User talk:Taam/Archive 1

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

Columbus Day
Do not add statements to the articles which are not directly supported by a citation. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are mixining me up with your fellow administrator User:Cuchullain, all the material I have sumitted to the article has been referenced. Taam (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC
Because the RCC FAC has grown lengthy and difficult to edit, with many signatures separated from the original commentary, I have pulled your original commentary out to the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church to hopefully make it easier for you to update the status of your concerns. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was getting very difficult to follow. Taam (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Taam, could you please strike out your comments that I have satisfactorily answered or place a resolved note next to each comment on the page Sandy just created? I have answered a lot of your comments with quite a lot of words added to the article.  Nancy Heise    talk  16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)



Jake Wartenberg talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

License tagging for File:Maat3.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Maat3.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Horus
Seeing your edits on Hathor, I wonder if you could take a look at Horus sometime, where a ridiculous slow edit war goes about Horus's mother(s), with editors changing names. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks again, good work. Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks so much for your comment on my work on Ursula Franklin. I've been away from Wikipedia for awhile working on another project and wasn't aware that the Ursula Franklin article had been a featured article of the day. So, your comment was very welcome. Thanks again. Bwark (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mit Brennender Sorge
Would you mind taking a look at this article which has a bit of a WP:OWN problem. Like a number of previous editors, I read the article and went to the official English version of the text to look for the denunciation of Hitler as an "insane prophet" described there, and found nothing of the sort. I discussed it at WP:Reliable Sources and it turned out that the German version could arguably be interpreted in this way, so I edited the text to say "some scholars interpret this as a reference to Hitler". This was reverted. I saw that you had raised some similar concerns in an FA discussion, so I thought I would ask you to take a look.JQ (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear John, You will gather from my user page that I, like most people on Wikipedia, value precepts such as those contained in Maat. Before I engage in any discussion as you suggest there is the requirement from my point of view that the participants have a similar working ethos, and therefore I decline your request to become involved. Anyone who values intellectual honesty, and this is something I had always associated with Catholic scholars before encountering the kind of material that now troubles you, can check the original sources and come to their own conclusions. It is likely that if you pursue such matters you will be drowned out by a "democratic" vote of like minded people. Sorry but I would much rather be engaged with all the other unsung fine contributors I encounter on Wikipedia. Could I also request that my talk page be kept clear of apologists who wish to debate this matter further Taam (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and probably a wise choice.JQ (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add I still think very highly of Catholic scholars - it was purely an issue with the editors of the FA candidate and how I thought they were misusing sources to spin the article by refusing to accept any contrary opinion, no matter how well cited, that sought to tone down the very colorful presentation in key sections. I have just taken a quick look at the opening paragraph of this article and it's appalling how it misrepresents what the encyclical says, but for the reasons given above.... Taam (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You have mail.
Taam,

Please check your email for a message about Amenemope.

Harmakheru (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry
I've left a message on Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry. Although it's not an attempt to shoe horn a Masonic POV in, it seems to imply that the Catholic Church has rowed back on its condemnation of Freemasonry for the perceived wish to get religion out of the public square. Neither of these quotes says that.

