User talk:Str1977/Archive2

German Chancellors
Thank you for your thoughtful answer, and for getting the point. As a German born after WWII and for a long time continuously preoccupied with our not so glorious past, I certainly don't want to see Adolf Hitler in the lineage of Gerhard Schröder or Angela Merkel. Best wishes, --wpopp 11:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, I hadn't guessed that you're German. I agree that we can't break the line for semantic reasons. But I think the line has been broken for the reasons you state. And, as I say in the discussion, nobody counts British (and, BTW, Austrian or other) heads of government/state The US is the exception, maybe because the have a greater need to establish themselves in history. Therefore I think that the effort to establish exceptionally a line up to Angela Merkel is biased, and I don't like that. Best, --wpopp 15:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

On the Catholic Church of Wikipedia
As you have described yourself as a Catholic, I thought I would alert you as a co-religionist to your opportunity to delete the particularly offensive article, Catholic Church of Wikipedia.--Thomas Aquinas 21:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A Message to Pro-Life Wikipedians
The section "Foetal Pain" (Fetal Pain) has been deleted from the Abortion article. Could you help restore it? If you would like to see what was deleted, go to my talk page, scroll to "Fetal Pain," and click the provided link.--Thomas Aquinas 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

BC Prob
There is a problem with wikipedians changing the Euripides pages dating system to BCE/CE... especially SlimVirgin. I want to explain the situation incase you can help...I originally tried to change a wikipedia page from BCE/CE to BC/AD User:Shanes told me it's wiki policy to use the dates out lined by the creator of the page. I searched and found that the Euripides page originally used the BC/AD dating system and changed it with a summary. Now others are putting it back to BCE/CE. Can you help? Chooserr

Lateran
Hiya. You might not have noticed but the St. John Lateran is located at the Italian version of its name, thanks to a four person vote in April, even though English speakers worldwide (except in the US) don't use the Italian version of the name. I've proposed a vote to move the page back to its original location. It is at Talk:Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano. Please drop in and vote. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 05:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hanging
Thought you might find of interest primary source The Opinions of Julius Paulus Book 5, Title 17 Concerning Acquittals (3). Ancient Roman jurist describing capitol punishments. There's a Big Deal about crucifixion being listed first. Never convinced about the use of hanging as a replacement for crucifixion due to PIETY. I think that's stretching it. Whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.23 (talk • contribs) 15:43, December 02, 2005

Got me curious. What is your source for ancient hangings in the Ancient Roman Empire (before 476 AD) on the mainland taking place at all, outside of the those hangings by Romans in Britian and those by Germanic tribes?I am not doubting you. I'd like to know just to increase my knowledge of the ancient Roman Empire. I find it fascinating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.23 (talk • contribs) 03 DEC 05

Terri Schiavo
The article appears to continue to need scrutiny. Terri Schiavo was a human being with a mother, father, brother, and sister, and a life before her collapse. Can you imagine any other Wikipedia article that is "improved" by deleting the "Early life" section of the subject? patsw 04:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII
Can you help me out with Pope Pius XII? Somebody has started reverting the article back to the October version, because they don't like the (now month-old) edits to the Holocaust section. As someone who has obviously worked hard on the article, you know me as a reasonable not-FK style editor who has tried hard to build consensus around my changes. Can you help me defend the nature of the balancing edits I made (removal of the unbalanced quotes from Jews section, the one-sided version of Israel Zolli's conversion, etc.) as well as the sources I added (the International Catholic-Jewish Historical Commission, the Journal of Religion) so that we don't start a messy edit war? I think the article is currently quite favorable to Pius, in any case. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Philip the Handsome
I believe Philip the Handsome would be correct. At any rate, Philip the Fair probably redirects to Philip IV of France (who is certainly a much better known Philip the Fair). But I'm not sure what's wrong with Philip I of Castile. He was Philip I of Castile, and this title was clearly higher than his various Burgundian titles, even if only briefly held. As to Flamekeeper/Famekeeper/EffK, I think his behavior has been so egregious that there's probably not much need to do anything. But I'll try to take a look. john k 23:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

