JzG (Guy Chapman), How he helps Wikipedia Options

[thekohser]

One of my favorite deletes by JzG is this one.

I had created the article about Thomas J. J. Altizer, being that I was shocked that the man behind Time magazine's famous April 1966 story, "Is God Dead?" was not present in Wikipedia. So, I started a nice little stub, based on some facts found in my copy of Emory Magazine (Altizer taught at Emory). Other religion "experts" (hey, maybe one was Essjay!) weighed in on the article and certainly made it much better than anything I could have done on my own.

But, since JzG is "just 'zis guy" with a huge, disproportionate grudge against me personally, the ARTICLE HAD TO BE SALTED, because I had the evil vision to create a nefarious article about a theologian "while I was banned". I'm still not sure how a banned user is able to create articles in Wikipedia, if he is banned?

Way to go, Guy! You made Wikipedia so much better, especially considering that 14 other Wikipedia pages now have a glaring red link to a non-existent Altizer article. You da man, Guy Chapman!

Greg

[Jonny Cache]

One of my favorite deletes by JzG is this one.

I had created the article about Thomas J.J. Altizer, being that I was shocked that the man behind Time magazine's famous April 1966 story, "Is God Dead?" was not present in Wikipedia. So, I started a nice little stub, based on some facts found in my copy of Emory Magazine (Altizer taught at Emory). Other religion "experts" (hey, maybe one was Essjay!) weighed in on the article and certainly made it much better than anything I could have done on my own.

But, since JzG is "just 'zis guy" with a huge, disproportionate grudge against me personally, the ARTICLE HAD TO BE SALTED, because I had the evil vision to create a nefarious article about a theologian "while I was banned". I'm still not sure how a banned user is able to create articles in Wikipedia, if he is banned?

Way to go, Guy! You made Wikipedia so much better, especially considering that 14 other Wikipedia pages now have a glaring red link to a non-existent Altizer article. You da man, Guy Chapman!

Greg

You have just documented yet another element of Wikipedia Idiotology:

It's the message, not the messenger.

Not that the thought is idiotic — far from it — but obsequiously intoning the phrase is about as far as they go with it.

Just don't be surprised if the article shows up at a later date with somebody else as initial editor — but we'll discuss

Credit Where Credit Is <Deleted>

and

Get Fucked Dumb Loser (GFDL)

some other time.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Thu 15th March 2007, 6:34pm

[a view from the hive]

One of my favorite deletes by JzG is this one.

I had created the article about Thomas J. J. Altizer, being that I was shocked that the man behind Time magazine's famous April 1966 story, "Is God Dead?" was not present in Wikipedia. So, I started a nice little stub, based on some facts found in my copy of Emory Magazine (Altizer taught at Emory). Other religion "experts" (hey, maybe one was Essjay!) weighed in on the article and certainly made it much better than anything I could have done on my own.

But, since JzG is "just 'zis guy" with a huge, disproportionate grudge against me personally, the ARTICLE HAD TO BE SALTED, because I had the evil vision to create a nefarious article about a theologian "while I was banned". I'm still not sure how a banned user is able to create articles in Wikipedia, if he is banned?

Way to go, Guy! You made Wikipedia so much better, especially considering that 14 other Wikipedia pages now have a glaring red link to a non-existent Altizer article. You da man, Guy Chapman!

Greg

'''Thomas J. J. Altizer''' is a radical theologian who postulated in the early 1960's the "death of God". While teaching at [[Emory University]] (from 1956 to 1968), Altizer's religious views were featured in two ''TIME'' magazine articles in 1965 and 1966. The latter issue was published at [[Easter]] time, and its cover asked in bold red letters on a plain black background, "Is God Dead?"

[[Image:Timeisgoddead.jpg|thumb|''A [[Time (magazine)|Time Magazine]]'' cover story ([[April 8]], [[1966]]) on religion in America asked "Is God Dead?" It would become one of ''Time'''s most controversial issues.]]
Altizer has repeatedly claimed that scorn, outcry, and even death threats he received were misplaced. On a pure level, Altizer's religious proclamation viewed God's death (really a self-extinction) as a process that began at the world's creation and came to an end through Jesus Christ -- whose crucifixion in reality poured out God's full spirit into this world.

