User talk:Margaret9mary

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

why the revert
May 1 I edited the first two paragraphs of double bind and see that you reverted it within the hour and left no explanation. I delayed contacting you while familiarizing myself with Wikipedia policies. I understand that explaining reverts is a basic policy.

While the article as it stands is a good beginning, there is much room for improvement. Among other things I want to challenge the statement "The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple Catch-22 situation,..." ````


 * Hey, it's a tilde (~) not ` btw (for signing comments). I did leave an explanation (although I admit it was brief), check the history for that page.  You had added a bunch of "bad" wikilinks to pages that did not exist, and you made the claim that the Double Bind is "essentially the same as a Catch-22 situation" with little explanation and no sources (when the article took the contrary position, explaining why they were not the same), and I also felt that there was little reason to give that brief summary about the novel "Catch-22". -- itistoday (Talk) 13:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added some comments on Talk:Double bind. You haven't challenged the statement "The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple Catch-22 situation,...", you have merely deleted it and replaced it with its converse. --RichardVeryard (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Neurological levels
I just wanted to draw your attention to my edit of this article. I think that we should create a separate article on Logical levels (Bateson), and we could perhaps use some of your notes in Talk:Double bind. --RichardVeryard (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree a separate article on logical types is needed. That's one reason why I wrote that on the discussion page, because logical types in biology are much easier to understand than logical types in communication.


 * I had delayed further editing because I've been struggling with putting together pieces from various sources on logical types and also on systems theory/cybernetics. The problem is, Bateson was talking from the paradigm of systems theory/cybernetics, while many people are still thinking and hearing him in terms of the paradigm of classical science--i.e. "circular causal systems" vs. a "one-way causal paradigm".  This element of noncommunication makes it extremely difficult.  But perhaps it's possible to put the pieces together from various sources, sort of like a jigsaw puzzle, to write something clear and complete.


 * Also, re your comment, above, on Catch-22. MC Bateson commented that most people understand the term Catch-22 in terms of a simple contradiction (and she doesn't remember GB saying anything about Catch-22).  So there's no more to be said.  But when I read the WP article on the book it's clear double binding is involved, and Bateson and double bind are mentioned.


 * I began reading the book the other day. It's of the genre of the absurd, and from the start Heller is consistently obnoxious and paradoxical--the perfect set-up for double binds.  But the military inherently has a lack of feedback systems (authority commands and soldiers obey and on the battlefield this can be a matter of life or death).  And soldiers are being expected to be willing to die (which in another context would be taken to be suicidal) or to kill other people (which in another context would be murder).  But that's one of those dilemmas noone wants to talk about...Margaret9mary (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Save First Paragraphs re possible editing
On Oct 31 Admiral Norton added the box "The tone or style of the article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia". Therefore I'm putting a copy of it here.

A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages and one message negates the other--a situation in which if they succeed at responding to one message they fail with the other and the person will be put in the wrong however they respond--and the person can't comment on the conflict, or resolve it, or opt out of the situation. A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in orders of messages, and these messages can be stated or implicit within the context of the situation, or conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications exist when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed.[1][2]

The term Double Bind was first used by the anthropologist Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in their discussions on complexity of communication and schizophrenia. Their findings suggested that schizophrenia isn't always an organic brain dysfunction, but that the confused communication assumed to be schizophrenia is sometimes just that: they discovered destructive double binds were a frequent pattern of communication among families of patients and proposed that growing up amidst perpetual double binds could lead to learned patterns of confusion in thinking and communication. But Bateson made it clear that complexities in communication also exist in normal circumstances, especially in "play, humor, poetry, ritual and fiction". (see Logical Types).

Human communication is complex, 90% of it is "nonverbal" and context is essential to human communication. Communication consists of the words said and how they relate to what has been said in the past, what isn't said but is implied, and how these are modified by nonverbal cues, the environment in which it is said, and so forth. For example, if someone says, "I love you", one takes into account who is saying it, their tone of voice and body language, and the context in which it is said. (Is it a declaration of passion or a serene reaffirmation, is it public or private, is it insincere and manipulative, does it sound as if they are saying "Please pass the salt" or are they saying it jokingly even if they're annoyed at you?)