'Gay Pope' articles
Hello. I don't think we've met yet, but I've noticed from some of your edits that you are knowledgable about the lives of the Popes. I ran across the article Gay popes. I looked up the sources and Google does report that they are not made up, so the article, at least, has that going for it. I'm a little disturbed at with the lack of balance, though. Actually, I'm disturbed by the existense of the article altogether, but that's not going to change. I think I will start doing some homework to see what I can do. In the meantime, could you take a look at it and give me your sense? Thanks in advance. --Elliskev 03:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Black Legend
You say you don't like the Black Legend - the Wikipedia article, as well as the notion itself? The Black Legend has become a nonsense - the contributors (sadly few) seem to prefer baiting each other (how snotty are the Spanish-speakers!) to making an effort to perfect the article. Any suggestions?--shtove 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Favour
Str1977, I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stup of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation you think necessary? I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if you checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

New user
Thanks for the heads up...I've seen several of those. It seems we have a new editor who seems very POV to me. Something to keep our eyes on. KHM03 23:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about User:Clinkophonist? I was baffled by some of his actions, too. But now, by assuming good faith and reading his proposal at Talk:Criticism of Christianity, I am inclined to believe that this is a valid attempt to a better overall structure of the area. Perhaps the intermediate steps in this process may look rather strange, because some material inserted by biblical inerrancy fundamentalists (e.g. from Biblical scientific foresight) become more visible. --Pjacobi 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pj. Let's see how it all unfolds. Though certainly some things of concern are already visible. I only say "grass eating lions (and some carnivores too)" and house that's a leper. Str1977 23:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review my edits at Criticism of Christianity. Thanks...KHM03 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please review my edits at Historicity of Jesus, when you have an opportunity. Thanks...KHM03 18:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Year of the Eucharist
Hello. I started a stub article Year of the Eucharist. I don't pretend to know enough to do it on my own. Would you mind helping? --Elliskev 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholic teachings
Just found this article. Worth keeping? Thought you'd like to review it. KHM03 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity, tolerance, and equality
This is an article that was started (not by me!) in relation to Criticism of Christianity. When you have an opportunity, please take a look at it and give your take on the article talk page or make edits. I had redirected it to the "Criticism" page, but the original author didn't seem to care for that option. Any help would be great...thanks...KHM03 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion
Hi, I see that you are listed as a Roman Catholic Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities I think this is an interesting and worth while category. Afterall not all celebrities are pro-abortion. Dwain 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Best Wishes for Christmas and the New Year! Dr. Dan 16:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is no longer Christmas Day, so best wishes in Christmastide. Robert McClenon 15:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Str1977! Christ is born; glorify Him! :-) Wesley 05:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent addition on Christianity
Dear Ann, I hope you had a good start into 2006. If you are free, could you have a look into the recent addition to Christianity by "86.137.164.37". Thanks, Str1977 14:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I welcomed the new anonymous user and asked him to discuss his proposals on the talk page. Hopefully, the discussions can bear some fruit. I'll keep an eye out; thanks for the "heads up". Happy New Year...KHM03 14:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Au revoir, but not Adieu
Thanks for your message. Yes, I'm around, but only barely. I'm going to blank my talk page before I go to bed tonight, and then I'm not going to log on to Wikipedia again until the middle of the month, as I'm just too busy. I didn't have a very good start to the year. My mother carried something far too heavy a few days ago, and hasn't been well since. She's talking in a whispery kind of way, and is walking really slowly. I'm worried that she may have done some damage to her insides, but she doesn't want to go to the doctor. It may be just shock. She was really well before that. Keep her in your prayers, will you?

I've been helping Dr. Dan a little bit with his user page, and I suggested (by e-mail) that he link to your template. I was sure you wouldn't mind. I noticed that you recently stopped linking to templates, and pasted the code directly into your page. I've followed your example, as an administrator has started deleting userbox templates without putting them through TfD. It has caused a lot of bad feeling. She had only got as far as C, so the "Roman Catholic" template has been spared so far, but the Christian template was deleted with the log summary "states a political or religious affiliation" (It has since been restored by another administrator.) No warning was given, so lots of people were left with red links on their user pages, and were mocked when they protested. I don't normally sign RfC's but I made an exception in this case (even though I think a lot of the boxes are silly, and I could certainly live without mine).

