User talk:Écrasez l'infâme

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hi Écrasez l'infâme. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way — quel nom ingénieux! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson quotes[edit]

The additions you made to the Thomas Jefferson page were made without regard to existing format, order, and duplications, and need to be cleaned up, but I don't have the time right now, so I removed them. I had been considering doing some other cleanup on that page, but will probably not have the time for at least a few days. For now, the quotes that are not duplicated could probably be added in chronologically in the section that currently exists on his religious views. ~ Kalki 21:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I added using the page's format. Thanks. Écrasez l'infâme 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Christianity edits[edit]

You reverted my edit with the declaration "I won't let stand the accusation that I'm implying that Jesus issued this command; let the Bible speak for itself and keep the link to Mark 4:11-12; people will decide themselves."

I agree that statements from any person or work for the most part should speak for themselves, but cautions and comments should be added when they are clearly taken out of context.

If you read my statement carefully you will see that I never made the specific accusation, that you were implying he issued a command, but I honestly did deliberately imply it. And what other implication is to be made when the statement you append to my comment reads: "However, also see Mark 4:11-12, in which Jesus says that his parables contain hidden teachings." By the use of the term "However" you certainly are not implying that the "hidden teachings" mentioned in another testament of his ministry would lead to a far more charitable and less harsh interpretation of the parable from Luke that you quote. You are clearly implying something on the lines of "he might not have issued such a command, but he would have liked to."

I appreciate zeal and honesty, but I also respect reserve and caution, especially in statements that are misleading and defamatory, and my impression is that you have begun to be a bit overzealous in your effort to live up to your nom de guerre. ~ Kalki 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


For whatever reasons you might have, the overwhelming majority of your extensive, and often lengthy additions to the Christianity article and to Jesus have been clearly to criticize or defame traditions for which you seem to have very limited respect, but these sometimes have had very limited or almost no relevance to the articles or sections to which you have been adding them, other than to promote your apparent perceptions that "Christianity = ALWAYS BAD."
There is bigotry of all kinds at work in the world and not all of it even pretends to embrace religious labels. Christian or other religious traditions are hardly the only social or cultural legacies that have known corruption, distortion, and abuse, and however foul some of the traditions or people that may be labeled "Christian" might be, they are hardly the cause of all the world's problems, or even most of them. To my mind the ignorance, confusion and bigotry that sets people into attitudes where they can say, or even imply, of any person, group, or traditions "there is nothing of any reason, worth or value in them, nothing to be respected, honored, or even examined — one should do nothing but deride and attack them" — it is such ignorance and attitudes as these which above all else keep much of the world in a state or extreme confusion, distress, and misery.

I have not had time to even read all your recent contributions, let alone edit, or fully respond to them, but a few specifics do glaringly come to mind. Perhaps most notably, but hardly exclusively, the Abu Ghraib quotes are certainly not quotes about Jesus, nor Christianity, and come from someone who is not even clearly professing Christianity at all, but merely expressing his intent to torment and to torture someone whom the powers and decisions of nations and governments have delivered into his hands. It is one example of an almost entirely irrelevant quote apparently included merely for defamatory purposes, and should certainly be removed, and I believe there are many others. I have had very limited time to deal with Wikiquote concerns in recent days, and expect to be primarily concerned with other matters for at least a couple of weeks. I will attempt to keep track of some issues, and make some edits or comments about the articles in question, but currently it cannot be a top priority with me. ~ Kalki 23:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've simply added relevant quotes about Christianity to the Wikiquote Christianity page, and about Jesus to the Wikiquote Jesus page. I've included quotes from the Bible, Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, as well as Voltaire, Jefferson, and Paine. Please don't put your words into my mouth about the conclusions to be drawn from these quotes, whether the good, the bad, or the ugly. If you have relevant quotes that address some of the critical comments involving Christianity or Jesus that concern you, I suggest that a more constructive pastime would be to add these to their respective pages. Écrasez l'infâme 15:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have put no words into your mouth — I have declared an honest assessment about the character of your activity on these pages, and used a quoted remark about what you're apparent perceptions seem to me to be; it was not represented as anything else but that.
My initial impression, not having studied all of your recent additions (which I might attempt to do in the next day or two) is that most of the contributions are at least tenuously relevant, but some are not even that, and plainly not that, to anyone not driven zealously by an anti-Christian agenda. I am not driven by any zeal for conventional Christian theological assumptions, but I am driven by a zeal for truth and fairness.
The one quote you added that I specifically mentioned, of a participant in the Abu Ghraib abuses, which would be very relevant to a page on Torture, has no credible relevance to either a page for quotes by or about Jesus or one about Christianity. I could not be honest and declare otherwise. It is a quote about torture, and the will to torture, and not about either Jesus or about Christianity.
It would be neither fair nor wise of me to presume that you are incapable of greater reasonableness or fairness in your additions, or of displaying interest in something more than the derision of a particular set of religious traditions, and I have not made such assumptions. I generally weigh my impressions very thoroughly before declaring any assessments, and am always willing to alter them about many things, but I am not willing to abandon my concerns for either reason, honesty, or fairness in deference to some particular person's very pronounced agenda.
I also generally attempt to choose my words very carefully when I do make a statement, and have not claimed you have been entirely defamatory toward Jesus, but limited my statement to indicating what I believe is a reasonable impression, of you having a very pronounced hostility towards Christianity. At least a few of the quotations you have added to the page about Jesus could be construed as positive, but I have not yet found one example of your recent additions to either page where you could credibly claim that the intent of your addition was to indicate anything even remotely positive about Christianity, nor would I insist that you do so. To edit with a specific agenda is not forbidden here, and quotations that are truly relevant to a page, whether positive or negative upon an issue, are welcome; but I am not the only person who is asserting many of your copious additions in your short time here are but, at most, very tenuously relevant, and some of them not even that.
As I have stated, I will try to examine more of your recent additions than I have thus far been able to do, but expressing my concerns about the relevance of edits to pages here, to the person involved in making them is something I hope you will not continue to dismiss as if it were merely some idle "pastime" on my part. It is a responsibility I do take seriously. ~ Kalki 22:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
These are rather lengthy and pointed criticisms on relevancy and other matters for someone who, twice now, admits that they haven't read the quotations. The Abu Ghraib quote,