Conflicts in communication are common, and often we ask, "What do you mean?" or ask for clarification in other ways. This is called metacommunication--communication about the communication. But sometimes asking for clarification isn't possible. Communication difficulties are common in ordinary life and most often occur when metacommunication and feedback systems are lacking or inadequate or there isn't time.

Double binds can be extremely stressful and become destructive when one is trapped in a dilemma and is punished for finding a way out--but finding the right way out of the trap can lead to emotional growth.

The classic example given of a negative double bind is when a mother tells her child that she loves him, while at the same time turning her head away in disgust.[3] The child doesn't know if to respond to the words or to the body language and, because he is dependent on his mother for his basic needs, is in a quandary. He can't ignore it or leave the relationship. Another example is when one is commanded to "be spontaneous". The very command contradicts the spontaneity, but it only becomes a double bind when one can't ignore the command or comment on the contradiction.

But Bateson also described positive double binds, both in relation to Zen Buddhism with its paths of spiritual growth, and the use of therapeutic double binding by psychiatrists to confront their patients with the contradictions in their life in such a way that would help them heal. One of Bateson's consultants, Milton H. Erickson (5-volumes edited by Rossi) eloquently demonstrated the positive possibilities of double-binds through his own life, putting the technique in a bright light.

Double bind theory is more clearly understood in the context of complex systems and cybernetics/systems theory.[4]--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re
From what I've seen, the article has two versions that don't fully agree. I suggest you to stick with one and delete the other one (all versions are retained in the page history). However, there seems to be some original research in the version you wrote, so I invite you to comprehensively cite your writings with adequate footnotes. I've seen some footnotes that contain self-references, e.g. the content of footnote #1 is "1" and I'm completely clueless as to what this refers to. You might have intended to write "ibid", but there are more preferred ways of writing this (also described in WP:FOOTNOTE). Admiral Norton (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Response
I apologize for the delay in replying to your concerns of 11.11.08. The problems with footnotes #1 and #2 are a result of the limits of my computer skills, as I noted on the discussion page (Apologies for editing variation) on 6.10.08

After the end of the semester I will sit down and try to fully digest the details of Wikipedia citations--and get some help from campus experts--in order to correct this.

I quoted Bateson extensively on the same page (Quotes--10.6 and More quotes--10.25 and Logical Types in Biology-- 6.28).What I've written is from an extremely careful reading of Bateson.

One of the difficulties in describing double bind theory is it requires an understanding both of complex systems theory and of logical types. And classical science has defined itself so that complex systems are outside of its purview. Lawrence Bale pointed this out in Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences. To put it simply, Complex Systems Theory depends on a scientific paradigm of systems with multiple variables (ecosystems being the most obvious example) whereas the paradigm of classical science limits study to two variables and describes systems with multiple variables using Chaos Theory. Cybernetics and complex systems theory, in contrast, recognize that, although multiple variables make precision in prediction impossible, nonetheless the parameters within which variations will occur can indeed be predicted.--Margaret9mary (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No apology is necessary, I too sometimes have things to do for several days. Regarding the article, I'm asking you to choose one version of the article and delete the other, as having two versions displayed simultaneously confuses readers. The other version will not be permanently deleted, as Wikipedia keeps a revision history of every of its pages. You don't need to explain the matter of the article to me, as I'm quite a layman here and have a very limited understanding of the matters you just wrote. However, both versions of the article describe the double bind concept in a way I can understand. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Attachment
Hi. Are you proposing there should be more material on very early attachment behaviours in the article? Have you got any particular sources in mind? I'll have a look and see what I've got. Fainites barley scribs 17:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, has been blocked as a ban-evading sockpuppet of banned user . Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate accounts
Hello Margaret9mary, I just saw your question at the Arbitration/Requests/Case page. It will probably be removed from there some time soon, since that page is really for more serious conflicts, but thank you for being so conscientious about it. It is generally not a real problem to have two accounts, as long as you are open about it and don't use them to deceive others. If you want to be on the safe side, the best way is to keep a note about it on your userpages. You could place:



on your alternative user page, and conversely:



on your main user page. It will produce:

and:

This way, everything will be transparent for all.

