies that "events happen for no determinable reason" is a common misunderstanding of the principle. Furthermore, even if this were true, it would disprove fatalism, not prove it - since fatalism states that free-will could not exist due to the fact that everything is deterministic. I also doubt that you have any sort of proper credentials for your self-proclaimed title of "logician". As someone mentioned earlier on this talk page, irrefutable proof that disproves fatalism has already been formally presented years ago. "Free-will" is supposedly negated if the process it follows is deterministic and can be predicted with 100% accuracy. However, according to the Chaos Theory, it is impossible to make such measurements. Only from an objective perspective (essentially synonymous with "omniscience") could such an accurate deterministic measurement be taken. Furthermore, any information from that hypothetical 'objective perspective' would be too large to be contained within our universe; for obtaining a complete objective perspective, the energy required would be something like "The net total of all energy and matter in the universe multiplied by the speed of light cubed." Therefore, free-will exists for everyone who does not have an objective perspective (so, everyone in the known universe) - since the minds of these individuals will rely on estimating the probable outcomes of events, but never being able to determine them with certainty.--71.13.22.201 (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 * unfortunately, you have the whole thing backwards. it is thinking that the uncertainty principle merely implies a breakdown in the ability to produce accurate measurements that is the deep misunderstanding of the principle as it eliminates any possible corollaries. it's difficult to deal with, but modern physics really doesn't accept causality. i would suggest that you begin here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/ as it has a decent discussion of the situation.

 * your concept of fatalism as being deterministic is a deep misunderstanding of fatalism as well. this is what so many people on the talk page have been pointing out and why we've all been so frustrated by this article. fatalism is NOT determinism; in fact fatalism is the precise opposite of determinism. determinism suggests an ordered universe where everything occurs as the result of a series of chain reactions. fatalism suggests that things happen for absolutely no reason, cannot be modified and cannot be guided. fatalism is the view that the world operates upon a principle of pre-determined randomness. we can neither predict the future nor can we modify it. that last statement is essentially a summary of quantum physics.

 * i have deleted your unfounded personal attack. free will is a concept that is viewed with derision throughout the scientific community, despite it's acceptance in the philosophical one. just read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#In_science.

 * i'm not going to address your above philosophical "proof" because scientists and mathematicians do not accept "proof by rhetoric" as a valid proof technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010

Introductory text
I've undone the revision by 85.226.151.39 which completely replaced the introductory text with new text (including spelling error) as there was no justification cited nor apparent consensus that there was need or benefit from a change. The new summary definition of "fatalism" was a significant change. Additionally, the quotation cited was not found by Google anywhere else on the web (even with the spelling corrected) and so its authenticity is dubious when combined with the change in meaning of fatalism. StephenDawson (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounding it out.
Fatalism sounds like "Fatal Ism" correct?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Quantum flapdoodle
The uncertainty principle, or anything else from quantum mechanics, cannot prove or disprove fatalism or any other fundamental issues from philosophy. Therefore, I propose to delete the first and the third paragraphs from the Criticism section. Also note that there are no sources or references in these paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulten (talk • contribs) 12:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Stanford citation [1]
I object to the wording "philosophers usually use the word to refer to the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.[1]" in the opening description, on three counts:

1. Stanford is a highly politicized institution notorious for ideological bias and conflicts of interest in it's staff.

2. That it is the usual reference made by philosophers when using the word 'fatalist' is a subjective opinion at best. At best the statement "philsophers usually..." refers to philosophers that Stanford recognizes, which is without doubt a small subset of the philosophy fraternity. At worst it may refer only to those philosophers Stanford approves of. The task of polling the set 'philosophers' on their definition and subsequently collating would be prohibitively monumental.

3. The view quoted is ambiguous in that it may be read as suggesting that we have no influence on the future which is easily empirically falsified, thus it is unlikely that anyone holds such a view, elsewise we might expect to see fatalists everywhere, lying in gutters and so forth waiting for the end. Our very engagement in the world we perceive contradicts such a view.

At best the paragraph makes an oblique reference to the question of freewill, which I suspect few philosophers regard as being one that has been settled. I therefore propose that the statement be revised to say "some philosophers use the word..." and append "though this does not imply that we have no influence on the future".

