User talk:John Carter/Archives/2012/December

Bride of Christ--questions
First Some Questions:

Is the Bride of Christ primarily a modern gender issue?

Or is the Bride the Church?

Or is the Bride an individual?

Does Jesus, in any place in the Gospels, act toward women in the dismissive way common to men of his era?* Or does he treat women as competent to be witnesses? Does he hear and respond to their questions and statements and requests for healing? Many Christian Churches offer Bible study groups and provide an historical background as accurate as possible and we are expected to be able to ascertain these things in those study groups. These things are not so high or far away that someone must seek them out; they are in our hearts (Deut 30:11-14).
 * (I'm referring not just the physical and verbal abuse of domestic violence and gender inequality, but that women legally couldn't be witnesses; women got stoned for adultery, but not necessarily men; men could divorce them, some believed, on any grounds but women didn't have a right to divorce, etc.)

I scanned your comments about yourself before Thanksgiving and seem to remember you said you're Catholic and that you don't do theology. Is that correct? If that's where you're at then perhaps even if the Catholic church has a strong tradition of awareness of historical context, this may be of lesser interest to you.

But we have a very early witness of the concept of the bride in Paul's comments on the relationship between husband and wife in Ephesians 5--when he ends saying--"this is a great mystery, but I speak of Christ and the Church" (Eph. 5:32) He jumps from human relationships to a deep theological question that the early Church was already coming to understand. And it's very clear, in reading the O.T. that the prophets understood that when they spoke of spiritual things they had to use analogies of common experience within human understanding. (See, for example, Hosea, who begins by describing his heartbreaking circumstances of being married to a habitually unfaithful wife--Chapters 1 and 2, but then he makes it extremely clear he's comparing that unfaithfulness to the unfaithfulness of his priests. Hos. 4:4,6; 5:1 and ff)

So is the bride (not just any bride, but specifically in relationship to Christ--specifically to Jesus as Bridegroom) a representation of how we relate to God--not in fear or out of a sense of duty, but through an intense, even passionate, agape love?