JASpencer (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I was drawn to the article through the section titled "Separation of church and state". This, along with another article on Wikipedia, was the first time I had encountered a text that aims towards the "scholarly" omitting the key passage from the Second Vatican Council dealing with this precise theme so I added it along with a recent quotation from Pope Benedict who seems to feel it was a particular achievement of the Church. As you will note I didn't add any commentary to the text nor did I delete passages that I think misrepresented the Church -- take for example the issue of cremation in the same section. I suspect you may be be concerned about context in that "Gaudium et spes" doesn't deal specifically with Freemasons as such but by the same token could that charge not be applied to other material in the article? In my opinion the "Gaudium et spes" text is such a key document on the issue of Church-State relations that it's omission in any article dealing with the subject is likely to leave the average reader with a very unbalanced understanding of what the Church teaches. Will think about getting involved in the rest of the article once I get a chance to read the talk archives next week but I think it's unlikely after a quick scan of the article.Taam (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Infanticide
Thanks for your reply to my comment on the talk page, and thanks for your insightful and scholary contribution to the article. I'm no subject matter expert, but applying common sense, I find it implausible that the Egyptians did not commit infanticide. What did they do then, to children born to extremely poor parents, to children born in times of famine, to children born in unacceptable or intolerable circumstances such as out of wedlock, affairs, prostitutes etc. I understand that the Egyptians had a high moral standing. So did Europe in late renaisance and punishment for infanticide was harsh. Yet, in late 1700s, early 1800s, the solution to infancitide was the creation of orphanages, i.e. to create an institutionalized alternative to infanticide - because infanticide sure did take place. This also took place in Vienna, a city never accused of moral austerity. So I could imagine that you could find similar references concerning Austria, that infanticide was plainly unacceptable, punished harshly, frowned upon etc - yet it took place. (I came across the subject in my readings of Ignaz Semmelweis where women had to endure the most terrible hospital conditions, many with no other choice, precisely because the hospital offered to care for the infant - i.e. an alternative to infanticide). The book I referenced at the talk page also mentioned the Germans, this enormously cultivated people, who nevertheless committed massive atrocities in the Nazi extermination camps, including large-scale infanticide, not so long ago. The American pioneers committed infanticide to the Indians, and what happened in Rwanda just 10 years ago, and now in Sudan etc, etc. I guess my principal objection was the statement: "In Egypt there is no evidence of infanticide", this simply seems implausible, idealized or whatever. As I said above, I'm no expert matter, and I have no personal interest in the article, so I wont comment further. This is just a note in response to your absolutely defensible, referenced, sober, etc .. absolutely correct statements. Thanks again for your reply. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed and clear comments! First I should point out I'm no expert on this subject and there is no way do I see what is presently in the article being the last word -- it only reflects what I have been able to find out so far. Your analysis seems perfectly reasonable to me and I'm sure there must have been examples of it in Ancient Egypt. Indeed the article's ref to Diodorus saying it is a punishable offence indicates the idea was not unknown. He in fact says that the offender was made to hold the dead baby for three days. I didn't put that into the article because Adolf Erman, who I used as the source, thought Diodorus description of the punishment was being read through Greek tinted lenses.


 * Taking up another point you raise, I agree that a distinction has to be clearly made in the article between what is done by individuals and if they are in violation of the social norms or laws of the culture in question. Following your line of thought, nobody considers Uruguayans cannibals because of what people resorted to when Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crashed.


 * As mentioned on the talk page I have one positive lead to indicate an instance of infanticide from an non-egyptologist. I have a book written by an anthropologist who repeats the same thing using similar words that may be from a common source (Georges Gusdorf) who wasn't an Egyptologist either. I hesitate to use it without corroboration from an Egyptologist because I made edits to the Human Sacrifice article a while back that indicated that certain kinds of sacrifices (retainer mainly) may have happened very early in Egypt's dynastic history. This seemed reasonable to me because I assumed human sacrifice was present at some stage in all bronze age cultures but now I find out that this interpretation relating to archaeological finds is not to certain as it may appear after reading the opinions of other Egyptologists -- I have to do more research.


 * It is possible to read 19th century literature that says infanticide was practised in A.E but from what I have read it seems to be taking the Bible as literally true in the narrative account of the killing of the first born but is there any modern biblical scholar or egyptologist who now asserts this as historical fact?


 * A.E did seem to hold life itself as being a gift from God(s), there are many surviving prayers recording this and you find in the Instructions of Amenemope precepts that defend the physical or mentally disabled. In Tutankhamun's tomb was found two tiny mummies of his presumed children who never reached full gestation and they carry the name Osiris indicating a belief in resurrection even though they were not born alive. Their art is full of scenes with young boys and girls with the worship of the child Horus being very striking example of how they revered life in all it's stages, so their religious beliefs may account for the paucity of evidence. As soon as verifiable information comes to hand, unless a more knowledgeable editor appears first, I will put it in - I loath articles that only present a version of an ideal and not the reality.


 * As for the opening assertion that infanticide was not practised, this is from Egyptologists. The only change I made was to take out the ref to females (the common victim in Greco-Roman cultures) so the general reader to the wiki article would not incorrectly assume that male infanticide was practised. Thanks again for taking the time to share your well thought out views. Taam (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I thank you for your exhaustive reply. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deir el-Medina
Its a subject I know nothing about, so your page move request gave me a chance to have a read. Just wanted to say well done for your hard work in improving this article. Euryalus (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks again, it's much appreciated. Taam (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Saviour Shed and Real Proof.
Taam, I want to know why you insist on having the mention of Christan being buried with Egyptian Artifacts int he Horus Article.