Best regards, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have no objections, I will remove this request for arbitration as part of my role as an Arbitration Clerk. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Thanks for the message. I'll have a look at this tomorrow. Jean Mercer (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Crazy-Making
Hi Margaret9mary. I removed Crazy-Making from the "See also" list at Double bind because a "See also" list is for listing other Wikipedia articles relating to the article in question. As there's no Crazy-Making article, it doesn't below in the "See also" list. Regards, CLW (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's a worthy addition to the article, you could add it to the introductory paragraph (e.g. some articles begin "XXX, also known as YYY, is a..."). CLW (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re reminder
Yeah - that was my e-mail. You can delete something you've written but it will still show up in the record if anybody looks. If you have a good reason for wanting to remove it permanently it can be "oversighted", ie removed permananetly. This is usually for things like disclosing personal information about people or libellous remarks or that kind of thing. You shouldn't delete things people have already replied to generally though. You can e-mail me and tell me what the problem is and I'll have a look. Cheers. Fainites barley scribs 10:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Was it this ? Fainites barley scribs 10:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was an e-mail address that doesn't give your actual name I wouldn't worry. If it enables someone to identify who you are it can be permanently deleted. Let me know. By the way - edit conflicts are annoying - particularly if you've written a long screed. What you have to do is - if it says edit conflict, don't hit any of the tabs. Scroll down until you reach the coloured diff panels and you will find your edit in the one on the left and the new one in the one on the right. Copy yours. Then hit the tab at the top and then you can copy-paste your edit in as normal. Fainites barley scribs 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple WP: Attachment in mammals
or--What is the Evolutionary Purpose of Infant Attachment?

Mammals are social animals. (Humans are also mammals). They are not hatched from eggs but are born alive and immature. They all have a close relationship with their mother during a period of development in infancy. During the first stage of development the mother nurses the baby and the mother and infant(s) stay physically close to each other unless the mother needs to leave to seek food (etc.). While the mother is gone the infant(s) remain hidden and quiescent, sometimes in a nest or den. Infancy is a crucial time of development—of physical growth and of learning, developing social skills to interact with others and learning life skills such as what to eat and how to respond when predators are near. Infancy is a time of brain development. In mammals, only some behavior is hard-wired in as a fixed-action pattern; much behavior is genetically determined only as potential behavioral systems that must be activated and developed. These include: 1) the development of perception 2) establishing the set-points of homeostasis of the physiological systems of the body 3) the programming of early experiences into patterns of behavior 4) the ability to identify others within one’s own group as individuals feeling and responding similar to themselves— mirror neurons are involved in this. With their increasing size of neocortex, primates and especially humans, have progressively more complex social behaviors.

Nursing is an integral part of this and it serves 3 purposes—1) it provides food 2) it helps the mother and infant stay together—in proximity—for the infant’s protection; 3) it allows the infant to observe and interact with its mother and learn through that experience.  If the infant is part of a litter it plays with its littermates; if it’s a single infant, after the first stage of infancy it will begin peer play with other juveniles nearby, close enough for the mother to quickly respond to any difficulty.  Nursing requires proximity; proximity facilitates social interaction, and social interaction is essential for survival.  Attachment exists to varying degrees among non-human mammals; it’s greatly increased especially in humans.  In hunter-gatherer and village-agricultural societies, the mother typically carried the baby or would leave it briefly with an allomother—someone with whom the child will have a life-long relationship such as a grandmother, aunt, or older sibling. Only with the rise of civilization and wealth, and especially within the last 60 years has this pattern of childraising, embedded in our mammalian biology, been significantly altered. Conclusions: Infant attachment is a multipurpose behavioral system essential to social animals. During infancy patterns of behavior are established on which other long-term relationships are built. Originating in the infant’s protection, the primary purpose of attachment soon became to support brain development. The establishment of homeostasis of physiological systems, social and emotional development and learning are other functions. Infant attachment is found to some degree in all mammals and is greatly expanded in humans. Attachment is a behavioral system that is present at birth but that must be activated and developed. Why is attachment seemingly delayed in humans?......