94.194.67.172 (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC) § PxKirwani § 94.194.67.172 (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fails to distinguish itself
Although it currently has a whole section on Determinism, Fatalism, and Predestination that attempts to address how these are distinguished from each other, it fails miserably. The average reader will be as confused if not more so as to the differences after reading. The key difference/s need to be stated clearly and simply in one sentence each and in such a way that the contrast is apparent. I would recommend dividing the section into paragraphs according to type of fatalism being contrasted. Similarities should be noted here as well, just not to the extent that the contrast is hidden. As it stands, it fails to clarify where these 3 overlap as well. It also states, "Fatalism is a broader term than determinism," which is not an entirely accurate insight; it is not broader but different. It would be less misleading to say something to the effect of "what excludes determinism does not necessarily exclude fatalism." --PrincessPimpernel (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

arabic interwiki
Arabic interwiki is wrong, because arabic article "قدرية" is about the same subject as "Qadariya" and should be linked to it --Andrushinas85 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fatalism and 'space' colonisation
Could someone please provide evidence for this section? I fail to see how the conclusion is justified? Surely if it is 'willed' that colonisation should happen, why is it that 'fatalism' implies it cannot?

Idle Argument refuted?
"It is, however, a false argument because it fails to consider that those fated to recover may be those fated to consult a doctor." Is it really true? I mean is this what is (also) said at Idle Argument? Then I say it's ok, otherwise it's an unsourced statement. comp.arch (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Fatalism is not synonymous with determinism
This article says that some people take fatalism to mean determinism. However, I remember seeing a television programme where there was a determinist philosopher on who said that fatalism (which he described as a loony view) needs to be distinguished from determinism. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on determinism says "Not to be confused with fatalism". Vorbee (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fatalism


text:
Talk:Nina Serrano

Copyright Infringement?
The inclusion of a poem by the subject of the article would seem to be a copyright violation. Grika Ⓣ 00:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems highly likely that it wa inserted on her behalf, but there needs to be an explicit release. DGG (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can contact her thru KPFA and see what she has to say. Cgingold (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nina Serrano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080303083045/http://kpfa.org:80/archives/index.php?show=16 to http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?show=16

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Other links
Her collection of poems Heart Songs is linked to a collection of short stories by Annie Proulx. So, that will need changing. NT3GR8R (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't know if the Krakow, Polish International Film Festival is actually just the Krakow Film Festival.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Nina Serrano


text: Category:Little Octobrists

title: Category:Little Octobrists


text: Category:Women computer scientists

title: Category:Women computer scientists


text:
Genin

Genin may refer to:

 * Génin, a French family name
 * Genin (name), a Russian Jewish family name (Генин)
 * Robert Genin, (Russian: Роберт Генин; 1884–1941), a Russian Jewish artist
 * John Nicholas Genin (1819–1878), a hatter in New York City and sometime associate of P. T. Barnum
 * Vladimir Genin (*1958) (Russian: Владимир Михайлович Генин), a Russian-German composer, pianist and piano teacher
 * Genin, a rank of Japanese ninja
 * Genin, or aglycone, the portion of a glycoside that excludes the sugar group

title: Genin


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bung lau

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 11:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Bung lau
Neologism, doesn't google at all. Seems like just a word someone made up. Delete, don't move to wiktionary. Kappa 00:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. --Apyule 08:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia/Wiktionary are not slang dictionaries. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is a slang dictionary, but this slang is not established. Kappa 11:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree. "Dude", "Nerf" and such words are acceptable, but this is not at any rate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Vsion 02:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonverifiable. mikka (t) 18:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sidecar Brotherhood

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Sidecar Brotherhood
Zero relevent Google hits for this nn three month old cult. No mention of the number of members or any notability. Not enough to even be a hoax. Delete. Owen× ☎  00:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN cult. Formed only a few months ago. Cnwb 06:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn CLW 11:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dottore So 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jar

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Jar
None notable webcomic made by Montrose Academy, above. Shows no assertion of notability and I can't find it or its archives on Google. - Hahnchen 00:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - nn. So it had a "ravid" following, did it? Duh... CLW 11:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Dottore So 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Dragonfiend 13:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jar


text:
Talk:Hitting streak

Untitled
hey Guys what about this: Mel Almada ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambuston (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

the media is reporting that Rollins can add to his record next year. as far as i remember, hitting streaks are recorded only within one season, and do not extend into further years. however, there is nothing in the rulebook (see rule 10.24) that says a seaon's end also ends the streak.

with that said, our list here in wikipedia lists single season efforts. keeler had a hit in his last game of 1896, and then in his first 44 games of 1897. we list keeler at 44 and not at 45.

