User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2023/November

Threats

I suggest that you review WP:THREATEN and consider reverting this comment of yours in that context. We do not tend to block people for thoughtcrimes here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Understood, retracted. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent situation

I have been majority-inactive from Wikipedia for eight months, for a good reason. I know that this website has a terrible influence on my mental health and wellbeing. The recent situation came as a surprise, since I didn't think that anyone would still be talking to me or about me an entire eight months after my departure. Other people are continuing to fight about certain contentious areas, but I am no longer involved in that. This is a trap, and they are trying to pull me back into something that I walked away from a relatively long time ago. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: If you want to walk away from this website, you don't have to ask for my permission. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a friendly website for nationalists. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a nationalist. My perspective was originally (during my early Wikipedia editing years) rooted in human rights. Unfortunately, due to the large crossover between these two topics, that's how I became involved in politically contentious areas. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Belated answer, but WP:ACTIVISTs only accuse one side of the conflict of human rights abuses. E.g., only the Palestinians, or only the Israelis, etc. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

AE discussion closed

Hello tgeorgescu. Please see the decision related to WP:AE request that you opened 13 November. No formal restrictions have been applied but you are formally warned for continued battleground behaviour and for not respecting repeated requests by reviewing administrators to cease modifying your statement so frequently. I would recommend reviewing what other uninvolved administrators commented as there is useful advice in there. It might be time to take a step back from this dispute and find other areas to edit for a while. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Agreed. I understood at WP:AE that it is not my task to convince other editors they are wrong (which is subjective, i.e. pertaining to their own mind). Instead, I should use dispute resolution, which is a more objective process.

@TheSandDoctor: I plan not to edit about Anthroposophy for a couple of months. But if I notice foul play in that topic, may I notify you about it?

@TheSandDoctor: Three newbies have edited Anthroposophy in the past month. Don't you think that's odd (WP:MEAT)?

I missed the edits wherein I was accused of whitewashing fascism. According to a journal from MIT Press, the early Italian Fascists leaders had sympathy for Rudolf Steiner rather than antipathy for him. So, if they would have pressured the Catholic Church, they would have pressured it against labeling Anthroposophy as a heresy, rather than for labeling it as a neognostic heresy. Of course, in later Italian Fascism occultism was perceived as social decadence, but that was years later than the labeling as heresy.

1919 is definitely early Italian Fascism, rather than later Italian Fascism. So, it is highly dubious that the early Fascists would have compelled the Pope to declare that Anthroposophy is a heresy. Going by known mainstream history, they would have probably opposed such declaration.

Two decades later, they would have indeed compelled the Pope to do so. But in 1919 they were unaware they will change their mind within two decades.

Hint: Giovanni Antonio Colonna di Cesarò. Benito Mussolini had at least two Anthroposophists as ministers. Two people who had been declared heretics in 1919 were members of his government. Did he use castor oil against the two Anthroposophists? No, he gave them high offices in the Italian state.

Obvious conclusion: when the Catholic Church declared Anthroposophy a neognostic heresy in 1919, that was actually in opposition to fascism rather than pressured by fascism. We should not conflate the historical context of 1919 with the historical context of 1939. Stating that Mussolini had no contribution to the label of heresy is not whitewashing fascism. Mussolini welcomed those people, the Pope didn't. Shunning occultists was imposed by the Pope upon the Italian masses, Mussolini simply had to follow the tides. It went awry for occultists, but Mussolini had no qualms about having occultists in his government. Mussolini was not the brain behind such labeling, the Pope was. In this case, the Pope dictated to the dictator, not the other way around. Thinking that the Pope was just a puppet manipulated by Mussolini is not historically true.

Anyway, for defending myself against the accusation that I'm whitewashing fascism, it suffices that declaring Anthroposophy a heresy was not a fascist measure, but a measure adopted despite fascism and despite Mussolini's own preferences and politics. After all, if the Catholic Church could not declare that a theology wherein Jesus and Christ were different beings is not compatible with Catholicism, then it would have completely lost its theological identity. It's not a matter of good vs. evil, it is a matter when a theological view is principally not compatible with two thousands years of Roman Catholic Magisterium. The idea that the decision was caused by fascist agitation, rather than by two thousands years of Magisterium, is ridiculous. I'm not a Catholic, I have no dog in the quarrel between the Catholic Church and heretics. So, I don't approve or disapprove of the decision, I simply consider it as a historical fact.

Above all: the view that Anthroposophy is not a heresy according to theological orthodoxy is ridiculous on its face. One would have to posit extremely convoluted reasoning in order to claim that Anthroposophy is (even remotely) theologically orthodox. Again: I'm not a defender of theological orthodoxy. I merely state that Anthroposophy and theological orthodoxy are not compatible. For me, theological orthodoxy is ultimately mythology. And Anthroposophy has a different mythology.

Anthroposophists, as fitting for good Gnostics, would read their own doctrine into any Scripture. But their way of interpreting the Bible is not theologically orthodox. They think that the Bible proves Anthroposophy, but that's eisegesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: And, of course, my big mistake is thinking that WP:PROFRINGE in talk pages is a violation of WP:RULES. I did not know that. Wikipedia still has mysteries to me, after so many years. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New message to Tgeorgescu

While you've very clearly contributed a lot to Book of Daniel, I'm perplexed by what seems to be a series of you posting at editors on the main page in a way that doesn't really create conversation that ultimately improves the article. This recent example seemed to tip over the line for me—you were responding to some bad editing from someone who might just be a vandal, but there's no purpose to making your opinions about apologetics a topic of conversation on the page.

@Remsense: Okay, thanks. Their source was an apologist. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This particular editor seems new and doesn't look like they were edit warring. In the future, consider raising the issue with the new editor on their talk page: a personal and private forum is a nice touch with new editors. Also, describing the issue as sourcing coming from what you deem an apologist is not really helpful. Certainly, I would argue that Jonathan McLatchie is an apologist, but that's not what makes him an unreliable source. Instead, he does not possess the relevant academic credentials to comment on this matter (he has advanced degrees related to biology) and the source provided came from a SELFPUB blog. New editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's RS policy might actually be surprised that a source fails to meet our criteria for reliability, so simply criticizing a source as from an apologist without providing more explanation only reinforces a misunderstanding that the new editor's point of view is being arbitrarily suppressed. Really, if you ask me, your comment on Talk:Book of Daniel was unnecessary altogether–particularly in light of the recent BATTLEGROUND warning and your failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK about it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: You misconstrue my statement: [1] was not further pursuing the conflict, it was instead a clear admission that I was wrong. Do you think that recognizing my own mistakes is a failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK? That's a quite uncharitable interpretation of what I wrote. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the same editor three times, not getting a response, and then pinging them again a fourth time over a week later is not dropping the stick—seek the "continually refer to old news" bit. This sort of behavior is part of the issue. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Okay, good to know. Nobody told me that before. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)