On that particular subject, ich kann mich täuschen aber ich glaube, daß jemand mir vielleicht nachstellt! Ich denke nicht, daß es möglich ist, diese Seite zufällig zu finden. Well, perhaps I shouldn't try German with you because it will be so full of mistakes that you'll think I can't understand it properly either. I have Level One on my page as an average of being able to produce above Level Zero and to understand below Level Two. I'm planning to spend a week in Munich with my mother just after Easter, if she's okay. We decided (based on very limited knowledge) that Munich was probably the best place in Germany for good shopping and nice surroundings, but you might advise differently?

We'll "talk" again later in the month. Enjoy the rest of the holiday, if you're still on holiday! If anything nasty is put on my user page, please revert it. And by the way, guess what I bought last week! Aurelie! AnnH (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Travelling note
Dear Ann, though you will not be moving physically (at least not very much ;-)) I want to wish you all the best for the time you're away. And I hope and pray your mother will get better. Don't worry about your German, so far it has been spotless - not only that there weren't any errors but even all the idiomatic stuff was beyond reproach (No equivalents of "raining cats and dogs"). So once again, all the best. Str1977 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

SfD Antipope stub
There is a proposal on WP:SFD to delete the following

''This biographic article of an antipope is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by [ expanding it]''.

Your comments would be welcome. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Two Things
First, I've made more additions to the Homosexuality and Christianity article you might be interested in.

Second, I'd like to invite you to something.

A.J.A. 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Born again
Please take a look at the discussion going on here when you have a chance. I'm trying to work with a new editor who doesn't seem like he wants to work with me, regarding a particular link. Any help is welcome...feel free to let me know if I've acted inappropriately. Thanks...KHM03 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mayors of the Palaces
Dear Str1977: First, the Drogo of Champagne article: why call him "Duke of the Burgundians"? Can you clarify his titles. I believe he would be best represented as "mayor of the palace of Burgundy as duke of Champagne", but I don't know. If we remove his mayoral title, he might as well be removed from the mayors of the palaces page. Dux was a title used by all the mayors. Second, Pepin of Heristal was certainly Austrasian mayor from 680. I have never seen him referred to as Neustrian mayor. He took the title dux et princeps Francorum, but I don't believe this negates his office of mayor, though he may have abandoned the title. Thirdly, was Theudoald ever in power in Austrasia? His father intended it, no? Finally, although I won't change anything about the use of the Pepins' nicknames or ordinals as they are now, I think the use of German-based nicknames which I have never seen outside of Wikipedia is a bit misleading to someone coming here with little knowledge of this history. Srnec 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the template Carolingian template is only confusing and uninfomative. The dates separated by slashes and the use of "Arnulf of Metz" and "After the Treaty of Verdun (843)" as headings like the other two are a little confusing and do not look good. Furthermore, you stated after your revert of my edits that Pepin of Landen and Grimoald the Elder were considered part of the wider family of Pippinids or Arnulfings. They were not Arnulfings. They may be Pippinids but the template is a Carolingian template. Pepin and Grimoald have nothing to do with the others' succession rights or heritable lands. They were not Carolingians and I don't think they should be considered as such on the template, which should be conveying accurate information in a simple, understandable, and stylistic way. I think the template, as is, just takes up space in many articles. Actually showing a clear succession of the family makes more sense that what it is currently. Do you have any suggestions for improving it while retaining the Pippinid information? Srnec 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Abortion
Some of the discussion on the talk page looks absolutely appalling. I tried to touch it up a bit, but it looks to me to me a heavily guarded article, and my guess is my edits won't last long. It might be a good strategy to simply make little changes every week or two rather than larger ones all at once. Also, with Ann's superior understanding of the English language, she may be able to make some semantic changes impossible for me. I'll check in on it from time to time. KHM03 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dracula
Gnädiger Herr, I won't engage in a War over this, but I must voice stong Disagreement in the Matter. BSD may avoid some of the grossest Changes made in other Films, but it is nonetheless quite unfaithful to the Original. The introduction of Dracula's Origins, the Concept of his Beloved reincarnating as Mina Murray and his subsequent Romance with her, combined with the way he is characterized in the Film and the "Give me Peace" Ending, contribute to change his Character completely from what it was in Stoker's Book. This combined with other, apparently minor Changes, like the "gothic" rather than Victorian Costumes, make the film "a" Dracula that has very little of Bram Stoker left in it. In ways, and despite the obvious differences, I feel Murnau's Nosferatu to be much closer in story and Feeling than this. As you can see, I have little Room to improve on your Formulation without returning to former Situation. Please think on it and tell me if you agree with me, or stand on you Way of describing Things. Yours truly --Svartalf 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not yet found a suitable alternate phrasing. I shall let it rest and wait for inspiration to come upon me. It is better for me not to tamper with it anymore until I am fully ready.--Svartalf 12:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. What do you say to This ? --Svartalf 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