To have any understanding of this we need to be able to read what was said in the first centuries of the Church. It's well known that the Song of Songs was considered of great theological importance in the early church. Anything that is said that is entirely disconnected to that first understanding must be questioned because we have the example of Jesus who fulfilled faithfully the words of the prophets.--205.167.120.201 (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately the computer lab is closing for the next 45 hrs. I must edit and finish this then.--205.167.120.201 (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Focus on content
I have noticed several questionable posts from you recently. Over the past couple of months you have made several posts about starting an RfC against me. Although I welcome any community input into my edits, some of your posts have crossed the line into possible guideline violations. For instance i have several diffs on my notepad of you delving into RfC threats on article talk pages. This is a clear violation of wp:FOC which states you should focus on content. I have also noticed that some of your posts border on personal attacks, for instance on User talk:HiLo48's talk page where you made an analogy about my edits being bullshit and called me an idiot. I am also not the first person to complain about your posts frequently bordering on WP:TLDR. Although 10-15 lines are not uncommon, it is certainly excessive when it is referring to a single point. Such lengthy posts IMO only invite distraction/off-topicness and can be seen as gatecrashing a thread. I particularly find such lengthy lectures annoying because i am sometimes in the midst of a constructive/productive conversation, and such large blocks of text can disrupt the conversation. In the future, please start a new thread/heading if the lengthy post may disrupt a conversation. Other editors have previously complained about your spamming and your continued spamming is approaching a disruptive level. If the personal attacks, spamming or violations of wp:FOC continue i will raise your username at an appropriate noticeboard. Pass a Method  talk  10:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow me to be honest with you, Pass a Method. So far as I can tello, your own recent edits have been a very serious concern to others. I have seen few if any comments regarding my own conduct, although I have seen repeated violations of policies and guideline on your part. This post itself probably qualifies as a form of harassment as per WP:HARASS. I actually am focused on content, specifically including concerns about the content meeting policies and guidelines. So far as I can tell, you rarely if ever seem to deal with such matters. Yes, I will acknolwedge I have received multiple e-mails from others, which I am willing to forward to others for verification, if they so request, regarding your often extremely problematic conduct. Frankly, regarding the RfC/U, which has been one of the subjects I have been contacted about, I think even you would probably agree that an RfC/U, whose conclusions are non-binding, is preferable to an Arbitration case, whose conclusions are binding. Considering your own record regarding violations and policies, at least in part evidenced by your own history, including blocks, may I suggest to you that, for your own good, it is probably more in your own interests to familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines, rather than making unfounded allegations and fairly clear attempts at harassment of others. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * John, it appears that you have ignored my wp:TLDR concerns. I usually ignore editors who post extremely large posts, but the frequency of your disruptive gatecrashing has prompted me to consider proposing an interaction ban between us unless you can limit your posts to 7 lines or less on article talk pages. I will be monitoring the length of your talk page edits closely from now on. I will also consider upgrading the wp:TLDR essay to guideline status. Pass a Method   talk  17:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Nobody is obligated to keep their posts under 7 lines for you on the talk pages, I can't see that one getting very far... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 7 is not a strict number. It could be 10 or maybe even 12. I havent made my mind up yet. But even 12 would be an improvement. Pass a Method   talk  17:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass a Method, your comment above, in which you appear to demand that other people comment on their own talk pages in accord with your own arbitrary, and frankly irrational, requests can not unreasonably be seen as an indication of some form of cognitive impairment on your part. Please refreain from further comments on this page, until and unless you make a bit clearer effort to yourself abide by WP:CIVILITY and other guidelines. Any and every comment of that type which is made will be reverted without discussion on my part. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * John, i appreciate your input as long as its concise. And i was not talking about your own talk page; i dont care what you do with your own talk page.  Pass a Method   talk  18:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass a Method, I do care what happens on my personal talk page, and this is a formal request of you to refrain from further comments here on this topic, or of any nature at all other than perhaps reasonable warnings, and, yes, this whole thread I think rather clearly fails to be "reasonable". Regarding your apparent demands regarding how long other editors can comment on article talk pages, may I sugges tthat you are in no way in a position to not act in accord with the reasonable comments of others. Failure to respond to comments in a productive way, particularly on the basis of the extremely flimsy claim of 10 to 20 lines being "too long", can be seen as not unreasonably being perhaps a violation of WP:STONEWALL. Of course, if there is no response to comments posted elsewhere, like on article talk pages, then it is more than permitted for others to revert any changes which might have prompted that discussion based on the lack of input from the original poster. Also, frankly, your own personal opinions regarding application of policies and guidelines, including such as WP:TLDR, is probably best placed on the relevant talk pages of those policies and guidelines. I do not beleive that there is any precedent for one editor being allowed to ignore the comments of others on such a basis. Again, that would almost certainly be taken as a rather flimsy excuse to WP:STONEWALL, unless the editor in question provided some clear and reasonable basis for such a request.
 * I can and do believe that it would not be unreasonable for someone with a case of Attention Deficit Disorder or something similar to make such requests. However, even if they indicated that they had such a condition, I do not believe that it would necessarily be seen as a basis for them refusing to address legitimate concerns on article or non-user talk pages. I think if an editor is in such a position, they would probably best be advised to contact WikiProject Accessibility and try to get some input from the other editors involved there. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to contact Accessibility, we already have an outlet for that, it's called simple:. I bet Pass a Method would feel right at home there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that comment really necessary? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conversion therapy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Conversion therapy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunations
I understand why you did this but in all honesty I think it's a fabulous portmanteau. I think "unfortunation" should enter the lexicon someday. "He has a felicitous way of choosing words, skillfully avoiding the unfortunations of typical online dialogues." alanyst 19:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I'm not sure how often it would be used, but I've seen worse. I may actually add a few links to this on my user page for permanent record, maybe in a new section "Words I made up". John Carter (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:History of Hungary
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:History of Hungary. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joan Crawford
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joan Crawford. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

KIS (Keep It Simple)
I apologize. I sent you a hasty e-mail on Dec. 1 and forgot to sign it before sending. More important I didn't first address the issue of rules.

