User talk:Godlyblessings

Godlyblessings, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Christian Head Covering
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have been making some edits to the Christian Headcovering page, of which I have reverted some. Thanks for your contributions. Some of the material you have been trying to add would fall into a personal point of view that would go against the Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. This does not mean that what you are adding is wrong, but it is a personal view that is only one view among many points of view. As such, to be added to the article it should have a reference that is backed up by a peer-reviewed source (personal blogs are not usually considered good sources: see WP:VER). Perhaps the information you are trying to add could fit into a new section under the heading "Alternative views." But in any case, it is not considered acceptable to change the article to reflect a personal interpretation, especially if that view is only held by a small minority. One can imagine how long an article could be if every single interpretation were to be given an explanation in the article. That said, the way the article is currently worded may not be best, as far as NPOV is concerned. Thanks for your input, and I hope the article can go forward. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is the way I respond to your message. It is interesting that one would call the view that I have posted as "personal" when my reference is clear from the Bible. I do not heap up teachers.  The proper doctrine ought to be posted rather than a wide view of falsehood. Nevertheless, I will post in a different section.


 * I understand where you are coming from. But you have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a personal website where one can proclaim his/her personal views as "clear from the Bible." To you it is "clear." To the next person it is heresy. To keep edit wars from happening, all material should be written in a way to explain various positions, giving more weight to the predominant position, but also including alternative views. I see you have started a new section. I will give you some time to work it into something that fits in, but please note that as it stands it is very repetitive with most of it being a copy of the section above it. I would suggest that you head the section "Alternative view (or views)" and it can be a place where varying views can be expounded. In that section, you and others could expound where they vary from the main views.


 * The main views of a headcovering are probably: 1. It is not for today. 2. It is a command (not a "suggestion" as your view seems to be) that represents a woman being in submission to her father/husband. There are other views, of course, but in all honesty, these two views prevail, with #2 being the main reasoning among those today who use a veil. Your view, that it is for covering up her hair and is a "suggestion", etc, is a minority view. That doesn't mean your view is biblicly right or wrong. Wikipedia does not permit endorsing one view or the other in religious and political articles. So, if your view is broader than just a few people, there is a place for it in Wikipedia. Ideally you should be able to cite material from a verifiable source (meaning more than a personal web page or self-published book). If you cannot cite such material, that view is not (technically speaking, according to Wikipedia guidelines) important enough to include in the article.


 * My main point here is that the article should not be written as if one view or the other is the correct view, and all others are wrong. I realize that the article was not written (before your edits) in a totally NPOV manner, so it could use some cleanup in that area.


 * Hope this makes sense. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! And please don't take my reverts personal. :-) Mikeatnip (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"If anyone is contentious, there are no such customs neither the churches of God." This directly implies that he is not commanding it. Furthermore, notice that he said "ought to" not "must" when referring to covering. Funny how you keep saying that I have a personal view when I clearly have scriptural references.

I posted in Objections, which should be right because this is a valid objection to the main "view," which is wrong. Also, I merely updated wording on the original post so if anything is improperly written-- it is from the originator because the updates refer to the same scriptural passages.

Again, I do not cite a teacher just because he or she got a book published. Citing of the biblical passages are perfect enough because that is what this whole thing is about; the Apostle Paul's scriptural passage about headcovering for Christian women. It is about the Bible. It would be proper to leave the objection so that ultimately the reader can make the final decision. Thanks.


 * You have a personal opinion about what that verse means. So do I. So do a million other people. That is normal, and something Wikipedia understands. What you seem to not understand is that your opinion (and mine) of what that verse means is not to be promoted as "the" correct understanding. Millions of people, both in the past and today, have believed and still believe that "no such customs" refers to customs other than covering the head with a veil. And therefore, that verse does not nullify the "command" for women to cover their heads with a veil.
 * Okay, I am not saying that to argue about it. I may or may not agree. The point is, there are varying views on the topic, and Wikipedia articles are not supposed to hold one view up as correct and all others as wrong. Both sides (or even more than two sides) can have their view expressed in the article, and the reader can decide. But Wikipedia should not promote one view as correct or better than the other. Please review NPOV is you have not done so yet. Thanks. Mikeatnip (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If neutrality is the desire of Wikipedia, then you would keep the objection I have posted because without it, the Christian headcovering page embraces the "submission to a husband" view as THE view of Christian headcovering. Therefore, I did what you asked and posted in Objections so both views are there--along with other objections. It is clear to the reader what the most popular view is.

Mike, you ought to keep the objection I have posted, but if you are contentious about it, there is no such custom. (Does that sound like a command?)

- no wait according to the NPOV, there is a tradition to keep things neutral. Thanks.


 * I reverted your edits because they did not add the other viewpoint as an addition, but they removed the opposing viewpoint. In all honesty (totally disregarding your personal view and mine), the point of view presented by the article is the majority view for those who hold to a headcovering. Therefore, it should be given greater weight. Not because you or I view it as the correct interpretation or the incorrect one. Feel free to add other viewpoints into the article, but without removing what is there. As I have said, the article was NOT written in a good NPOV before you edited it, but that does not mean to then swing it over to promote another POV. If I had time, I would edit it and try to make it more neutral in its approach. But I don't get much done on Wikipedia these days except patrolling pages. Feel free to make the article more neutral in its approach. Just don't remove the opposing view or promote your own as "correct." Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It was in Objections. Your view is not disregarded, you are very clear on keeping the current view with bias rather than your own Wikipedia neutrality. You did not see the last paragraph with the rest of the opposing viewpoints that were originally there. In other words, I never removed them, but added them at the end.


 * I made a quick edit to the one section, as a sample of how to expound on a point of view, without making it sounds as if it was "the" correct view. I am not saying my edit is perfect, but I think you will see how the change in language makes it more neutral. Mikeatnip (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I made another edit to clean up the repetitious material. If I removed anything that you think should be there, feel free to put it back in. I was simply trying to remove points that the previous section had already stated, and leaving only those points where there was a difference. Mikeatnip (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Too much was removed; clarity and supportive scriptures. The Objection would no longer be well-understood. I fixed it to maintain the clarity.


 * Well, I suppose we have a little different vision of how the page should present the differing views. I had in mind to present the main model, then only address those points where the minority differed. If the minority view is read all by itself, yes, I removed too much. But I assumed the reader would have read the above section and would then be presented with only those details that differed. Anyways, we can give the page some time to see what other editors may think. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)