labarum
I've taken the liberty of correcting the legend of the labarum on your page. The classical phrasing is "In hoc signo vinces", not signa. also signa is a plural while hoc is in the singular... I hope I did not do anything wrong by doing this. --Svartalf 11:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Frozo
first of all...about my holy book...by the research made by professors not muslim professors only but also christians...the holy qura'n is original & not changed since the day it was written in...and never edited coz no one dare to edit god's words and if someone tried to do it he'll not succeed...not by force or something like that..no but no one can write a such uniqe way accept allah my only god... in the other hand the bible was edited many times...and the only defence that your book have towards those who try to edit is a statement in the end of bible that says may the one who edit this book be cursed.... while there is a verse in qura'n challenges editors to edit and tells them that they will fail...i think if someone wrote a report or a research and in the end of it he wrote "i bid you can find a fault in this research" i think the readers will find thousands of ways to find faults and they will... in qura'n allah said this and till this day no one did...hope u understand User:Frozo


 * I do understand what you are saying, Frozo, but I don't accept it. Str1977 19:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I inadvetently directed a possible troll to your talk page from Talk:Christian — hope it doesn't end up being a hassle. Deadsalmon 11:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So, instead of doing any actual work, I just spent the last 30 minutes reading over your troubles with a certain effing user. Looks like you've got your hands full — good luck with that. Also, always good to see someone catch the semi-subtle Steve Miller reference! Deadsalmon 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...
FYI - I have real concerns that User:69.107.7.138 and User:194.145.131.156 are the same person as User:64.121.40.153. There's not enough evidence for a charge, but I thought I'd voice my concern to you...just keep your eyes wide. KHM03 11:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They have claimed different names at Talk:Christianity. What bothers me is not only that they seem to edit the same pages, but that their language seems almost identical.  Again, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to make an accusation, but it bears watching.  KHM03 11:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The same kind of thing has spread to Early Christianity. KHM03 11:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

POV and fringe scholarship spreading
Hello again. I have a feeling that Early Christianity could benefit from your presence! Ditto for Transubstantiation. It's hard to keep track of all the problems here. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm already in Early Christianity. Let's see if my edit gets any consenus. patsw 18:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity
Hey! I'm working here! I think you reverted to the wrong version! Check it out...thanks...KHM03 19:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * TheShriek seems to be undoing some of our work. I cannot revert again for the day, so you may want to monitor this.  I've asked him to take his ideas to the talk page.  KHM03 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and Charisma
Did you notice the talk page discussion about the term charisma? I think there was a fair majority in favour of keeping it.--shtove 18:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting...
I appreciate your advice about formatting on the talk-pages. But that's not really the problem. It's just that I am, in the first place, a one-finger typist so I tend to get a bit sloppy, especially when I try to hurry as I did today. I also discovered that I'm habituated to typing enter between paragraphs and the Wiki software seems to automatically start the paragraph at the beginning when I do that, even if I add the colon later on. So I just try to make sure to go back and delete all new lines between sentences and then put  " "  in between. but thanks anyway.--Lacatosias 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your objectivity and may God watch over you even more. 68.110.9.62 10:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

STR, I understand your resistance to the concept of a secular/Christian scholar. I also agree with you that there is only one scholarship. However, I believe within scholarship there are different areas of thought and research. Giovanni has demonstrated an abundance of references for his edits and when you have several scholars supporting the same thought, then I believe it is acceptable to be included. As I have stated in the discussion page on Christianity, those scholars I would classify as secular make assumptions I would never accept in developing their theories. These mystery religions, gnostism, etc. may have influenced Christianity at one time, but they certainly were not the mothers of Christianity.