1. As I understand it, WP wants conscientious editors who put objective evidence before their (inevitable) biases. And that WP rules developed in part as a result of problems with

HACKERS-OBSTRUCTIONISTS--and OBSESSED, ONE-ISSUE editors who ignore the whole picture.

As a result WP rules have become increasingly complex, over 100 pages long, and more rigid in their application. Rules don't stop people who want to break them, but instead become a burden and discouragement for many good editors, some of whom may be very knowledgeable on a specific subject but lack sufficient computer skills.--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Also, WP rules are set up primarily for modern science, especially the hard sciences. But what does one do with fields such as archeology or paleo-anthropology in which the evidence is inevitably incomplete? Or astronomers trying to ascertain the origins of the universe? There is much in science which involves a meticulous examination of available facts followed by correct analysis. The history of science is replete with errors that took decades to correct. (Darwin would be rejected today because he was working exclusively through direct observation without DNA evidence; and Galileo was working with one of the earliest telescopes). Today we are still working with what we have and advancing as best we can.

(Power, prestige, and accessing grant money often distort thinking).

3. This also occurs with religious texts that are 2000-3000 years old. The knowledge of that time was based on a strong oral tradition of memorization and the little that was written down was done by hand and laboriously copied on scrolls. Experts today can study what is available and make educated guesses but WE HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of the thinking of that time from secondary sources. What a difference Gutenberg's press made! And more so the internet of today.--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

4. So the question is, must we eliminate from WP anything that isn't certain? Do secondary sources guarantee that they are correct? Probably not.

5. I said I wanted to keep this simple. But there is one thing I must add. I did receive your extensive e-mails--and thought I was being spammed! So I hastily began to delete them. Fortunately I finally noticed your introductory e-mail and examined the rest.

You seem to have not noticed my comment in the first paragraph of my e-mail of Nov. 20th. I am NOT A FEMINIST. The LAST THING WE NEED IS a WAR BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN over power. We need to work together.

And I don't believe the Bride of Christ concerns gender issues of today. A better question to ask is whether in any place in the Gospels Jesus demonstrates attitudes and rules about women customary of his day. Does he direct women to act as witnesses? (the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene at the Resurrection). Does he silence women? Or does he listen and respond to them as human beings acting with faith?--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First I agree that secondary sources, particularly some of the obviously "sensationalist" sources, do not necessarily constitute reliable sources. This is addressed by "reliable sources" guidelines at WP:RS. However, it is actually rather poor logic to say that because some secondary sources are unreliable, we should abandon them completely. For what it is worth, there is a bit of a developing trend here, with which I am to a degree involved, to actively review some of the sources which are often (sometimes incorrectly) called tertiary sources, like encyclopedia articles and other overviews. They are far from being necessarily objective themselves, particularly if they rather clearly indicate that they emphasize one aspect of a situation. So, while there is a good encyclopedia of Antisemitism out there, I think just about everyone here would agree that we should not base the content of our articles on people who have been described as "antisemitic" in only one aspect of their notability, like Richard Wagner, based on the comparative weight the content of that encyclopedia gives that aspect of their history. And, basically, while I agree that not everything that is important is covered in encyclopedias, I would also say that wikipedia is not the only place that exists, even within the Wikimedia Foundation websites, to develop material regarding topics whose status as "encyclopedic" is perhaps questionable or not yet verified. In fact, there are several existing guidelines and policies which relate more or less directly to those matters.
 * Regarding what you seem to consider perhaps a possible lack of reliable sources on religion, I think you might be interested in looking at User:John Carter/Religion reference. I started that page months ago, until I started working on our Bibliography of encyclopedias articles, and, honestly, I think the userpage might contain only about 10% or so of the various "encyclopedias" regarding religion which I found to have been reviewed in academic journals. Having also looked at some of the books included individually, I can and do think that except for very rare cases just about anything relevant to the subject of religion in general is covered in some fair depth in some of them, probably enough to establish notability of most if not all of the even moderately significant articles regarding religion in general on the basis of them alone. Given the frankly huge number of them that deal specifically with Christianity exclusively, I can honestly say that I have no reason to think that any subject regarding Christianity which has a history of more than a year or two could not be developed based on them alone.
 * Like I said, I think your best option is to review the existing databanks, websites, books available on Google and elsewhere, including reference books, search through WorldCat for any titles which might be locally available, or which you could ask for from interlibrary loan, and review them. And of course I think it might make sense if you also reviewed the articles I sent you, and maybe indicate which you still have, so I could know which you deleted. Alternately, I have found the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, the original publisher of them, to be included in one or another edition in virtually every public and academic library I have ever seen, and have reason to think you might have access to a copy of it on that basis.
 * Regarding many of your comments, honestly, you seem to be almost exclusively "asking questions", and wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, really isn't the best place to do that. Encyclopedias are, more or less by definition, supposed to provide a basically neutral, objective, NPOV discussion of their subjects. That can really only be done by examining the other sources that exist out there. If you believe that these are serious and significant enough that existing policies and guidelines should be changed based on that, then I think that your best option would be to go to the appropriate policy or guideline page and raise those concerns there. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hezekiah's Tunnel
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hezekiah's Tunnel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bu Shaqq for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bu Shaqq is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bu Shaqq until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 19:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Categorising people by occupation
Well, it's been several months, so I think it's time to start looking at the next steps.