history dictates that the keeler's record was 44, not 45. when dimaggio had his streak, july 2, 1941 was the day he surpassed keeler's "all-time record." on july 31, 1978, rose tied "Keeler's 81-year-old National League record."

these sites support "44" for keeler and not "45" - ergo, these sites support that streaks are within seasons, not extended through multiple seasons:
 * http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers%5Fand%5Fhonorees/hofer%5Fbios/keeler%5Fwillie.htm
 * http://www.thebaseballpage.com/stats/lists_feats/30game_hit_streaks.htm
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/baseball/daily/march99/08/chrono08.htm
 * http://www.allsports.com/mlb/yankees/frommer14.htm
 * http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/chronology/1941JULY.stm
 * http://www.retrosheet.org//boxesetc/B07310ATL1978.htm

I bring this up because the media might hype this for all its worth. i don't know if you remember, but in the winter of 1998, the media kept repeating the "fact" that the yankees had set a record with 125 wins that season. the team won 114 in the regular season, and 11 in post season. 125? what a joke.

i contend that we keep Rollins streak at 36. Kingturtle 00:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Baseball actually keeps two separate records, for single-season streaks and multi-season streaks. I have edited the article to reflect this, listing Keeler's streak as 45 games and Rollins's as 38 (the multi-season streaks) and including an explanatory note in the text. Vidor 05:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited out the sentence about many people having come close to DiMaggio's streak, because it isn't true. No one's come within 12 games of DiMaggio. Only one person has come within 17 games of DiMaggio. Vidor 06:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Impossible really to keep a "top ten"
There are too many people tied for 33 in the National League to keep the list a "top 10;" if you include everyone with hitting streaks more than 33, it causes an imbalance (10 AL, 12 NL). I'd suggest making the list "everyone who has hit 30+ in a row," but it would add 20 more people to the list. And it seems kinda arbitrary to just make it "everyone who has hit 33+ in a row."

Any suggestions? Andy 07:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What if we don't explicitly state that it's a "top 10" list and just use wording such as "The longest streaks in the history of the American League are:". As an alternative, I'd also support setting a cutoff of 30 games. It's true we'd be expanding the list, but we have the space and players would rarely be added. Aren't I Obscure? 11:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Kind of a non-issue now that Utley has made it to 34. We do, in point of fact, have the ten longest streaks in the history of the National League listed in the article. Vidor 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Exactly what I was gonna say, heh. Andy 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

T?
is the T needed for Ties? We aren't stupid, and the # Letter combo looks silly
 * Agreed. Removed the "T".  Also--I didn't change it, but does anybody else think the little boxes that the lists are in now are really ugly? Vidor 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, why the boxes? who made that decision?

 * I agree the boxes look silly/ugly, but it makes it a lot easier for editing. The columns won't stay the way they are without the boxes, they will be all over the place, plus you have to put html tags in to have a page break. Example:

With boxes:

1.  56 - Joe DiMaggio (1941) 2.  41 - George Sisler (1922) 3.  40 - Ty Cobb (1911) 4.  39 - Paul Molitor (1987) 5.  35 - Ty Cobb (1917) 6.  34 - George Sisler (1925) 34 - George McQuinn (1938) 34 - Dom DiMaggio (1949) 9.  33 - Hal Chase (1907) 33 - Heinie Manush (1933)

Without boxes:

1.  56 - Joe DiMaggio (1941) 2.  41 - George Sisler (1922) 3.  40 - Ty Cobb (1911) 4.  39 - Paul Molitor (1987) 5.  35 - Ty Cobb (1917) 6.  34 - George Sisler (1925) 34 - George McQuinn (1938) 34 - Dom DiMaggio (1949) 9.  33 - Hal Chase (1907) 33 - Heinie Manush (1933)

As you can see, without the boxes, all sorts of html tags would need to be added, and that will get all screwed up in no time --Stillhere 13:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * There were no such tags before the edits that put them there, and the page looked just fine--in fact, much better--so I don't know why you say that. Boxes=ugly. Vidor 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't get me wrong, I agree the boxes are ugly. If you have better way to format, I will supoort getting rid of the boxes

First paragraph confusion
Higlighting added:

Games in which the player does not have any official at bats are ignored (neither break the streak nor add to the streak). If a player has a sacrifice fly, but no hits, even if the player had no official at bats, the streak is over. Joe DiMaggio holds the major league record for the longest hitting streak with 56 straight games with a hit in 1941. [1]