As I reviewed the Christianity discussion page and while I am writing to you I also realize that it could easily be dangerous to distinquish too strongly between scholars based upon their respective faiths. It would appear that you and Giovanni have already lessened the importance of this distinction. Storm Rider 17:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

STR, on the Christianity article St. Paul has been included as a leader of Christianity. I have always thought of Paul as the greatest missionary of the Christian faith and an apostle. I have never thought of him as a leader such as Peter. He is not listed in the apostolic line of succession; can you shed some light on this for me. Do you think he really should be listed as a leader? Thanks for your help. Storm Rider 07:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Christianity
Hi, I was thinking of moving the Galileo section to the talk page. I was concerned about the inaccuracy of the "tortured" claim. I see you've dePOVed it, although the bit that you've "corrected" was inside a quotation from White, so that won't do, either. I'm looking up Galileo at the moment in the online Encyclopaedia Britannica, which I can access through my Open University password. I'll add comments to the article talk page in a few minutes, if I'm not called for dinner first. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the Pius XII article
b/c the requests for citations every two sentences is absurd. I added about 9 cites and someone is just not happy with that. SO what's a guy to do? I simply reverted and explained on the talk page. Best regards, Anon.

Merovingian template
Why did you undo the change I made the the Merovingian template? You simply changed it without comment. It seemed a sensible change since the Austrasian line of kings began before the Neustrian and the dates are more in order that way (the two sole kings are not reversed from the actual order in which they reigned, too). Srnec 01:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your response. What do you mean Neustria is usually mentioned first? Mentioned in what? Why would it be? Srnec 03:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

ROHA
It is still my position that he should not be appeased unless and until he agrees to conform to the reasonable behavior expected of Wikipedia editors. I think that that must be insisted upon before any compromise should be reached with him. --Nlu (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of Christians
Hi Str1977. It's probably best to stick to the number that the linked reference provides, particularly since it is provided as a reference. Regarding adherents.com itself, its estimates are likely as accurate as any, as the site is solely devoted to estimating the numbers of adherents of various religions, based on various references. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian-lineage image
Sure &mdash; if you send me the file, I can convert it. Or if you'd like to be able to do it yourself, I suggest a small, free program called IrfanView. It's what I usually use to convert things. -- Vardion 08:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
why did u remove my comments ("POV tag") of Adolf Hitler talk page (it was not move to archive). Removing comments from talk pages is comisdered as vandlaism. Please restore it. --Haham hanuka 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find any comment by you I deleted. Are you talking about this section: ? Str1977 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Very sorry, but why did u archived it? it was a new section of the talk page. By the way do u live in Germany? --Haham hanuka 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I live in Germany. I archived a lot yesterday, all of which I considered discussions no longer "alive". Sorry, if I was wrong. Str1977 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That fateful "scary" quote
Hi - I've replied to a message that AnnH left me. It's a bit rambling and I appologise for this but if you have time I'd appreciate you reading it as it will explain my sometimes puzzling views on things! SOPHIA 14:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann. I think that one will live to haunt me! What I was trying (badly) to express was that the process of trying to reply to three simultaneous editors who agree (and can type a lot faster than me!) is scary when you are new. There is such a lot to learn about wikipedia and your own ability to identify and express your views that I'm afraid I'll always look on the early weeks of an editors life (mine especially!) as the "teenage" weeks (I speak as the mother of two with a third coming up soon!). At that time the new editor (just like teenagers) does not need another editor telling them they are wrong but that someone understands how they are feeling and why they may be taking things the wrong way (an important distinction). The observations I made on the RT page deliberately did not name you or give a link and if you read the post properly I said I thought (genuinely) that the RT page gave rise to misunderstandings - not that I thought you had wilfully mislead another editor. Again I should have made it clearer that when you are very new (as I and the other editors were at the time) you still haven't got the idea that even wikipedia project pages are up for grabs by anyone as in the non-wikipeadia world this is unheard of.