References
 * John Bowlby (1969/1982) Attachment vol. 1
 * Sarah Hrdy (2009)Mothers and Others
 * Harriet J. Smith (2006) Parenting for Primates
 * See also any college textbook on animal biology (zoology)Margaret9mary (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful
Ian.thomson (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, using, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Regarding your request that "Christian editors" help you
I am Christian. I recommend reading this essay on how Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policies interact with the Gospel. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

BANNED FROM THE TALK PAGE
A New Beginning

Last week ian.thomson removed my first two posts in 2 min and 18 min respectively so that none of the other editors could examine them. Why the haste, ian?

Perhaps I should clarify--both my parents were scientists and I was raised to the rigorous rules of scientific methodology from earliest childhood. As an adult I learned to follow the strict rules of theology practiced in the Catholic Church. And I'm familiar with WP rules. I understand WP rules were established because of egregious abuses of open editing.

However I've also known scientists to misuse the prestige and authority of their positions; the history of science is filled with serious errors and long delays in correcting them by scientists defending their turf or their biases. We've seen similar problems in the Church. And I've encountered it on Wikipedia.

But the rules of No original research, NPOV and Verifiability were not established to suppress information. Some people are expert at rule following, some are creative thinkers; we need both. And sometimes editors must work with what they've got, set aside personal inclinations, give precedence to reality and, if possible, work amicably toward consensus. There are few secondary sources on the Bride of Christ. The most important of them date to the first three centuries of Christianity, making most of them inaccessible. However the subject has been reemerging in recent years. And the primary source which IS accessible is the Bible.

I'm a lay contemplative. I came across the verses in Isaiah referring to the Bride over 40 years ago and immediately recognized their connection with the New Testament and Jesus as Bridegroom. Over the years of meditating on the significance of the Bridegroom, the Bride and the Marriage I have formed--gasp--a POV.

However, setting that aside, I suggest that all the related citations to the Bride of Christ be listed and reexamined: In the New Testament--and the related verses in the Old Testament. (Note: I am using the New American Bible because I find it best retains the poetic intensity used by the prophets to communicate spiritual experience--as much as the King James Bible's Psalm 23 does). In the Gospels

1.1. John the Baptist's testimony concerning Jesus that, "he who has the bride is the bridegroom..." is the only mention of the bride in the Gospels.(Jn. 3:29) 1.2. The Synoptics already listed in the article, of what Jesus responded when asked why his disciples didn't fast when John's disciples and the Pharisees did-- "can the wedding guests mourn while the bridegroom is with them...?" 1.3. Jesus' parables of the Wedding Banquet and the Wise and Foolish Virgins who were awaiting the Bridegroom (Mt. 25:1-13)with 4 mentions of the bridegroom, one of the wedding banquet. 1.4. The Wedding Banquet at Cana (Jn. 2:1-11). 1.5. Jesus never mentions the bride directly in the Gospels (only John B. does). But there can't be a bridegroom without a bride. 1.6. Clarify that the term "the Bride of Christ" is not used in the Bible but is a term that refers to all these related verses. In Revelation

1.1. Rev. 3:12--the first mention of the New Jerusalem. 2.2. "The Time of the Wedding of the Lamb has come and his Bride has made herself ready." (Rev. 19:7 and 8) 3.3. Note in Rev. 21:2, 9-10 these three verses use 4 distinct names to describe the bride: "the holy city; new Jerusalem"..."I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." i.e. city--Jerusalem--bride--wife. (see below) 4.4. Rev. 22:17 "And the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come"....." In the Epistles

1.1. In Ephesians 5:21-33--in Paul's discourse on marriage he compares human marriage to the relationship between Christ and the Church--saying, "This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the Church" (5:32). 1.2. As already mentioned in the article, 2 Cor. 11:2 1.3. In Galatians 4:27 Paul makes an all important reference to the Old Testament--to Isaiah 54:1. However for Jews 2000 years ago the image of God as in a spousal relationship with the people of Israel is something they were familiar with. In the Old Testment There are occasional references to the spousal relationship between God and his people--Hosea is the most heart-wrenching of them because it speaks of the people's infidelity. And there are occasional references to the bridegroom and the bride in Jeremiah 2:2; 7:34.......oh, dear, the last bus is about to leave. I must finish this tomorrow.Margaret9mary (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)205.167.120.201 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] A Prophecy to be fulfilledIf we consider the prophecies concerning Jesus in Isaiah, they were "on the books" [or scrolls, rather] for 700 years without anyone recognizing them as referring to the awaited Messiah. Since the Bride of Christ is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled it's not surprising that very little has been written about it. However we can examine the existing evidence, an important part of which is found in the Old (Hebrew) Testament.