This seems to be very confusing. Is this supposed to say that if a player doesn't come up to bat, the streak is still going, but if he makes a plate appearance, then the streak can end? Cjosefy 14:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The rule is kind of confusing. There are several ways a batter can come to the plate but not be charged with an official at-bat.  He can walk, he can be hit by a pitch, he can make a sacrifice bunt, or he can make a sacrifice fly.  If a batter with a hitting streak has a game where all of his plate appearances are walks, hit by pitch, and/or bunts, then the game is ignored for streak purposes.  However, if a player has a sacrifice FLY, the game is NOT ignored--he must also get a hit, or the streak is snapped.  It's a strange little rule dating back to the questionable convention of not charging an at-bat for a sacrifice fly.  The no at-bat on a sac fly rule, BTW, has not always been in place, and was not in place in 1941 when DiMaggio had his streak.  I will try and clarify the verbiage. Vidor 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The idea was certainly that a streak should not be terminated unless the player had at least one chance to extend it. A team couldn't stop an opponent's hitting streak by intentionally walking him four times.  They might have said "A streak shall only be terminated in a game where a batter makes at least one out at bat" and added "a sacrifice fly shall be considered an out for this purpose."  Then again, they'd have to note that safe-on-error was also an out, so this construction would be nearly as bad. WHPratt (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This came in to play a day or so ago when Derek Jeter's streak was kept alive despite making 4 plate appearances (3 walks and a HBP). I know this adds nothing to the discussion but it was an interesting quirk to the whole streak

I too was confused by the first paragraph. Vidor, I think you explanation was very good. Do you think you could revise it to add your clarification on what an "official at-bat" is?

 * If what happened to Jeter had happened to Dimaggio, Dimaggio's streak would have been over under the old rules. So I added that to the introduction.

 * Do you have a copy of the rules from 1941? I'm almost certain that there was no official rule about hitting streaks in the 1941 rulebook.  Maybe some people would've considered it to be broken if DiMaggio went 0-for-0 with 4 walks, I don't think it necessarily would have ended the streak.  In those cases, we tend to apply the modern rule to the years where no rule existed (thus, DiMaggio would get the current rule applied to him).  So unless it was in the 1941 rule book, DiMaggio's streak wouldn't have ended.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.213.73 (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The rule book did not contain anything about hitting streaks until the 1970s, so there is no way to say that DiMaggio's streak certainly would have ended if he had gone 0-for-0 with 4 walks. The first rules in the 1970s likely just followed the standard convention of the time before rules (ie, 0-for-0 with walks would not end a streak).  Whatever source was so sure that the streak would end is likely incorrect.  Either way, it's by no way certain enough to list it at the top of the page.--Trent McCotter, SABR Records Committee (V. Chairman)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.250.95 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The exception may indeed have been defined as late as the 1970s, probably because nobody had given it any thought. (If some team had intentionally walked DiMaggio every time in a game, I suspect that the issue would have been dealt with back then.) I seem to remember that somewhere in that time frame, Ron Santo of the Cubs had a hitting streak of about 25 games, but someone pointed out that said streak began after a game in which he went hitless but had no official at-bats, and if that game didn't count, his streak would be a couple of games longer. As I recall, the league office ruled that the zero at-bat game did not count and Ron's streak was lengthened, but the very same day he had a genuine oh-fer, so the final number was of minor interest after all.  If you're curious enough, look for Santo's longest hitting streak and the discussion surrounding it. WHPratt (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * User:kingturtle insists on removing the fact that Dimaggiio's streak was under stricter rules, saying it is not relevant. I wonder why it is not relevant in an article on hitting streak, and where it would be relevant.  This article is where people who are interested in the details of the statistics and rule changes regarding hitting streaks would come to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.178.36 (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1941 All Star Game
Why wasn't DiMaggio's hits in the All Star game in '41 counted in the streak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrl101 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 * only regular season games (ie, NOT all-star games nor postseason games nor spring training games) count towards streaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.213.73 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * ASG, Post Season and Pre Season are not included on official stats, that said, games that are called before the 3rd out of the 5th inning and not re-started would not count, either. --Ryanjcole (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Major League Baseball records by Franchise
I can't figure out what order this is in. Can someone clarify and maybe add a comment in the text? If it's not in any order at all, what order should it be put into? Matchups 03:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Team city (which changes)
 * Team nickname (which changes, though less frequently)
 * Team record streak
 * Other?