In ''Godhead and the Nothing'' Altizer examined the notion of evil. He presented evil as the absence of will, but not separate from God. Orthodox Christianity—considered [[nihilistic]] by [[Nietzsche]]—named evil and separated it from good without thoroughly examining its nature. However, the immanence of the spirit (after Jesus Christ) within the world embraces everything created. The immanence of the spirit is the answer to the [[nihilistic]] state that Christianity, according to [[Nietzsche]], was leading the world into. Through the introduction of God in the material world (immanence), the emptying of meaning would cease. No longer would followers be able to dismiss the present world for a transcendent world. They would have to embrace the present completely and keep meaning in the here and now.

Altizer now lives [[Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania|Mount Pocono]], [[Pennsylvania]]. His memoir is entitled "Living the Death of God".

[[Category:Theologians]]

Someone should DRV it - G5 is a stupid reason for a perfectly valid article.

[thekohser]

Someone should DRV it - G5 is a stupid reason for a perfectly valid article.

But, wouldn't that make JzG look bad? That's not allowed on Wikipedia, is it?

I'll be watching the Deletion Review page to see which brave reader of WR will dare to nominate [[Thomas J. J. Altizer]] for a resurrection.

Greg

[Somey]

Well, you have to remember that Mr. Chapman isn't a well man. This is from his user page:

I also have anxiety depression, asthma, tinnitus, hyperacusis, migraines and bone-deep burn scars across the fingers of my left hand... Depression makes me bad tempered some days. Windows makes me bad tempered most days.

Those conditions are nothing to sneeze at, even if you happen to be standing in front of a handy sneeze-gard like they have over the salad bar at Ponderosa. Especially that "Windows" thing... I hear it's contagious!

Then again, couldn't these be considered "unverified credentials," in a manner of speaking? I mean, how do we know that his near-constant incivility and lashing-out at n00bz is really due to these serious medical problems, as opposed to, you know... him just being a total jerk?

[everyking]

The article has been recreated by Grace Note with credit given to Greg. It would be nice if the history was undeleted, though. It was definitely an outrageous deletion, although I have come to expect no better from JzG.

[the fieryangel]

JzG.....yup, a real winner. My favorite moment for this swell guy is this: He's explaining why not including any women on "List of important Opera Composers" can't be sexist:

From a purely personal perspective, as a classical music lover, I cannot name off the top of my head a single notable female opera composer. The majority of truly great operas were composed between the beginning of the 17th Century and the end of the 19th Century, with a few notable exceptions. There are very few known female composers in this time, let alone opera composers, due in large part to the mores of the time. The great opera composers are people like Monteverdi, Mozart, Handel, Rossini, Wagner. I can see the merit of Glinka, and can accept Beethoven despite his limited work in the field (and speaking as a singer, he was not in my view a great or sympathetic writer for the voice!). Britten? Of course. Borodin? No stranger in paradise he. Who are the female composers of this level of fame? I have heard Keiko Abe, met Marie-Claire Alain, know (of course) of Hldegard of Bingen, but in reviewing the List of female composers no names sprung out at me (except for the wrong reasons - is WalterWendy Carlos really a celebrated female composer?). The composers listed are household names and their operas contain tunes which are part of the popular repertoire and conscsiousness; I reviewed my iTunes library and found entries for every single one of the composers listed except Glinka (which I will remedy), and the only entries from the female composers list I found on a quick review were Keiko Abe and Wendy Carlos - and Carlos was playing Bach. The accusation that the list is excluding women on the basis of gender bias is patently absurd. Guy 11:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So, just remember: if it ain't on Guy's Ipod, it ain't notable! End of story....

But "ziz Guy" was kind of surprized when he got some email from people calling him a sexist pig:

I received quite a vitriolic email from someone who does not appear to be a Wikipedia editor (my email address is published on my website), who appeared to believe that I was personally discriminating against women; this person did not apear to know anything about the detail of the dispute, and went very quiet when I explained the actual nature of the problem. This accords with what Adam says below. Guy 09:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

He's a real winner, alright...

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Fri 16th March 2007, 9:47am

[guy]

The majority of truly great operas were composed between the beginning of the 17th Century and the end of the 19th Century

Now there's a bit of WP:OR and WP:POV! So he can exclude say Ethel Smyth because she had the temerity to write an opera after 1900!

[the fieryangel]

The majority of truly great operas were composed between the beginning of the 17th Century and the end of the 19th Century

Now there's a bit of WP:OR and WP:POV! So he can exclude say Ethel Smyth because she had the temerity to write an opera after 1900!