I wrote up the following.

Proposed: That people are no longer categorised by occupation. Such current categorisation will be listified.

Categorisation of royalty and nobility, and elected or appointed political and religious officials, will not fall under this proposal for various reasons. (If wanted, that can be a separate discussion.)

Rationale: People may have any number of jobs/occupations in their lifetime. Also, how an occupation is defined or even named can vary greatly by location or even by company or business. This is something better handled as an explanatory list.

What do you think? And do you see anything that should be more clearly explained?

Depending on your thoughts, I'm ready to post this to the VP, and notify the various category-related and people-related discussion pages - jc37 01:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Two slight reservations. The first is the word "occupation," as some people might think it exclusively relates to paid employment or similar, and I imagine it should also include volunteer-type activvity. Also, possibly, I might change "political" to something like "political and governmental," as some people who become political are also regularly involved in governmental bureaucratic positions at some time or other. John Carter (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant political in the broader sense of political science, which includes governments and boundaries etc. But nod, I see how that could be misunderstood.
 * Not sure how to better explain occupation. I didn't think of it in terms of payment (I thought that was where the term "professional" came in).
 * And in hindsight, I think it'll likely be necessary to note that this doesn't affect categorisation by membership in any sort of organisation or in a country's military. (Those are different discussions and different guidelines.)
 * With all this in mind, how would you phrase it? - jc37 20:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The last statement about how it doesn't effect categorization by organization membership would be very good, and would probably in a lot of cases more or less eliminate a lot of the other questions. And, unfortunately, regarding making the phrasing too accurate in the beginning, I'm honestly not sure how productive that would be. I've always gotten the impression that people are more likely to comment, and in general respond, if they think they have something constructive to add, even if it is just "I approve the change in phrasing suggested by Jimbo" or whatever, rather than just rubber-stamping a more or less perfect proposal. I have actually included a few rather glaring, but easily resolved, problems in some proposals of my own in various places specifically because they seem to be a stimulus to discussion. I think keeping the "occupation" in place, in some way, might well wind up stimulating discussion and input, and maybe getting more people involved than a more clearly flawless proposal would. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair points.
 * And how about the rationale? How clear is it? Do we need to explain more? Should WP:OC be referred to? - jc37 21:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifying the reasoning behind the proposal would definitely help, and pointing toward overcategorization would be excellent as one of the primary reasons. If there are any specific examples of shockingly overcategorized articles that come to mind, they would help a lot too. Danny Ainge and similar individuals in the List of multi-sport athletes might be good examples. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable references
When I said we lack reliable sources concerning texts 2000-3000 years ago I meant that, concerning the imagery of the bridegroom, the bride and the marriage we don't know how it originated.