All I want is some real confirmation about it before its included, and so far have found none. I also note that many people want to link Jesus to Horus or Christianity to Egypt ever since the resurrection for that claim by Acharya S and the movie Zeitgeist. (And to some extent Bill Maher, who likely got it form Zeitgiest.)

Lets just let to be removed till confirmed.

Besides, it serves no actual purpose. It doesn't inform the reader about Horus at all. All it seems to exist for is to link Christians to Egyptian religious practices, which seems more motivated by a need to propogandise against Christianity than any legitimate need to tell the reader who Horus was.

Unless you'd like to explain why the mention serves a function at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.236.172 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned on the talk pages why this material should not be deleted but with respect you don't appear to be listening. All the material is from reputable academic sources who are specialists in their field. Contrary to what you might think I have consistently removed from the article any refs to Horus and Christianity that come from non-specialists of the sort you allude to. What is not acceptable is to delete material because you personally don't like it for this makes you just as bad as those who are always trying to put into the article Horus-Christ myths that don't stand up to scholarly scrutiny. Taam (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Im not just as bad as those who want to force in the similarities, because all I want is cooberation.


 * Surly you can understand that. Also, claiming they are from academic sources doesn't make it so, and even id it is true, it may still be misleading r misquoted.


 * That said, you still offered no valid reason for the material to be placed in the article to begin with.


 * Even assuming its true, and the sources are reputable, the mention of Christians being buried with statues of Bas or Amulets of Shed is out of place in an article about Horus. It doesn't tell you about Horus, it tells you of later Christian burials in Egypt.


 * So, true or not, its distracting from the original subject of the article for no apparent reason 64.24.236.172 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the Horus article talk page for continuation of the discussion. Taam (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear statement
Thank you for your clear statement on Catholic Church. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV means all sides
1.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that NPOV involves representing all significant viewpoints and these should be sourced to reliable published sources. In the case of the article presently titled "Catholic Church" it violates this principle because in the vast majority of independent and neutral sources I can find the encyclopaedic or dictionary entry is Roman Catholic, or similar, as you can see from following the link at the bottom of my user page. The link you have supplied asserts the Church is neither Catholic or Roman and as best I know this is not a significant or representative academic viewpoint and therefore it would violate the principle of NPOV to include it. To put in everyone's POV without discriminating between the scholarly and personal opinions wouldn't be right for obvious reasons, but I agree with you that the current article name is wrong. Kind Regards. Taam (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm for the most part I agree with your accessment. However the opinion of Father John Romanides is considered scholarly. Please do not assume (please please pretty please), you could have just asked for a scholarly source to the opinion presented in the link I posted. Dont mean to come across as abrasive (I have much love for the RCC christians). Its just for one Father Romandies is not unique or alone in this opinion and two how else is anyone going to resolve the conflict if they don't even allow people to address what the conflict is? The other editor had no justification to tell you to please shut up, etc. I will but out now. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification. If indeed there is a significant body of scholarly opinion in Orthodox circles (something I haven't been aware of up to now) that doesn't consider the Church in question as being Catholic or Roman then I suppose it can be represented in the article presently named "Catholic Church" because if you look at the neutral reference works linked at the bottom of my user page you have clear academic support for including material that no longer relates to the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome - as best I know wikipedia cannot discriminate between articles names which are lower case "catholic church" (as in pre-split universal sense) and capitalised "Catholic Church" as the present article claims as it's own for the Church in communion with Pope Benedict XVI. I note well your good thoughts towards your fellow Christians and hope it is reciprocated. People like me who are not "religious" may tend to look towards the actions and words of those who are overtly religious rather than what they declare to be their beliefs, I think Jesus had strong views on this? Taam (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In case you're interested, you can find some works of John Romanides about this here (and there also others here). (Also, in the Islamic world, Orthodox Christians today are also referred as "Rum" (meaning "Roman"), for example the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople New Rome is referred in Turkish as the "Rum Patrikhanesi" ("Roman Patriarchate"). However, in my opinion, "Roman Catholic Church" is still more neutral, than simply "Catholic Church", with no disambiguation. I also wish to thank you for your efforts in finding encyclopedic sources which use "Roman Catholic Church". Also, a request for Arbitration regarding the renaming of that article has been made recently. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me Taam for saying all this but the cultural war in the East is quite different as the Eastern Christian conflict is more about the role of the charismatic (read mystic ascetics) and the clergy. Both try very hard to not make Christianity a machine like thing called "religion". Cody's links and one I posted all explicitly address this whole mess. The West is just now finally arriving at an understanding of the nihilism its ideas trigger. I mean look at the fight between the pagans and Christians, Christianity purposed in the East a completely different understanding of Aristotle's ontology, consciousness and substance theory. Which led to the trinity and theoria. Were the Roman Catholic church instead embraced Aristotle over the church fathers. Thats what the schism is about. Funny how even on Amazon you get people pulling craziness like claiming these videos are some sort hammering, and refutation to all this, which I don't see?LoveMonkey (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Have all the fun you want with the Osiris page
(1) You seem to be so convinced that the Christians stole the idea of the resurrection from the Egyptians (2)(remember the Horus artifacts in the Christian tombs that actually had zero to do with biblical ideas) to the point that (3)you went and deleted what I said on the talk page about it when the only thing I did, was compare what actually happened in each story after I read the stories myself. (4)Why do you insist on the idea that Osiris was resurrected? It is clearly obvious from all versions of the story that nothing of the sort has ever happened. (5)Citing sources be damned, but if someone keeps telling you the sky is green, you're going to think it's green when it's blue and the sky is blue here.