"They ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive." […] "I said to him, 'I believe in Allah.' So he said, 'But I believe in torture and I will torture you.'

was added with the relevant Bertrand Russell criticism,

this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world, and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as his chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

I would also add that both quotes are consistent with Paul's directive in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9:

In flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.

Your objection to these quotes appears to not be based on relevancy or any other valid reason, but simply because you are bothered by what they say, or what they may say, because you haven't, you know, actually read them. Écrasez l'infâme 03:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's so disgusting that the Apostle Paul consistently commandeers such violent acts as you claim, shouldn't his words speak for themselves? So then why do you have to misquote the Bible to establish your allegation? The full quote is

(6) For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, (7) and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, (8) dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presences of the Lord and from the glory of His power, (9) when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed--for our testimony to you was believed.

Firstly, you misquoted the Scripture in a material way, adding the end of verse 7 to the beginning of verse 8 and calling it verse 8. Secondly you called this new portmanteau verse a "directive" of Paul, as if Paul were commanding the church at Thessalonia to deal out retribution, when Paul is actually describing an act of Jesus and his angels! Thirdly, you terminate Paul's description mid-sentence, which, along with your mid-sentence beginning of the quote in verse 7, hides the fact that Paul is indicating that this retribution occurs on some future day by Jesus and his angels, rather than something being carried out continuously by (according to your distortion) the church at Thessalonica!
You seem to know nothing about Paul's Letter to the Thessalonians other than your arrogating a perversion of it to an agenda to make Paul look as war-like as Mohammed. What business do you have speaking with any authority on the rest of Christ's and his Church's teachings? 216.165.199.50 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Bertrand Russel was criticizing to the cruelty of Jesus, as evidenced in 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9 which in the KJV translation has Paul saying that Jesus will:

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power,

precisely as quoted. Your criticisms are therefore invalid, and only serve to illustrate the pitfalls of using the wrong English translation. The KJV is closest to the original Greek text of 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9:

(8) εν πυρι φλογος διδοντος εκδικησιν τοις μη ειδοσιν θεον και τοις μη υπακουουσιν τω ευαγγελιω του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου (9) οιτινες δικην τισουσιν ολεθρον αιωνιον απο προσωπου του κυριου και απο της δοξης της ισχυος αυτου.

Contrary to what you wrote, note well that verse 8 begins with the Greek "εν πυρι φλογος", meaning "in flaming fire." I am able to read the New Testament in its original Greek and Aramaic, so I am in fact able to speak on what the Bible says with some authority. Écrasez l'infâme 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

POV commentary[edit]

You reverted my modifications to your comments on the Christianity and Jesus pages, saying "The source is simply "The Book of Mormon — I am well aware of that, but the comments you are adding to the quotes are presenting doctrinal points of view as if they were established fact, which violates the fundamental guidelines of Wikimedia projects. That is why I modified them as I did. One can present all manner of quotes one agrees with or disagrees with, but in adding comments to them, there should not be any implicit or explicit endorsement of doctrinal matters. To indicate that there are other doctrinal points of view than the one presented is honest and permissable, while to imply in any way that there are not is to be deliberately deceitful. ~ Kalki 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your characterization of the comments in these additions. Please provide one specific example and back up these charges. Écrasez l'infâme 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The two comments I modified are both plain and simple examples. You have added the quotation in the form:

  • And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

This added comment presents editorial commentary implying that the assertion being made in the quote is fact, when it is actually a doctrinal position. Many people question or deny the Bethlehem account for many reasons, but if one adds a comment, one should not reinforce such a doctirnal statement as if it were not questionable. I modified the comment slightly to minimize POV endorsement of the contention being presented:

You also added:

  • Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.