Before Hosea the image of God as in a loving covenantal relationship with His people is vague, barely hinted at. Then Hosea tells us of his heartbreaking experience with the habitual infidelity of Gomer. He's hurt and angry, but he can't stop loving her. He finds a way to bring her back. But further on we find Hosea is describing the priests as unfaithful--that God is angry but can't stop loving his people--and, patiently, wants to bring them back.

After this, in the following 3 centuries, the image of bridegroom, bride and marriage is developed in Jeremiah and especially Isaiah, with mentions in Baruch and Joel. The Song of Songs was understood by pre-Christian Jewish scholars to refer to God's love for his people. But there are few extra-Biblical sources to explain how this developed.

It's a great mystery until 700 years later Jesus comes.

Then we have what's in the Gospel, the Epistles and Revelations, that early Christian theologians identified the Song of Songs as referring to Jesus and the Church as well as God and the individual soul. Then what happened? The Church never developed a theology of the Bridegroom, the Bride and the Marriage.

We can conjecture all we want of these developments in the past. But there is so little first-hand information about them. The one thing we DO have is Paul's reference in Galatians 4:27 to Isaiah 54:1. And we find that 4 times Isaiah says the Bride was Forsaken.

I know first-hand that the Catholic Church doesn't have a theology of the Bride and perusing a Harper's (1988? edition) Encyclopedia of Religion found no mention under Bride; Bridegroom; Marriage; Isaiah; Revelations and half a dozen other listings. The whole concept of a passionate spiritual relationship with God was left for the most part to contemplative religious, especially mystics.

And now, suddenly today, in seeking ways to have a deeper relationship with Jesus, evangelical women have rediscovered the Bride of Christ.

It certainly is a relevant subject for a Wikipedia article. NOTE! I logged in, wrote this, signed the post--but had been logged out--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)--205.167.120.201 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I am more than a little confused right now regarding the specific purposes of these comments. Are you implying that there should be an article Bride of Christ? If you are, then I think you should know there already is one at that page. Follow the blue link. Are you implying that there should be some sort of article on "Evangelical views on Christian feminist theology"? Well, if so, then the only things which would really need to be considered are whether such an article would meet WP:NOTABILITY in its own right, which are that it as a subject unto itself, evangelical views on Christian feminist theology, meets those requirements, and that the amount of material which can be reliably sourced on that subject is sufficient to make creation of a spinout article reasonable. However, if you notice the comments at the top of the edit box every time you make an edit, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", with a specific link to Help:Introduction to referencing/1, referring, basically, to our policy at WP:V. So, basically, the only things that would be required as per wikipedia policies would be that the reliable sources which specifically support the specific content, and/or the reliable sources which can be used to specifically establish notability, are produced.
 * I also think you may be operating on a bit of a misconception regarding "Feminist theology". From what I have read in various places, that term is used now primarily because when the idea of a "theology accessible to women" was first broadly discussed, it was within the feminist movement. Alternate terms, like "womanism" and "womanist theology" have also occasionally been used, but, apprently, much less frequently, so that "feminist theology" is still the best title for that article as per WP:NAME. That in no way implies that all those who address the matter are in some way affiliated with the broad "feminist" movement. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A woman's view of Jesus
When I asked you the QUESTION of whether there is any place in the Gospels (as compared to the Epistles) in which Jesus demonstrates attitudes and rules about women customary of his day--I should have asked--what information have you encountered that Jesus silenced women?