(6)Osiris - killed, spell cast on him by Isis so that his soul could travel to the underworld. He's still dead. To this very day. Dead. And yes, they are disembodied souls too. That kind. The only thing Isis did was to allow his souls to travel.

(7)Jesus - killed, in a tomb for three days, got back up by his on ability. Physically the same body. He told Thomas to put his finger in his side to feel the spear hole. A zombie basically.

I don't even need to put in the effort to try and make these two situations look different! They do that on themselves because they are.

(8)Hoping you don't go and delete this too, go ahead and do whatever you want with the Osiris page. You seem to have an interest in Egyptian mythology but the only thing you've managed to do is confuse people on how it actually worked. Pyramid texts - http://books.google.com/books?id=6VBJeCoDdTUC&pg=PP1&dq=ancient+egyptian+pyramid+texts&ei=WoehStHECpzKzATdu-iUCA&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=osiris&f=false69.254.76.77 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the note I will leave on your talk page. I have added numbers to the various points you raise above for clarity of response below:


 * (1) You have no idea what I think on this matter and I have never indicated anywhere on Wikipedia what you assert.
 * (2) Shed-Horus-Jesus amulet and other crossover burial practices are noted by scholarly sources, just because it upsets you is no reason to delete such material.
 * (3) Article talk pages are not for disseminating the opinions or rantings of angry people who want to express their own non-scholarly point of view, especially when it is to attack editors who are using academic citations and do treat other editors with respect.
 * (4) I don't insist on anything, I simply report what is commonly described by scholars. Please don't get angry or aggressive with me, take it it up with the multitude of scholars and their publishers. Please do not threaten me as you did on the Osiris talk by saying that I deserve to be " punched in the face" for reporting the common comparisons made in scholarly sources re Isis-Horus and Mary-Jesus.
 * (5) Citing sources is what Wikipedia is all about. Using Wikipedia as a platform for promoting your own ideas is not what it is about.
 * (6) Your opinion is opposed by many, many scholars and my own opinion of your grasp of this material is irrelevant.
 * (7) See point (6) and other scholars who do not share your view that Jesus body is physically the same, i.e he apparently can walk through closed doors and some people don't even recognize him in risen form.
 * (8) Now to the really ludicrous part. You have indicated elsewhere how angry you are about all these scholars using "resurrection" with respect to Osiris and you suggest I read the link you provide to  find out how it all really happened. The question is have you read the link? Hint - type in "resurrection" in the book search field and guess what comes up? Taam (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What I find particularly interesting about item (7) above is the claim that Jesus "got back up by his o[w]n ability" after three days in the tomb. Many modern Christians tend to talk this way, but this is not exactly what the New Testament itself says on the subject.  Yes, there are some references to his "rising", but the very same terminology is applied to those who "rise" in the general resurrection, and no one would suggest that these do so "by their own ability".  When more specific language is used, the author of the deed is clearly not Jesus but God the Father:  "Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Romans 6:4), "... whom God raised up, loosening the pangs of death" (Acts 2:24), and so forth.