Ambiguous definition
It's a shame that "hitting streak" has come to mean "consecutive games in which a player in the lineup records at least one hit". Does anyone know what the MLB record is for actually consecutive hits recorded in at-bats? For example, Miguel Cabrera just concluded a streak of 9 consecutive at-bats where he recorded a hit (which is considerable for him, because he is not the type to be running out any infield singles). - 73.0.202.166 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

——— The article … List of Major League Baseball individual streaks … has items such as … Consecutive plate appearances with a hit •12 (2 tied) o	Johnny Kling, Chicago Cubs – August 24 through 28, 1902 o	Walt Dropo, Detroit Tigers – July 14 and 15, 1952 There's a link to it as Individual streaks under Other in the last item on the page. I'll grant you that this article could benefit from a more prominent referral. Having no clue as to where to look, I searched Wikipedia for "Walt Dropo" as I knew he'd be there!

WHPratt (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hitting streak


text: Category:German military stubs

title: Category:German military stubs


text:
Category:Non-free images of art

This category comprises copyrighted, unlicenced works of art for which non-free use is claimed.

title: Category:Non-free images of art


text:
User:Bratsche/Archive03

'''This is an archive. Please do not post here, but on my talk page. Thank you.'''

About my RfA
Hi Bratsche. You chose to be neutral on my RfA, but I appreciate the fact that you made your concerns public. I just would like to assure you that I will still work my best on Wikipedia, in order to prove wrong any fears you may still have about me. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 08:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Requesting comments on template alteration
Hello. I see you are using one or more of the User instruments templates in your Babel box. Inspired by some recent developments, I want to rework all the templates in there (including ones used on user pages), to make them more like the regular Babel templates. However, I thought I should hear from the people this would affect before actually doing it. Please weigh in at User:Ddawson/User instruments. Ddawson 10:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection on Combat ration
You did a protect on this page back in early August, and the protect has not been dropped by anybody else. I don't know how to do a general attention to all mods, so this is the only way I could think to try and fix this. Donovan Ravenhull 00:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I could pay attention that request unprotection link on the page. Sorry.  Donovan Ravenhull 00:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

ulayiti's RfA
Hi Ben, and thanks for your support and the kind words you left at my RfA. I'm an administrator now, and I hope that I'll live up to the community's expectations as one. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. - ulayiti (talk)  16:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Image License
Hello, as you are a member of the Image copyright tag team (no pun intended), I was wondering if you could help me choose a tag for some images I have received permission to place here.

I have received permission to use two logos from Southern Utah University. The grantor only indicated that I could use them here and did not specify any limitations. I have written back to the grantor to concerning which tag should be used and expect a response, but until then I was hoping I could get these marks on the SUU page, with appropriate tags.

Other that, the only guidelines I have found come from here, where it says:

As with the Wordmark, the Birdmark may not be altered in any way. Also, the trademark (TM) symbol must appear in all usages of the Birdmark and its secondary marks.

The Birdmark image contains the trademark symbol, and I assume (in good faith, of course) that it is understood that the image would be placed in a template, as I gave other university articles (with templates) as examples.

I'm thinking that PermissionAndFairUse might be the best one, though currently I have selected logo for both. If there is a better one please let me know.

Thanks for your help

– moogle 00:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

your sig
I think you need to close that color tag.Geni 10:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * true but for some reason you sig tured the whole of AN/I orange.Geni 07:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey there!
Hi Bratsche,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. Reading it made me feel a lot better! :-) Thanks again. --HappyCamper 18:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week, especially from users whose edits I respect as much as yours. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 23:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --Angr/undefined 22:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sony Mavica copyvio
Hi Bratsche,

The article acquired the copyvio in August. All reversions prior to that are copyvio-free (or, at least not copied from the source that you gave). I've deleted the article and restored all the older versions. I also noted this on WP:CP. I've been bold because I hate to see a perfectly good article buried under a copyvio tag just because someone inserted a paragraph of copyvio text recently.

Greetings, grm_wnr Esc  22:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Deleting certain revisions means deleting the whole article, then going to Special:Undelete/, ticking the little boxes of all revisions that are good, and then hitting undelete. The "bad" revisions will stay deleted, the rest will be back. Of course, this is only fun with articles that have a relatively short history =) -- grm_wnr Esc  02:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

hola
hey. sorry to bug you w/ one 9800 syntax questions, but how do you use superscript in a raw signature and then get the time stamp to come out in regular script? I put a  on there put it doesn't work. what th dilly? thankz, dzzno logic2 04:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC) see?