This is quote from a secondary source: "Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross.  They had never known a man like this Man--there never has been such another.  A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as "The women, God help us! or "The ladies, God bless them!"; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condesension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything "funny" about women's nature." This can be found on the last page of Dorothy Sayers (1939) Are Women Human? The introduction says "Only three times...did she write directly on the nature and functions of women..." and this is the only reference to Jesus in those 30 pages. "Miss Sayers was not a feminist, and she had certain doubts concerning the effectiveness of "aggressive feminism"...she practiced on the premise that male and female are adjectives qualifying the noun, human being, and that the substantive governs the qualifier." p. 7 of the introduction.--Margaret9mary (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And that sourced material might well be acceptable for inclusion in some article. I note that you seem to make a fundamental philosophical error in the beginning of this thread, by asking me what evidence I have to prove the contrary of something. Please read WP:BURDEN, which indicates that the burden of proof is on the person who seeks to add information to an article. And, again, I really think that it might be most useful if you were to limit your comments to simply discussing what material you specifically want to add to articles, and what sources you have which verify those proposed additions. The talk page of the relevant article, or perhaps of some relevant WikiProject or group, might well be a place where you could get a broader range of responses than simply my own. Also, please read my comment in the other thread you started immediately above. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Is there still a problem? I was out Sunday when I read your message and forgot about it by the time I got home. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. A user started an RfC framed as a choice A or B question. Progress has been made within that context, but John Carter has raised the issue (rightly I think) that the RfC's premise is itself flawed. It is currently stalled awaiting further input. — Sowlos 08:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society
Responded to your comment, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society
 * Yes, the quality improvement to this particular portal is part of the Main Page Featured Portal drive. :) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Religion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Religion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal request
John, i would prefer for you from now on to keep comments about article content on article talk pages rather than on my user talk page. I prefer this because of prose and it makes it easier to get third opinion input on any partcular topic. If a dialogue started in a particular place i would prefer if we continued there, otherwise it would get confusing. In case of a disagreement, there are numerous helpful noticeboards such as the WP:DRN if you prefer. Thanks. Pass a Method  talk  22:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You should realize, as another editor pointed out to me before, that there is nothing remotely like a formal request around here. I regret to say if things are confusing to you personally, unfortunately, that is your problem, and no one else's. Also, I think it is rather clear from this comment above, about my own recent addition to your user talk page, that you probably didn't read that comment. I regret that you seemingly cannot deal with even constructive criticism, as that comment was almost exclusively intended as constructive. However, you should realize that individual users' talk pages are meant to be used to address specific problems related specifically to matters regarding that individual editor, and the comment you erased, apparently without reading, was rather clearly of the kind appropriate to your individual talk page. I urge you to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and other guidelines regarding refusing to deal with matters of conduct. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors with differing religious beliefs will obviouly and inevitably have disagreements. My essay WP:CHRISTIANPOV was partly inspired by your own Christian bias which is clearly evident on articles such as God whoch you at one point tried to modify into a Christian/Abrahamic mouthpiece. I am not the only editor to have mentioned your Christian bias so i believe the most constructive thing both you and i can do is use wikipeia processes such as the numerous helpful noticeboard to work our way to a consensus. Pass a Method   talk  23:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. and we try to deal with them. I believe the most constructive thing you can do, as I indicated in my comment on your user talk page, which you apparently removed without reading, is to actually familiarize yourself with our existing policies and guidelines. Apparently, you may find that too onerous a task for you. And I regret to say that the problems you seem to be so obsessed with are regarding your own opinions, and the fact that, so far as I can see, you cannot or will not provide any evidence as per wikipedia guidelines and policies to support your contentions. I do note I have rarely if ever seen you point toward any sources to support your contentions. To the extent that statement is correct, honestly, at least some of your own edits can be seen as disruptive editing and/or tendentious editing, based, apparently almost exclusively, on your own unsupported opinions. If you were any more familiar with wikipedia policies and guidelines than you apparently are, you would probably know that. May I request that you cease using my own talk page in this rather clearly unsless effort.
 * Regarding your own assertion above regarding the article God, once again, you seem to have apparently ignored the real evidence. False statements are a clear violation of [{WP:CIVILITY]]. If it isn't asking too much of you, please actually make an attempt to finally read the comments I made. Otherwise, please refrain from using my user talk page to make irrational, illogical statements that are clearly counterindicated by the evidence. And, in light of your own statement above, which is clearly a false conclusion contradicted by the actual evidence, I ask you to refrain from commenting on this page indefinitely. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WP Poetry and The Canterbury Tales task force
As someone who is listed as a participant for WikiProject Poetry, I hope you will be interested to learn of an attempt to revive the WP and alongside this the creation of task force to improve coverage of The Canterbury Tales. We are currently looking for participants to help set up the basics. Please get involved if you can, and we can hopefully revive this important project within Wikipedia! Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry POV...
I'm not sure why it's such a problem, but that's a separate matter for discussion. That alone has nothing to do with the behavior of the editor elsewhere. Let me ask you a question: what would you do if I followed you to AfDs you started (and no others), voted keep, and furthermore insinuated that you didn't notify editors, or didn't do due diligence, when I in fact had little more than a METOO argument? What if I then went to a talk page discussion that also didn't involve me and continued to make personal comments? Would you assume that was fair behavior on my part, or would you think maybe I was doing this on purpose? MSJapan (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "What if I then went to a talk page discussion that also didn't involve me and continued to make personal comments?" As I said on my talk page when asked this involved a revert by you of citation requests that I added and so it did involve me. Why did that fact slip your mind?  As far as your AfDs are concerned, they are far more likely to be without merit generally, as for example your campaign to delete Cathedral articles started by me (this being an example).  As I've said I'm rather short of time so I don't tend to get as involved with AfDs as I was about four or five years ago. JASpencer (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