Yeah, not to mention things like Berg, Strauss, Zimmermann, Stravinsky, Poulenc, Prokofiev, Britten.....etc etc etc....But I guess none of that was on his IPod either, so it can safely be ignored....

I'd really like to see a "List of things on JzG's Ipod" so that we can finally KNOW without any uncertainty what is notable and what isn't. Maybe he'll make that information available publicly??

I also wonder if Kelly Martin saw this bit:

but in reviewing the List of female composers no names sprung out at me (except for the wrong reasons - is WalterWendy Carlos really a celebrated female composer?).

Which seems to ask the musical question "Is a post-op transsexual REALLY a woman"?

Interesting indeed...Zis Guy seems to indicate that the answer would be negative, in his book...or in his Ipod, at least....

Anyhoo, when push came to shove, the ultimate outcome of this discussion is that the WikiPeople decided that maybe, just maybe they had been a wee bit sexist in excluding the ladies from this list and added the "token female Opera composers" section... and isn't that a nice portrait of Dame Ethel there??

This post has been edited by the fieryangel: Fri 16th March 2007, 1:47pm

[guy]

no woman composer met the criteria for inclusion above. However, some experts in our sample disagreed, and named one or both of the women below as comparable to those already listed:

What sort of encyclopaedic writing is this? And since when has Wikipedia accepted expert opinion?

Of course, all that is necessary is to point out that Smyth is in Kobbe's Complete Opera Book, which is more than you can say about some of the men in the list. But how many Wikipedia "experts" have read Kobbe?

[No one of consequence]

What sort of encyclopaedic writing is this? And since when has Wikipedia accepted expert opinion?

Of course, all that is necessary is to point out that Smyth is in Kobbe's Complete Opera Book, which is more than you can say about some of the men in the list. But how many Wikipedia "experts" have read Kobbe?

Most "List of..." articles are crap original research. The Opera list attempted to avoid this by finding 10 opera scholars and deciding that any composer who was considered significant by 4 or more of the ten would be included. No woman composer was on more than 2 lists. It may be stupid, and the underlying lists themselves may be sexist, but if that method for making a list article doesn't work for you, there's no way to have any list articles that aren't original research.

[guy]

There are two ways you could do it. Either copy a 100% reliable source, such as the contents list of Kobbe, or include everyone with an article on Wikipedia who has written an opera that has been staged professionally. In the latter case, you'd need to cite a source for each composer. Asking a group of experts isn't consistent with Wikipedia policies. You might as well get an expert to rewrite the articles on members of the Wesley family.

[the fieryangel]

Most "List of..." articles are crap original research. The Opera list attempted to avoid this by finding 10 opera scholars and deciding that any composer who was considered significant by 4 or more of the ten would be included. No woman composer was on more than 2 lists. It may be stupid, and the underlying lists themselves may be sexist, but if that method for making a list article doesn't work for you, there's no way to have any list articles that aren't original research.

<a HEM>Ummm, you wouldn't happen to be part (or all) of the "Folantin-and-Moreschi" Opera editing consortium, would you? That sounds like just the kind of thing that "they" would say.....

Getting back to our friend Guy, it doesn't seem to matter what's on any lists. The only thing that matters is what's on HIS Ipod. He could care less what anybody else has to say.....

[thekohser]

The article has been recreated by Grace Note with credit given to Greg. It would be nice if the history was undeleted, though. It was definitely an outrageous deletion, although I have come to expect no better from JzG.

The glorious beauty of how this article was restored is revealed in:

(1) The way my diatribe against Guy Chapman on Wikipedia Review is now saved for posterity in the initial restoration version of the "new" article.

(2) The "fact" that in the comment field it says "Credit for this article to Gregory Kohs", even though the version restored contained multiple later edits (some of them substantial) from other writers. Isn't it amazing how GFDL gives copyright to each editor, but Guy Chapman is able to erase all of their copyrighted versions, thanks to one personal grudge?

Wikipedia really doesn't understand the sanctity of the GFDL, does it? The closest to an actual discussion of this can be found here. What part of "you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever", are they just not getting? Or, am I simply misunderstanding GFDL? All I know is that the public record now attributes to me extra content with which I am not entitled to be (fully) credited. I wonder how those other contributors to the old Altizer article would feel about that?