I always meant to clarify this with both you and Str1977 (who also left me a nice message about this) but there never seems to be enough time in the day to do all the edits that I'd like. Let me assure you that I also consider you, Str1977 and KHM03 to be serious thoughtful editors and I will never disagree with you just to prove a point. If ever I clash - such as the french revolution issue - it will be due to a genuine inability to understand. At the time I put this down to your POV but I spent alot of time trying to understand why you all made the points you did. Eventually I realised that I was coming from a very POV point myself as well without even realising it. I define people by what they say and do - they can call themselves anything they want but it's how they behave that counts in my book. This, I didn't realise at the time is a very humanist POV (I knew about the humanists but have never described myself as one as it almost seems like an anti-religion religion to me). Christians that commit crimes or, as is my POV is the case of the church before the french revolution, stand by while people suffer and starve do not follow what Jesus is said to have taught and therefore in my book are not genuine. The arguments that you seemed to put forward (please correct me if I'm wrong) see the individual and the church they are a member of as one and the same in some circumstances. Therefore persecution of the one is identical to persecution of the other. This POV is not uniquely Catholic in nature but was never emphasised in my protestant background so was new to me. At least you knew your POV and could explain it - I was unaware of mine so could not! I am always prepared in any discussion to accept that I am wrong and as you all agreed with each other (and we were making no progress) I decided I needed to go away and think which is what I have done. I still disagree with the inclusion of that example of persecution but for very different referenceable reasons which, when everything calms down a bit, I will put on the talk page.

I'm trying to move on from those bewildering POV, what on earth are all these WP:ABC rules and why does everybody think I'm wrong days! I hope I can ease other editors in gently as they often have a core of very interesting stuff. Gio has, in MHO made the christianity pages more interesting and complete and I admire the patience that the established editors have shown him. The more diverse the editorship of these pages, the less chance there is of someone completely upsetting things as most views will have been discussed already and balanced as much as possible.

The only agenda I will hold my hands up to is the need to streamline and properly categorise data to save duplication and ease follow up by the interested reader - a legacy of my data base administraitor days! Other than that I try to live by Jesus' commandments to love thy neighbour and one another, whether I believe he existed or not as they are the rules I would like other people to adopt. A society based on these values would be tolerant and caring and that is how I would like to live and the sort of world I would like my children to grow up in. When people adopt for and against stances they often "throw the baby out with the bath water" so to speak and will see nothing of value in another persons view. This is such a shame as progress and toleration cannot come this way.

Sorry for filling up your talk page but I have been feeling the need to explain myself as not subscribing to any faith it can look suspicious or strange if you suddenly agree with someone (I think I took Str1977 aback on the Transubstantiation article). The only way I can think to describe myself is as "genuinely well meaning" and I don't think there is a userbox for that one! I shall ask Str1977 to read this too. SOPHIA 14:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sophia, thanks for pointing me to your thoughtful post over at Ann's. I actually consider it one of the causes behind many problems that some people don't realize their subconscious POV, think their views the norm or standard and then start to pick on others. My, if I may call him that, nemesis here on Wikipedia is of that bent, claiming that he doesn't have a "POV". After almost a year he still hasn't realised the impossibility of that position. But that needn't trouble you, now that you have "seen the light".

I appreciate all you've said and especially with "they can call themselves anything they want but it's how they behave that counts in my book". That's not to say that "Christians that commit crimes are no longer Christians" - that would be a sneaky way out, but whether their crimes can be blamed on Christianity is another matter. As it is Christians sinners no less than non-Christians. "It is the sick that need the doctor, not the healthy."

In regard to the French Revolution issue, I agree that the state of the French Church before the FR was less than perfect in many regards and that Christians did commit crimes and some might have stood by while people suffered. On the other hand, those that suffered where Christians and Catholics too and I doubt how many of those attacked by the revolutionaries were actually personally guilty of these crimes, and which revolutionaries were less guilty. Punishment for a actual crime is not persecution, but I don't believe in "collective guilt" - I think the Church was made a scape goat for many things, but also attacked for philosophical reasons that have nothing to do with the plight of the people. People like Talleyrand would fit into your category of by-stander but they were not among the persecuted but rather on the other side (not yet actual persecution but the roots of it). Edmund Burke's quote on St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre I have already referred to.

Be that as it may, I consider you a serious thoughtful editor too and your recent posts give evidence to that. All the best to you and your coming child and of course the two already at your side. Cheers, Str1977 17:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)