I modified this comment so it would not seem to explicitly endorse the factuality of the statement presented.

These modified comments make factual statements about the quotes, and provide a little information about the doctrinal positions of others. The comments you added can be taken to imply that they should simply be accepted as fact. Whether you do this in sincerity or from facetiousness matters little, the comments should not remain in such definitely one-sided form.

I would also like to note that the citations you are often adding are needlessly redundant in linking to Wikisource 3 times, and elsewhere linking to Wikipedia articles on people when Wikiquote articles are available is unnecessary, but I have not bothered attempting to trim them all down at this point. ~ Kalki 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I supportive for Kalki's modification. The added remarks are not only redundant but sounds for me advertising a doctorine. It is against our NPOV policy. The usage "is" in this kind of remark sounds also determinative and hence unacceptable. Also when your comment step into false statement like "as well as traditional Trinitarian doctrine Jesus is both the Father and the Son." it becomes useless and misleading. In the Trinitarian doctrine Jesus is not the Father; it is Sabelianism, not Trinitarian. --Aphaia 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As Aphaia pointed out, my hasty modifications were themselves in error, as I was just about to note, but Aphaia beat me to it. This is what I had typed out before getting into an edit conflict:

Further comment: Actually, I realize now that even the comments I added on one of the quotes, while attempting to minmize any implicit endorsement of doctrinal assertions had erred in accepting your phraseology; even many endorsers of trinitarian doctrines would argue that the "Son" is not the "Father", though they might argue them to be united in various notions of "substance" and "Godhead". I would now modify the comment thusly:

The complications of trinitarian doctrines are something I really am not inclined to go into a great deal of debate about, I am simply saying that none of them should be presented as if they were accepted fact, or as if there were not other trinitarian and non-trinitarian views on the matter. ~ Kalki 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kalki: "This added comment presents editorial commentary implying that the assertion being made in the quote is fact …". Nonsense. It's simply a clear restatement of what the passage says. Whether any specific quote contradicts or is in concert with other quotes is immaterial—but this quote about the doctrine of the trinity appears to be of special interest to you, so you felt the need to add your own qualifications, which are arguably POV, in contrast to my NPOV clarification. I simply restated what the passage says in clear language, without any comment of my own. Furthermore, your addition of "As depicted in", instead of simply "The Book of Mormon" as the source, is clear POV because this implicitly disparages the Book of Mormon as a source—why didn't you also change all the Biblical sources as

As depicted in the Bible?

Doing so would be unnecessary and POV, just as your change is POV w.r.t. the Book of Mormon. Écrasez l'infâme 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to continually presume that I have some particularly strong attachments to doctrines or traditions that I make any effort to defend from your rather obviously extreme zeal to undermine or mock with some of the most atrocious statements about them (whether for or against) that you can find. This is not the case. If you had quoted some traditionally accepted myths or legends about Gautama Buddha and then made the comment "Bhudda was a White Deer" or of "Krishna" "Krishna was once a tortoise." I would have objected in the precisely the same way — these are assertions derived from doctrinal assumptions that should not be stated or restated in the comments as if they were factual. In the end I agree with Aphaia, that there is no need to repeat an assertion that is clearly made in the text at all, but if comments are actually helpful to give further context they should not be doctrinally presumptive.