References to the Bride, or any bride, both in the Old Testament and the New are very sparse. And so, although the theology of the bride and the marriage grew quickly in the early church at first, it was not continued. There is only one place where there is an extended reference to a bride and that is in Isaiah. Isaiah speaks repeatedly of the "forsaken bride"--and her final vindication. I cited these to you in two of the Songs of the Bride Isaiah 54:1-17 (see v 1 and 6) and Isaiah 62:1-12 (see v 4 and 12). And so it was--the early church began to develop a theology of the Bride and then, mostly forsaking it, left it as a mere honorific. It remained alive but hidden among nuns, and some mystics and contemplatives. And this was necessary. The time for the marriage had not yet come....(in process)...Margaret9mary (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Bridegroom and the brideFor nearly 2000 years Jesus has been known to be the Bridegroom on John's direct testimony (Jn. 3:29) To be a bridegroom there must be a bride. Jesus never mentions the bride in the Gospels, but the early church "heard" Him, and from very early identified herself as the bride although it was a "great mystery" (Eph. 5:32).

Jesus laid the foundations for the church but left it to grow and develop in its own time. Christian theology took centuries to understand itself. This quality is unique among religions--that Judeo-Christian faith grew (From Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, thru slavery in Egypt and the Exodus, through judges, David and the Prophets, and finally Jesus, who fulfilled the prophets and took the faith beyond the Jewish nation--and that people's experience with God was added to over a period of many generations.

[edit] The Holy City, Jerusalem in the Old TestamentThe WP article already cites Revelations in which twice the bride is identified as "the holy city, new Jerusalem...Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." We can find Jerusalem mentioned repeatedly in Isaiah. At the very beginning of Isaiah it says twice, "This is a prophecy concerning Judah and Jerusalem" 1:1 and 2:1 (That is, male and female--cities are often identified with the feminine). In Isaiah there are repeated references to the servant--for example, Is. 41:8 "But you, Israel, my servant/ Jacob, whom I have chosen/ offspring of Abraham my friend" see also 41:9, 42:1, 43:1, 44:1 and 21, and 48:12. That is, the servant is referred to by various interchangeable names, including Judah, 41:1. And interestingly enough the holy city, Jerusalem is mentioned even more frequently, again with other interchangeable names--Zion, daughter Zion, the city, the bride, the wife, the mother. Reread Isaiah and count them! (for example 33:20; 40:2 and 9; 52:1-3 and 8-9). See also Is. 44:26 "It is I who confirm the words of my servants/ I carry out the plan announced by my messengers/ I say to Jerusalem: Be inhabited/ to the cities of Judah: Be rebuilt." In other words, these are an important theme in Isaiah. Still in process Margaret9mary (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] A QUESTION TO EDITORS CONCERNING WP POLICY

Aparently Ian.thomson removed my original entry and claims that Wikipedia does not accept original research. Does this mean that if there is no published research we cannot examine the original source? And does it mean that we must not see what is before our very eyes? I am not a theologian, I do not do research. But I couldn't avoid seeing that Rev. identifies the bride, the Lamb's wife as the holy city, Jerusalem and that this is found in Isaiah.Margaret9mary (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am asking that responsible Christian WP editors re-examine Isaiah. I'm familiar with WP rule of not accepting original research and understand the reason for it, for some people were abusing the privilege of editing. But I have also seen the rules of science abused to suppress evidence observable by all (even laypeople)--superficially following the rules of science, but ignoring data for the purpose of power or bias. Good reasoning and a willingness to set aside cherished assumptions has always been essential to understanding reality and even early Christian theology is an example of it. --Margaret9mary (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTBLOG. We do not accept original research, see WP:NOR. You need reliable secondary sources (preferably works by university presses) to support your statements, see WP:CITE and WP:RS. Individual user's interpretations of Bible verses is considered original research. Also, you did not need to break your post into two sections, you could have just posted it as one section. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.120.201 (talk)