 * gracias. you kick copious amounts of ass. dzzno logic2 23:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright tags
Hi there. Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could help me. I noticed that you were one of the people who tags images. I tagged some yesterday as no source, two of which were uploaded by Milena Popovic. They're cartoons of herself, made with South Park Studio Today, she left me a message saying that she didn't know what image tag to use. I don't know either. All it says on the South park Studio Page is that you're allowed to use the images for personal use e.g. avatars, etc. It also says if you want to use them on you homepage to put a link to South Park Studio (Do Wikipedia user pages count as a home page?) Oh, and to get the image you have to take a screenshot :) Can you help me? Thanks.--Shanel 19:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks so much for your help! If I knew what type of barnstar to give you, you'd have one right now. :)--Shanel 22:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Here you go :)

 * You did way more work than I did. I think I should be the one thanking you! :D--Shanel 23:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your support in my recent RFA! All those extra buttons might not be a big deal, but getting all this positive feedback sure is, please let me know if you have any problems or comments regarding how I use all these shiny new levers and cranks! Rx StrangeLove 00:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Problematic solutions?
I've recorded some of my thoughts and ideas about problems within Wikipedia, and some possible solutions here. I'd like your thoughts, and whether or not you think I'm crazy. Thanks.--Scimitar parley 18:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Curious
I only actually did the eggplant thing with the Extreme lesbian support thing once or twice. The extreme lesbian support thing is a joke from the 6th vfd of the GNAA article. Someone voted with "Extreme lesbian (whatever)", and I liked it. So I use it occasionally. Interestingly, if you do a google search for "extreme lesbian support", my votes come up... :D As for the wikistress, meh. My birthday lowered it a bit, and I actually abstained from wikipedia for a day...talking about wikipedia on IRC.... -- Phroziac (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What?
What test?

24.44.16.111 03:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wisteria Video
Here, watch Steve Brill eat Wisteria leaves with Toni Senecal. LOL!

http://www.wildmanstevebrill.com/TV.Pages/WeirdNY.html

24.44.16.111 04:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

NEW ADMI
hello Bratsch,

I didn't knew there was an admi to any new user regitrated or I will have done it before!! I would like to know if an admi is forward attributed to a site or if he get there in case of trouble called by a user? It is very important to me now as the admi suddensdly appeared on my site after I had big trouble founding anybody on wiki to help me fight against a revert-button fanatic, only to banish me instead of him! and now is protecting him like he was jesus and she was maria. Only shed does that by sneppering any edit I make, any articles I put she stands there anbd threaten to banish me ..! even thought theres nothing in it who could explain that. She even follow me in my talk page and play gendarme there, and in mediation cabal, I can't breath in wiki for she just kinder my freedom. I want her out of the site because she is maltracting those who do not agree with her protégé YBM. And believe me, he is no sanct. I would like a more objectiv admi and that Bishonen stop her chicane on me. The site name is Talk Bogdanovs Affair and is hot hot hot, so is the mediation cabale of it, and so is the story. I caught the vilain, and became hugely unpopular in the eyes of certain, but I unveil the plot and thats what count.

I hope you can help, Sophie--XAL 07:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I do have another request, perhaps you could help Nicholas in his mediation task as he is not exactly an admi and Sam Houcevar has just become one, thy both will assist this case, I have already offer my help in form of a forum i have build up this week, and that I named Mithra, the greate communicator and healer. So I give you some links and I hope to see you there soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#Bogdanov_Affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bogdanov_Affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.237.21.6 (this one was from when i was banish again for a week and going banana, 'cause I wasn't heard and couldn't do a thing about this injustice and betrayal. I was traped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XAL and this is my talk page where she (Bishonen) empty my articles removed from the main talk bogdanov affair,like if it was garbage.

Friendly hilsen, --XAL 08:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Bratsche!

Thanks for the help about that image on my user page!

