User talk:Jeffreyerwin

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Hi, I'm not sure what prompted your email, but I prefer to keep communication about things onwiki. I am mostly just confused about why you approached me about this, because Shroud of Turin is an article about a Catholic topic that has nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses at all. If you have concerns about the reliability of the content there, it's usually best to start a thread at the talk page. As for my personal beliefs, I haven't been a JW in a very long time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clover,

TY for your reply.

1. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a known bias against the authenticity of the Turin Shroud. That is why I asked about your affiliation with this sect. The JWs have published several tracts that attack the Shroud.

2. The authenticy of the Turin Shroud is not a Catholic topic. The relic is of general interest. In 1978 the Shroud was investigated by a group of 24 scientists who used 8000 pounds of equipment. The authenticity of this relic is a scientific issue. The fact that you would attempt to classify the issue of authenticity as a "Catholic topic" suggests a bias on your part.

3. The WIKI article contains obvious false statements about the scientific findings regarding the Shroud, and it has not been possible to correct its errors through the talk page. WIKI has shown a bias against the hypothesis of authenticity. I ask you to correct this bias. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I described it as a Catholic topic because the lead says It has been venerated for centuries, especially by members of the Catholic Church. I don't appreciate your comment that this somehow suggests a bias on my part. Anyways, I digged through the talk page archives and the last time I saw you bring your concerns up was 5 years ago (Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 18#The Hypothesis of a Neutron Radiation Event Has Not Been Refuted.) I will say that what you wrote there sounds a lot like pseudoscience. Again, I'm not sure why you randomly contacted me about all this. JWs have published tracts on a variety of subjects (even about chess being a warlike game) and not everyone necessarily abides by everything the organization has ever written. I've literally never heard of this subject before yesterday.

If you still wish to pursue this:

Consider why you're the only person advocating for this change on the article.
Start another talk page thread (since the least one was five years ago). Be more clear about the sources you're citing.
Get a third opinion if only one other person comments in that discussion and you do not like it.
If they also give a perspective you don't like, try to think about why that is (and assume good faith).
If you really think this is reliable science still, post at the noticeboard for neutral point of view. Do realize that NPOV strives for due weight.
If all this doesn't work and you still think you're right, go to WP:ANI. Provide evidence for your accusations. That venue is not for content disputes but for the behaviour of other editors. If you mention me there, be sure to leave a message on my talk page.

Otherwise, I'd really rather not continue to talk about this. I have a busy next few days and I'm a volunteer that likes to edit about things that interest me. An established article about a controversial burial shroud isn't really my cup of tea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clover,

The dismissal of of the Phillips/Rucker neutron absorption hypothesis on the grounds that it invokes "magic" and is therefore pseudoscience is circular reasoning; i.e. "The Shroud cannot be authentic, because to be authentic it would have to be miraculous, and miracles cannot happen." This is one reason why your WIKI article is biased: it uses circular reasoning to dismiss the best hypothesis for understanding the Shroud's images and radiocarbon evidence.

Another indication of its bias is the mention of Dr. Walter McCrone by name 17 times while failing to reveal that Dr. McCrone had never actually examined the Shroud in person, had refused to attend STuRP conferences to defend his contrary conclusions, was asked to resign his honorary membership in STuRP on that account, that his Shroud papers were not peer-reviewed, and that these papers were all self-published in his own journal. Instead, WIKI gives the false impression that McCrone's equipment and tests were superior to STuRP's, which they were not.

If your WIKI article was not biased, it would include the well known Summary of STuRP's Conclusions and would mention the well known congruence of the facial features found on the Shroud with the face of Jesus that is found on sixth century icons and coins.

Ma'am, your article is biased, and it is not possible to correct its biases on your "talk" page or anywhere else.

When this biased article is corrected, I will renew my fiancial contributions to WIKI. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Financial donations will never impact article content so I don't personally care whether or not you donate money. Wikipedia is not the place to provide original research (for example, your interpretation of why someone's work is underlooked). Wikipedia has policies and guidelines about writing content and these can't just be thrown out of the window because you don't like them. Other academics dismiss his work as pseudoscience, so that's what we reflect. As an encyclopedia, we can only summarize what reliable sources say, with appropriate due weight. By definition, we are not going to write about fringe views unless they are notable in themselves (see Flat Earth). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'am, the fact remains that WIKI states, "ALL of the hypotheses used to challange the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted...." That statement is an outright lie.