You have not been banned, and I have not been interfering with your posts
Your unsourced forum-like contributions (which was not a secondary source by any means, but original research) was collapsed, not removed. It's still viewable, all you have to do is go to the green bar above your section A QUESTION TO EDITORS CONCERNING WP POLICY and click "show." You are not banned, you are welcome to contribute information based on secondary or tertiary sources instead of original research. Don't be so dramatic.

As for your posts at Requests for comment/Request board, I did not remove a single thing there (as can be seen here and here). Have you been getting edit conflicts? Try using the edit button next to the section title, instead of the one at the top of the page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI see post below

 * I didn't respond to this post for 3 months but something needs to be said. First of all Ian.thomson was deleting anything I posted very rapidly, before any other editors could read it.
 * And finally when I turned to WP to complain about Ian.thomson's interference I experienced an editing conflict--from Ian.thomson complaining about me. What an amazing coincidence!--Margaret9mary (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You forgot that what you originally said on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board that I was interfering with your posts on that page, which is what I've pointed out was not the case. As for your posts on Talk:Bride_of_Christ, as I explained earlier, I collapsed the section, I did not delete it.  It hasn't even been archived yet.
 * You are completely mistaken. Now that I've reminded you of what really happened, and provided you with links proving that what I said happened really happened, and links that demonstrate that what you said happened did not happen, any further insistence that I've deleted anything you've posted will be an outright lie instead of a mistake.  Lying about another editor's actions without evidence is a personal attack.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks
I have explained at Talk:Bride of Christ why your recent accusations of griefing, harassment, and gaming the system are nothing but unfounded personal attacks (which goes against site this site policy). I recommend you address the issue. I also recommend you actually read policies and guidelines to understand them instead of looking for buzzwords to throw around to justify your behavior or attack others. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI--concerning the above posts of Ian.thomson

 * I didn't respond to this post for 3 months but something needs to be said. First of all Ian.thomson was deleting anything I posted very rapidly, before any other editors could read them.


 * Since I've had a significant interest in the subject of the Bride of Christ for over 40 years I'm aware that the Catholic Church does not have an official theology on the subject; that anything that was said by religious and mystics before the Protestant Reform isn't readily available; and that most of what was written in the last 100 years, available in published form, is mostly opinion and lacks a solid theological foundation. What's on WP is a good beginning effort, but there is much more--and it is found in the primary source--the Bible.  And so I was referencing that primary source.
 * And so finally I turned to WP to complain about Ian.thomson's interference. I experienced an editing conflict--from Ian.thomson complaining about me. What an amazing coincidence!--Margaret9mary (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)--Margaret9mary (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I did find where my comments were transposed to. They are not on the regular talk page.--Margaret9mary (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I totally knew you were editing what appeared to be a finished post so I could respond to it, and saved ahead of time so you would have an edit conflict and have to start all over. Do you honestly believe that? Edit conflicts are accidents (and one happened just now). As I've pointed out above, I did not delete anything you wrote.
 * As for your posts at Talk:Bride_of_Christ, just go there and scroll up just a little. There will be a green bar, and on the right hand side of the green bar will be a button saying "show."  Click the button.  This has been explained before, quit imaging problems where there are none. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, Ian.thomson! you are fast--three minutes between my post and yours! I'm impressed.--Margaret9mary (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines
We can and sometimes, rarely, do say some things without specific citations. The problem with doing so is that, without such information, it is hard to determine exactly how much weight to give an item in an article, exactly how relevant the statement is to the article, and, except with things like "grass is green" and "people need to breathe", there is going to be, somewhere out there, some academic disputing it. And, yes, in general, unfortunately, adding one unreferenced statement, however obvious it might be, tends to be the impetus for more being added by others, and so on, and on.... Yes, I think that this would even apply on the point of whether women are more sympathetic or better connect emotionally with other women.