Wikithanks for you! :-D

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Milena Popovic (talk • contribs) 06:35, September 15, 2005

WP:MIND 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for participating in Round Two of the Mind Benders! The round will officially close on Friday, September 16, and round three (which is complete) will be open in the immediate days after that. A notice will be sent to you at least 48 hours before round three is set to open, to insure fairness. Round three offers 11 new exciting questions, this time written by Deryck C.. Please be sure to join in the fun! Also, congratulations to Riffsyphon1024 for winning our logo competition! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner. --NotificationBot 22:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow
Just a note to say that I'm in sincere admiration for the pleasant, even-handed tone you managed on your message on user talk:XAL. You were very polite, friendly, and firm, and, just from the point of view of good writing, if nothing else, I'm amazed. Geogre 00:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a weird, weird case. I've interacted with the user exactly once, and now I appear to be one of the archfiends in her vision of Hell.  As I've written elsewhere, if folks haven't the temperament for "no one owns their words" or "will be edited mercilessly," then they're going to have everlasting problems. Geogre 21:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Bmicomp's RfA
Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RfA. I'll work hard to try to live up to the confidence you're showing in me. Nandesuka 01:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I thank you for your support for my RfA, We shall surely interact more. I am certain that our association shall grow. --Bhadani 10:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The charter is here. (Relating to Esperanza)
Hello Bratsche, the Charter for Esperanza is up. Take a looksie :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigs
I never noticed the uncanny resemblence between our signatures. :o Acetic  ' Acid  03:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Esperanza made less bureaucratic
Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Dont send me messsages about nonsense
I have worked very hard to get my point across sensibly and i have posted pictures to clarify my position. I don't appreciate your message, and I don't want you to send me any more. If you don't like what I have to say thats your problem.--208.254.174.148 02:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, it is my responsibility as an administrator to keep the Wikipedia clean from factual inaccuracies. Adding nonsense is a type of vandalism, and if you continue, you shall be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia, which is a right. If you have any other questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 02:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well then it is also your responsibility to clarify what your reasons are, instead of simply saying "nonsense". I ASSUME you are referring to the racial issues on the Black People and White People pages, but I do not know which for certain you are pertaining to. IN addition, in the talk pages I have presented information that is relevant and far from being nonsense. Again, this goes back to the issue of intimidation and unilateral points of view in racial topics in Wikipedia. So like I have said to everyone else, you should present your position, and not try to unilaterally change your page (or in your case, ban someone) for views you do not agree with. I listened to the others in the page, but they are making statements that I have refuted with pictures and information that is not nonsense. Oh and by the way, is there a reason that I have had such enormous difficulties logging in over the past 2 - 3 weeks? --208.254.174.148 18:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Thanks for reverting my talk page following the mess created by the anon. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --Ragib 02:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
What did I vandalize? I was simply placing both Superheroboxes correctly. So, please, I'd like you to tell me what have I vandalized.

WP:MIND 06:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, ! This message is to inform you that round three of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Wednesday, September 21, at approximately 22:00 UTC. While the opening time may vary by two or three hours, the round will open no earlier than 22:00 UTC. In addition, there are several rule changes, which will be detailed when the round opens. Everyone who answers a question correctly will receive points, but speed does give some extra points! Round three offers 11 new exciting and mind-bogglind questions, written by Deryck C.. These promise to be lots of fun! We sincerely hope you join us.

Also, congratulations to ROYGBIV for winning round two; it was an extremely close game, with the runner-up, Spondoolicks, only two points behind. Let's keep round three competitive! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy using the NotificationBot (thanks to AllyUnion for designing such a great bot!). If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. If there are any problems with the bot, please alert AllyUnion. Thanks!

Automatic notification done by NotificationBot ((talk). Any bugs or errors, please report to bot owner.

Requests for adminship/Bovlb
I appreciate your sentiments at the above page, but I would note that you didn't sign your vote there. :-) NoSeptember  07:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Notification Bot
Sorry about that. --AllyUnion (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mb1000's Request for adminship
Hi, I'm Mb1000. I would just like to ask you to please reconsider your Neutral vote, and Support my self-nomination. Thank-you so much. --Mb1000 21:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The last time I'm spamming you all with Esperanza stuff
Hello Bratsche. As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at Esperanza/Reform on all neccisary polls. P.S. I'm very sorry for spamming you all with these messages, and this will be the last time. I recommend putting ESP on your watchlist. Cheers and please look at that, let's stop the civil war then. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I love HHGTTG ;-). Thanks for noticing.  Heh heh!  - Roby Wayne  Talk •  Hist 03:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA. I certainly hope I will prove myself worthy of all the support I recieved. -R. fiend 17:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up anytime. --Doc (?) 19:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
For reverting the vandalism on my User page. Smoochs! - Shauri Yes babe?  03:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Bratsche-- Thank you for your comments on my RfA. I understand people's reservations about me. I thank you for understanding that I have truly reformed. About your comments on JETFA, I know the point of WP is to edit articles, but I was just becoming concerned with the number of editors who just tag articles with wikify and don't actually wikify them. Too many people simply try to pass the buck to someone else. It was not created as something to create animosity, rather to simply remind people that there is a lot of work to be done, and growing all the time. I thank you for your time, and hope you may support me in the future (since this seems to be headed towards "no consensus"). Cheers. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  14:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * LV is steadily gaining support votes. I urge you to change your vote to oppose citing JETFA, which I find immature if not excessive, and a history of personal attacks. freestylefrappe 21:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