CLIPSAS
Hi John, could I ask a favour? Do you know what happened to the CLIPSAS article? There was a hard fought deletion review in 2008 which pretty overwhelmingly stayed as keep, but as of 2011 it was deleted. Could you please look into this with your admin tools? I'm not saying that there has been abusive editing, but it's unusual for articles to disappear without a trace. JASpencer (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Found it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=CLIPSAS&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= Is there a way i can get to see the edit history before it got deleted? JASpencer (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources more important than primary sources?
When WP puts secondary sources as of greater importance than the primary source and eliminates sections without secondary sources it sometimes loses irreplaceable essentials. I've seen this happen repeatedly on WP in scientific articles

--'' such as when editing Systems theory (in which PhDs. who are experts in man-made systems but don't understand sustainable systems in nature. The latter have feed-back systems which allow them to be self-correcting, flexible, adaptable to changed conditions, but to maintain an overall stable norm--I, and other people who left complaints, were instantly deleted, no discussion allowed).

And in Attachment theory--people very specialized in their field but who missed the meaning of the interdisciplinary work of Bowlby and wanted to eliminate eseential parts of it--insisted I purchase a 500+ page book in very small type--which I did--and found the same problem existed--for example they confuse the ability of herd animals to follow mother within hours of birth with human infants who are helpless (secondarily altricial) and must depend on their mother to maintain proximity until they can crawl/walk.)''  That's in WP.

People are shocked with how the Church treated Galileo, but scientists are capable of treating their colleagues just as badly. Books could be written about it.

The loss of primary sources in religion--such as in the origins of the Bride of Christ, Bridal Theology and direct spiritual experiences of God--can leave one without anything. Some of the greatest minds of their time, such as Thomas Aquinas--and even Jesus himself--depended on a careful concordance with scripture and wisdom. They could be as methodical as any modern scientist--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret9mary (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hyper-Calvinism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hyper-Calvinism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Icthus DYK update

 * King's Chapel, Gibraltar, Prioryman, 16 November 2012


 * Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Albany, New York), Daniel Case, 28 November 2012