I sound like sour grapes, but all I'm really trying to do is engage in a theoretical discussion of what GFDL and copyright really mean. Arg -- I've just started a topic that has very little to do with JzG. If anybody wants to respond to this, put it in a new thread. I'll find it.

Greg

[Jonny Cache]

The article has been recreated by Grace Note with credit given to Greg. It would be nice if the history was undeleted, though. It was definitely an outrageous deletion, although I have come to expect no better from JzG.

I sound like sour grapes, but all I'm really trying to do is engage in a theoretical discussion of what GFDL and copyright really mean. Arg — I've just started a topic that has very little to do with JzG. If anybody wants to respond to this, put it in a new thread. I'll find it.

Greg

Nothing theoretical about it. And I think I already explained to you what GFDL means in Wicker World.

Someday when things cool down a bit we'll put together a required reading list for you. In the mean time — and I do mean mean time — you might glance at the thread on what happened to the Truth Theory article. I don't have the legal expertise to tell just how illegal what they did was, but my common sense opinion tells me that something just ain't right about what they did.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Fri 23rd March 2007, 6:26pm

[blissyu2]

I had complained about this kind of thing before. I wrote, or largely wrote, a number of articles, some of which I have seen students using in class, because the teacher thought they were the most informative pieces on the topics. Yet Wikipedia didn't give me credit, and instead has things on my userpage lying about me, saying I am banned (which is true) and then making up stories to discredit me, thus preventing me from being able to tell the teacher "Hey I wrote that" or anything of the like.

This is a slightly different issue, but it is really quite wrong when Wikipedia does things like this.

[guy]

Yet Wikipedia didn't give me credit

I don't follow that. Isn't your name still in the edit history? Have they oversighted it?

[thekohser]

Guy Chapman (JzG) is at it again.

On the WikiEN-l list, he writes:

Kohs thinks we're evil, of course, but Kohs also thinks Wikipedia is bound to fail as a business directory because it does not allow subjects editorial control. If Wikipedia was or aspired to be a business directory he might have a point, but that is not what we are and not what we want to be. Sure, there are people who utterly misunderstand the purpose of the project, and then lambast us for not being what they think we should be.

Mr. Chapman, you really need to watch these bullcrap memes that you cook up and then apply maliciously to other people. You know damn well that I never, ever wanted or expected Wikipedia to forfeit "editorial control" to business subjects. We were talking about creating content where there was previously nothing, for God's sake. What I expected was that Wikipedia is mature enough to understand that when a business pays the Yellow Pages to list their phone number and street address, that doesn't make the Yellow Pages a corrupt, non-NPOV reference. Similarly, a company paying to have someone develop INITIAL Wikipedia article content like location, number of employees, executive leadership, history, revenues, and product descriptions (if notable), would not make Wikipedia a non-NPOV cesspool, especially with the understanding that all of your anti-business biased admins would be free to have a field day with the article afterwards. You can IMAGINE that this would be some kind of cataclysm, all you want. But don't attribute that imaginary crisis to me.

Thank God there's a place like Wikipedia Review, where you can be exposed for your attempts to paint me as something I'm not.

Also, I don't think Wikipedia is evil. I think contributors like you frequently behave in an evil manner. How convenient for your WikiEN-l position, too, that by blocking my participation, your word is -- always -- going to be the final word. You are a worthless coward, Guy Chapman. You are crafty at how you bash your opponents, I will give you that. But, it's a cowardly way to attack someone's position, by creating a myth surrounding your opponent's position, then not allow him to respond, and to (as you have admitted) even ignore his e-mails. Gutless coward.

Greg

[Somey]

Yeah, and that moustache is hideous!

Also, I just moved a rather vituperative post by Joel Leyden here. Please folks, only you can prevent thread-hijackings! (And, of course, me.)

[Joel Leyden]

Yeah, and that moustache is hideous!

Also, I just moved a rather vituperative post by Joel Leyden here. Please folks, only you can prevent thread-hijackings! (And, of course, me.)

Yes, I can be more PC.
Guy Chapman, Gili Bar-Hillel & Co. delete articles on Wikipedia not for the substance that those articles merit, but rather for who is posting them. My advice: ignore Guy Chapman and Gili Bar-Hillel. They and Wikipedia thrive on this S&M attention. It is not for fact that people stay glued to Wikipedia but rather who wins the AFD vote.