block
Heya, I see you've blocked yourself, come back soon! Are you sure you're on a static IP and the only one using it though? I ask because the autoblocker was triggered on that block today, and it wouldn't be nice if other people were being affected by your self-block. --fvw *  03:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was actually me trying to edit again, triggering the autoblocker. I think I'm on a dynamic IP, so that shouldn't block any innocents. My short break was triggered by real life stress, lack of sleep, work piling up to my ceiling, and the realization that Wikipedia is populated by a bunch of little cliques. But I'm feeling better and more included now. Thanks for your note! Cheers, Bratsche talk 03:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! I assume you mean static IP though? Otherwise if you get autoblocked and your IP changes, someone else could end up with the blocked IP. --fvw *  03:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Thank you for your kind support of my recent nomination on RfA. Like you, I promise to do my best to uphold the Five pillars. I couldn't help noticing your comment above by the way - I've just come out of a stressful period at work myself, so I know how you feel. In the spirit of Esperanza, is there anything I can do to help? Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 09:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's RfA
Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 8th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  23:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Spamlist!
Ah, my first ever spam mass produced and mailed to the spamlist. Well first of all let me re-state that we have an irc channel, #wp-esperanza, and its been rather empty, so I'd appreciate it if you come, even if you just idle about. Now, the evil polls have closed, and I left a justification note for running the evil polls. Nothing has really changed, but at least I have somewhat of a consensus. I hope to figure out a way to overturn my power to JCarriker somehow, I'll figure out a way :-) Meanwhile, I've been busy reforming the mediation system where I am the chairman now, er, acting chairman. Enjoy your spam, with extra vikings. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Your Esperanza template
Howdy. I hope you dont mind, Ive stolen your "Join Esperanza" template on you userpage. Thanks, it is really a cool idea, to start advertising. Ban e  s  19:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA!
My dear Bratsche, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. It came at a very important time to me, when I felt I was being somewhat distrusted, and your confidence gave me strength. It looks like, once again, I'm in your debt. I should design a barnstar for people like you ;) Thank you also for your lovely words towards my work; they meant a lot to me. I hope that we continue to be in contact in the future, since you'll always have a friend in me. Hugs! Shauri  Yes babe?  20:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Since I am lazy, I shall simply say see: above. :) --Maru (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Resignation
Hello spam list, look at this. Essjay is the new leader of Esperanza, and I'm interested in seeing how he runs it. I'm busy doing other work... Please comment at that talk page there. I will still probably run the spamlist though. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin request == ==

Thanks for the link for the second page for requesting to be an admin --Adam1213 23:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Bratsche/Archive03


text:
Barrett House (New Ipswich, New Hampshire)

The Barrett House (circa 1800), also known as Forest Hall, is a Federal style American mansion located in New Ipswich, New Hampshire, part of the New Ipswich Center Village Historic District. It is now a nonprofit museum operated by Historic New England and open to the public several days a year. An admission fee is charged.

History
According to tradition, Forest Hall was built as a wedding gift for Charles Barrett and his bride by his father, a prosperous farmer in town who had invested in a glass factory, a toll road, a canal system, and, most successfully, in New Hampshire's first cotton mill. The interiors are elegantly furnished, and numerous reception rooms were designed for entertaining in a cosmopolitan manner. An elaborate allée was later added to the landscape, with a flight of stone steps flanked by maples rising up the hillside behind the house and leading to an elegant summerhouse.

However, after the railroad bypassed New Ipswich, the town entered into a decline. Charles Barrett's descendants stayed on, but today Forest Hall remains essentially a relic of the Federal era. After 1887, the family used the house only in the summer-time. It was donated to Historic New England in 1950.

Barrett House was one of the filming locations for the 1979 Merchant Ivory Productions film adaptation of the Henry James novel entitled The Europeans.