This applies to all matters and not only those of what might be considered spiritual philosophies or religions. If someone quoted a notable physicist saying "there are only four forces in the universe" I could certainly accept it as a quote, but if anyone declared in a comment on an article on physics "There are only four forces in the universe" I would similarly object to that. In modern physics there are 4 known physical forces at work in the universe, but in relation to recent observations of the apparent presence of Dark matter and Dark energy there are many developing hypotheses that there might be more. Those that are known to Physics are the strong and the weak nuclear forces, gravity, and the electro-magnetic force. Of these the only one that humans are known to directly sense is the electro-magnetic force. All human sensations of the presence of physical objects, pressures, chemical compositions, odors, tastes, heat, light and color, involve some manifestation of reaction to electro-magnetic processes. We can feel the effects of the force of gravity upon our bodies, but we are not known to have any capacity to directly sense the force itself, apart from these effects that are similar to inertia, and similarly we are not known to have any direct perceptual awareness of the strong and weak nuclear forces, beyond their affects in creating the masses of "atomic" structures that we to some extent can directly sense, through electro-magnetic reactions. This should all be clear to anyone well acquainted with physics, but my point in going on about it is, what is plain and obvious to me or others might be very obscure and hard for most to understand, but even the most elaborate exposition of knowledge cannot be presumed to be complete, and far less so are any very simplistic interpretations of spiritual or poetic expressions and ideas. I would never say that because humans presently only have proven awareness of only four forces that there might not be more, and I would never say that because a passage of religious, spiritual, or poetic expression could plainly be interpreted in one way, that it could not be interpreted in others. Nor would I accept such statements as appropriate within the comments added to the quotations. ~ Kalki 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Aphaia, you recently warned me to stop removing content from Wikiquote. Did you take the time to look at the material I removed? I assume you didn't because I removed a duplicate quote...and I'm a little offended that you would warn me after one edit, much less an obviously benevolent one.69.135.206.147 01:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Originally posted to User talk:Aphaia#Vandalism. [1]
Please excuse me for jumping in here. I'm posting this message to the three people involved in this 30 April 2007 edit to Atheism: 69.135.206.147 (who removed a quote without explanation); Écrasez l'infâme (who reverted it, calling it "vandalism"); and Aphaia (who posted a warning message to 69.135.206.147's talk page).
  • 69.135.206.147, please do not remove content without specifying a reason in the edit summary. Vandals routinely do this, but it is not at all unusual for well-meaning editors to do so, too. The latter, however, should not generally remove someone else's effort without a simple explanation (e.g., "rm duplicate quote", "rm unsourced quote from likely unnotable", "rm quote taken out of context", "rm copyvio material", etc.).
  • Écrasez, please do not call simple removal of a quote "vandalism". Vandalism is an unmistakable attempt to deface Wikiquote. Inclusion or exclusion of particular quotes is almost never vandalism, even when the editors fail to include an explanation. The best response to such a removal is to revert it with a more accurate edit summary (e.g., "rv unexplained removal of quote"). Please assume good faith.
  • Aphaia, I think we need to update our warning templates and/or our practices in using them, because it's not a good idea to warn editors who have made only a single contribution that their unexplained removal "is considered vandalism" when it isn't obviously so. Persistent unexplained removals, of course, can be, but even then they're often just content disputes involving someone who is unaware of how to deal with these disputes properly on a wiki. (I know there aren't many of us posting warnings, but I think they should reflect at least one attempt to help rather than scold.)
I believe we need to try to work together more instead of reacting negatively so quickly. Thank you for listening. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Galileo quote[edit]

You recently added the following to the Jesus page with the edit comment of "This quote is about the absolute certainty of the claim that Jesus was born to a virgin)".


  • To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as ridiculous as a claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

This is not a quote about Jesus. It may contain his name but it is clearly a quote about Galileo's works. What it does, at best, is show that Cardinal Bellarmine was misguided in his certainty of the nature of the universe. An excellent quote for either Cardinal Bellarmine's page or Galileo's page but not here.

After reading the other discussions on your talk page let me end with this. I am an Atheist and I am finding your edits of this nature to be pushing the bounds of judgment and taste. When someone who has a vested interest in agreeing with your edits is reverting them it is time to push forward edits a little more carefully. -- Greyed 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply restored this quote added by one editor, and deleted by another. Taste varies -- please be more specific about which quotes you question. Écrasez l'infâme 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It's right up there and has been there since I first commented. -- Greyed 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Right up where? Aside from this section, you have no comments either here or at Talk:Jesus that suggest you "[find my] edits of this nature to be pushing the bounds of judgment and taste.". Écrasez l'infâme 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't be intentionally obtuse. I state clearly "After reading the other discussions on your talk page" prior to that statement. If you are unable to find the other discussions on your talk page, this page, then I don't know what to say. -- Greyed 22:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't distort[edit]

Please don't distort the description of your source as you did at this diff at the Thomas Jefferson entry back in January 2007. Jesus is not a thing, and much less does Jesus' name describe a common noun. Elementary grammar dictates Jesus' name begin with a capital letter, especially when it appears in a title, just as you managed to capitalize every other noun in the title of your source.

You should know that such "errors", along with your past behavior as described on this page, tend to cast doubt on the integrity and discernment of every other contribution you have made thus far as well. 216.165.199.50 06:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting this typo and capitalizing the ‘J’ in Jesus. That I capitalized Jesus correctly in this very quote contradicts your unfounded accusation of distortion, and rather reveals a lack of willingness to assume good faith on your part. Écrasez l'infâme 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)