WIKI's characterization of Shroud scholars as "believers" is a slur that seems intended to dismiss their scientific knowledge about the Shroud.

Your own attempt to dismiss the Shroud as a "Catholic topic" suggests a bias as does your charaterization of the Phillips/Rucker neutron absorption hypothesis as "pseudoscience." Dr. Thomas J. Phillips was employed at Harvard's High Energy Physics Laboratory. Robert Rucker is a nuclear engineer of forty years experience who worked at Los Alamos.

The WIKI article on the Shroud is biased and contains outright falsehoods. You should be ashamed of this article. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Clovermoss said, these are things to bring up on the article talk page, not a reason to WP:HARASS one of our editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, the charachterization of a legitimate bias complaint as "harassment" is, in itself, an indication of bias. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, editing is useless when the administrators have a bias, and your Shroud of Turin pages are proof of this. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are biased in a good way. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Cullen,

It seems that most of your users agree with your premise that WIKI is biased in a good way. The scientifically proven authenticity of the Shroud of Turin apparently is a cause of distress for them. They go out of their way to obstruct and falsify that science, all with the approval of WIKI editors.

Your editor demonstrated her bias on this subject when she attempted to dismiss the Shroud as a "Catholic topic."

May I refer you, sir, to a 1937 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article titled: "An Intriguing Problem of Science and History" by Paul Vignon. Vignon concluded with these words: "I have only given a hint of the vast field which the Shroud opens to the investigation of science, archaelology, and history."

I find it regrettable that WIKI editors allow the trashing of the discoveries that have been made about the Shroud of Turin, and I do hope that they will some day give up their biases against against the Shroud. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "Mr. Cullen". Cullen328 is my Wikipedia username, not my real life name. You clearly do not understand how Wikipedia operates. As for the Shroud of Turin "causing distress", that is a ludicrous thing to say. I do not care in the slightest about that shroud, and neither does the other editor you chose to attack for no reason. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then Jeffreyerwin, why did you not take the time to find explicit sourcing for these perspectives and present them to the article / talk page? Or make ten edits somewhere else possible, wait 96 hours, then place this information (well-cited) at where you think would be the place for it to go?

the "WIKI" thanks you for trying, we suppose. –BarntToust ^(Talk) 14:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I cited TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015, in regards to the Phillips/Rucker neutron absorption hypothesis, but your WIKI article persisted in claiming that ALL of the hypotheses used to challange the British Museum's interpretation of the Shroud's radiocarbon readings have been refuted.

This article is so flawed and biased that it would seem impossible for any WIKI subscriber to correct it, especially when the WIKI editors thenmselves have signed on to that bias. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

I am sure that you are right when you say that I do not understand how WIKI operates. I am not internet savy and have difficulty navigating the talk section on WIKI to suggest corrections.

However, I must say that your comment, "I do not care the sightest about that shroud," concerns me. That seems to be the attitude of most shroud skeptics, and they are persistent in their efforts to insure that the public does not care about the Shroud either.

That is the problem with your WIKI article about the Shroud. It is dominated and bullied by people who do not care the slightest about that shroud and want to persuade others not to care about it.

I apologize if any of your editors understood by criticisms of WIKI as personal attacks, but at least I seem to have gotten your attention on this important issue.

Sir, I look to you for assistance in correcting the many serious erors that are presently in your WIKI article about the Shroud. I suggest that you write to me directly on my email.

Sincerly,

Jeffrey Erwin

Pewaukee, WI Jeffreyerwin (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "sir". There is no way under the sun that I will email you, and I do not care where you live either. My only interest in this matter is to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then how should I address you? And I fail to understand how my notes to your editors could be disrupting to WIKI.

What I do think is disrupting to WIKI is the inclusion of blatantly false information in one of its articles.

I again suggest that you accept my offer of assitance in correcting WIKI's Shroud article. I can't do it by myself. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is follow the instructions in WP:GAB. There is no other legitimate use of your page while you are blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir (or Ma'am),

I do not care about becoming "unblocked." I only care about correcting your biased article about the Shroud of Turin, and I was not able to do that when unblocked. So it makes no difference to me whether I am blocked or unblocked.

Once again I suggest that your take the veracity of your WIKI articles seriously and accept my assistance in correcting WIKI's inaccurate Shroud article. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have no interest in filing an unblock request and are simply wasting people's time at this point, I have revoked your talk page access. Please read WP:UTRS for your options. Cullen328 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]