If I remember correctly, the recent second edition of the Encyclopedia of Religion by Lindsay Jones (who seems to be a female, although at least one journal called her a him) has some substantial articles on feminist theology in that work. Under the circumstances, I honestly think probably the best way to proceed would be for everyone to wait until maybe early next week, when the local divinity school libraries will be open longer and I can access the information there. That will also give m e the time to maybe go through some of the databanks available to me and find what information they have, which is probably moderately substantial. In general, though, there isn't any particular rush to getting these things done. Looking at all the rather poor stubs we have out there is more or less indicative there. I do have access to a lot of databanks, and am more than willing to forward anything I find to anyone who gives me an e-mail address, because I don't think our internal mail makes it really easy to send attachments, and certainly not from public computers, and then there will hopefully be a lot more information available to everyone on the subject. John Carter (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to your question about using primary sources when secondary sources cannot be accessed, I think in general the answer is "no," because the question itself seems to be implying "I know it but can't prove it," and wikipedia really doesn't accept that sort of argument. Everything has to be more or less directly verifiable. There is also a serious question regarding other matters of policy and guidelines, including WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABILITY. In regard to the question about availability of sources, having looked, there really are an incredible number of sources out there. In addition to the articles in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is an acceptable source on its own, one of the most highly regarded sources on the subject of religion extant, and in virtually every library I at least have ever seen, there are mutliple academic journals seemingly devoted exclusively to the study of feminist theology, including Feminist Theology (journal), Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion and Ewha Journal of Feminist Theology. I am in the process of sending you the series of articles on "Gender and Religion" in the Jones EoR, as well as the articles in that work on feminist theology. I think between them they should be able to provide a decent basis for both what is and is not verifiable, and also give at least a basic indication regarding how much weight to give the various feminist theologies in articles devoting to those religious traditions in general. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bride of Christ
I am assuming that the section regarding "Bride of Christ" added to my user talk page was from you, although it was signed by an IP. I can understand your thinking, but, honestly, I regret to say that policies and guidelines do not support your conclusions.

I e-mailed you a rather large number of articles recently. Most of them, admittedly, were not directly related to Christianity and Christian feminist theology, but were about gender and other religions. I included those because I thought they might, perhaps, provide some additional information which might be useful regarding Christianity and theology. There are within that group however as I remember at least three or four which directly relate to Christian feminist theology, and if they contain material which directly relate to the content you wish to add, by all means they can be used as the required reliable sources for that material.

As per wikipedia policies and guidelines, however, we are obliged to require sources. Your contention that certain biblical quotes should be included on the basis that they are, apparently, "obviously" relevant is probably not going to be accepted by anyone here. We are more or less obliged to source everything, particularly sometimes contentious matters like Biblical quotations. Now, if you were to find a source which itself places a rather significant degree of importance on that quote, and be able to source both the quote (direct or indirect - if it says something like "according to Gospel of Luke 1:1" or anything similar, that might be sufficient for inclusion of the verse itself) that would be a basis for inclusion.

I have already indicated that several academic journals exist which deal with feminist theology as a whole. I have myself found that the book reviews in such journals are sometimes among the best ways of determining which books out there discuss certain topics in various ways, and if you have access to any databanks containing journals, I believe it would very much be worthwhile to review them, to see which sources can be used for which reasons.

Otherwise, unfortunately, they also provide clear evidence that the subject of Christian feminist theology is broadly discussed in academic sources, and, on that basis, that there is no reason not to act in accord with policies and guidelines and insist on any information to be added to our content to be sourced from highly reliable sources.

I am not familiar with what resources you have available to you, but I believe that your best options, at this point, would be to try to access journal or magazine articles relating to feminist theology, or perhaps use Google's book search to find if there are any published books of feminist theology available there which can be used to support the material you wish to add. Also, I think it might well be worthwhile, depending on how easily you can access libraries, to check WorldCat's website and see if there are any reference books relating to feminist theology which are available to you. Those would be the best kind of sources for material regarding this subject, which basically is an academic subject, and thus more or less requires high-quality references for material regarding it. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)