 * Tingsted Church, Ipigott, Rosiestep, 01 December 2012


 * St. Mary's Church (Albany, New York), Daniel Case, 09 December 2012


 * Stubbekøbing Church, Ipigott, Rosiestep, 12 December 2012


 * Notre Dame Cathedral (Phnom Penh), Bloom6132, 13 December 2012


 * St James' Church, Cardington, Peter I. Vardy, 16 November 2012

-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 22:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - December 2012
 Membership report The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 350 active members. We would like to welcome our newest member, User:Harishrawat11. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. We would be able to achieve nothing here without the input of all of you. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

From the Editor Ichthus is one of the ways that the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department helps update our members. This newsletter is one of the ways we do try to help people keep up with the project. We would always welcome any input for things to be included in it or additional editors to keep it going. Please let us know if there are changes you would like to see in the format, or if there are any particular things you would like to see included. And if you have anything you would personally like to add, by all means let us know. The talk page of the current issue is probably the best place to post such comments. With that, I wish you all happy reading!

P.S. Please [ click here] to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

By John Carter

Church of the month This image of The Baptistry of Saint John in Pisa by User:NotFromUtrecht was recently promoted to Featured Image. Thank you and congratulations for the great image!

Contest of the month As I imagine many of our editors will be editing at a greatly reduced level for the next few weeks, what with the Christmas and New Year's holidays coming, there is no specific content-related contest this month. The contest, if anything, is to make the most of the season, in whatever way, if any, you deem appropriate.

Calendar This coming month (mid-December through mid-January) includes the Advent season, and one of the two greatest holidays of the Christian year, Christmas. Other major feasts in the next month include those of the Feast of the Epiphany, Baptism of the Lord, Saint Stephen, Thomas the Apostle, Holy Innocents, John the Evangelist, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Saint Genevieve, Elizabeth Ann Seton, and Saint Sava.

Featured content and GA report Since the last report, Anne Hutchinson nominated by User:Sarnold17 was promoted to FA. Grade I listed churches in Lancashire by User:Peter I. Vardy was promoted to Featured List. The image in the Church of the Month and Christian art sections of this newsletter were promoted to Featured Picture status. Come to the Well by User:Toa Nidhiki05 and others, and Dwight Christmas by User:Gen. Quon and others were promoted to GA level. DYKs featured this past month include King's Chapel, Gibraltar, by User:Prioryman, Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Albany, New York) by User:Daniel Case, Tingsted Church by User:Ipigott and User:Rosiestep, St. Mary's Church (Albany, New York) by User:Daniel Case, Stubbekøbing Church by User:Ipigott and User:Rosiestep, Notre Dame Cathedral (Phnom Penh) by User:Bloom6132, and St. James' Church, Cardington by User:Peter I. Vardy. Our profoundest thanks and congratulations to all those involved!

Christian art

The nave of the Parish Church of Urtijëi. This image was created by User:Moroderen. Thank you, Moroderen!

Spotlight In the spirit of Christmas, the spotlight for the coming month might actually best be on those people closest to you. We know that a lot of our editors here are associated in some way or another with schools, and many if not most of them are going on rather extended breaks for the holidays. This can give some of us a chance to meet up with old friends, spend time with our families and those close to us, and, in a sense, "recharge" for the new year. So, for all of you who are in some way part of that group, we wish you the very best of holidays. We hope you all return to editing after the holidays with your spirits lifted and with your energies at peak level. There are some small matters in development here as well, and it is our hope that some of them will be ready come the next newsletter. But, until then, we wish you all the happiest and holiest (if appropriate) holidays.

- Help requests Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here EdwardsBot (talk) ~
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kukri
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kukri. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiss Guard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiss Guard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

...
Merry Christmas! History2007 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkish people
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkish people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yuletide greetings!
To you, your family and friends. A Merry Christmas to you and your family and a very happy new year!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You have mail!
From about a month ago regarding a nomination for a free t-shirt :) Let me know if you need another one. Jalexander--WMF 20:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of indigenous peoples
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of indigenous peoples. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Socialism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Socialism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mayor of Leicester
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mayor of Leicester. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)