 * Similarly, the claim that in Egyptian religion Osiris did not actually rise from the dead, but that only his disembodied spirit was allowed to travel to the underworld, is also false. This can easily be seen by reference to the Pyramid Texts:  "Atum, this Osiris is your son.  You have caused him to flourish and live."  "Awake, Osiris!  Revive, O weary god!  The god stands, the god takes possession of his body."  (See J. G. Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and His Cult, p. 64.)  In fact, Budge's Dwellers on the Nile has an illustration of this process on p. 226, with Osiris "raising his body from the bier, having returned from the abode of the dead."  That this is not a case of a disembodied spirit can be seen by comparing it with the illustration on p. 274, where a truly disembodied soul is shown visiting the inert and mummified corpse which it once inhabited.  The differences between the two scenes are striking and, I think, decisive.


 * So I would have to agree with Taam that the anonymous editor quoted above is offering non-scholarly opinion and ranting, not informed critique. Harmakheru (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insightful comments about resurrection. Another thing which struck me is the changed appearances of Jesus in certain post resurrection gospel passages and a part of ch72 of BOD, the latter spell Barry Kemp pointed out in one of his books caught my eye in the context of the Emmaus Road account... Taam (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note if anyone else happens to be interested in the points Harmakheru mentions re the two scenes illustrated in "Dwellers on the Nile". Budge's book is available through Google books but unfortunately the cited pages with the images are missing. However this link here I have verified as being the same as the one used by Budge on p. 226 (Osiris rising from the bier) and this link (p. 234), from the Papyrus of Ani is very close to the image from the cited Nebseni Papyrus (i.e the soul visiting it's mummified copse). Taam (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Another thing which struck me is the changed appearances of Jesus in certain post resurrection gospel passages ..." Yes.  In Matthew 28, the disciples go to Galilee to meet the risen Jesus, "and when they saw him they worshipped him; but some doubted."  In Luke 24, after the Emmaus scene, Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem behind locked doors, "but they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit."  In John 20, Mary Magdalene encounters the risen Jesus in the garden, but "supposed him to be the gardener" and only recognizes him when he calls her by name.  In each case it seems that there was a difference between Jesus' bodily form before the resurrection and afterwards, such that even his closest companions did not recognize him at first, and were only convinced by his characteristic speech or actions or (in the case of Thomas) the revelation of the wounds from his crucifixion. Harmakheru (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Nebseni image referenced above is online at Harmakheru (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

RCC Debate
Taam, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia.org, in terms of doing more than browse and fact find. I must say I am impressed by the obvious amount of time and research spent by contributors - huge task to verify facts, partic in a subject such as religion for which there are often very few verifiable facts. Nevertheless, I saw how much work your debate generated and was mildly surprised by this, given that I would have thought the subject entity, the Catholic Church itself, would have been the obvious point of reference and readily accessible, regarding its correct nomenclature.

There is not one Catholic prelate, clergyman, nun, or Catholic church-goer, even lapsed Catholic church-goer, who would ever refer to the Church as "Roman Catholic". Whenever a Catholic hears it, he/she knows immediately that the speaker is a Protestant or some other - most certainly never a Catholic. Ditto for anything written using the term "Roman Catholic". Every Catholic immediately recognises it cannot have been authored by a Catholic ... and it always wrankles, just a little, to see, yet again, and again, that the non-Catholics never get it right. Of course, in references of historical account, that is entirely different for there was a time, dating back to the Roman Empire, when the Church was known as The Roman Catholic Church.

To satisfy yourself on this, why not ask every Catholic you know how they refer to their own Church and you will be very surprised to find that none use the "Roman" terminology. Even when referring to the Vatican, we say the Church of Rome, the Roman Church or the Roman Dioceses, but never The Roman Catholic Church. The contributers here in Wiki who attest that "Catholic Church", without the "Roman" is the official nomenclature have done their research properly.Dingerooz (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your comments. The issue relates to contentious naming. The overwhelming majority of independent Encyclopedic-sources uses Roman Catholic(ism) - see the temp link at the bottom of my user page for data. We know what the Church commonly calls herself but even she is very sensitive to the Orthodox Church etc. and doesn't push "Catholic Church" in their face when on common ground, she calls herself then "Roman Catholic Church". The independent reference sources choose not to endorse the loaded term "Catholic Church" when describing the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. You are assuming that all people are offended by this name but that must be a local problem since I have two different books written by priest-scholars who title their book Roman Catholicism. Are you offended by the Church when it uses "Roman Catholic" in dialogue with other Churches? Do you care about dialogue with your fellow Christians? From my outsider position it seems so incredibly tactless and counter to the way of the Church in dialogue with others how the article name change came about. From a Wikipedian angle it alarms me that we are now so well out of line with independent encyclopedic-dictionary sources -a small group of editors who don't care about these aforementioned issues have made it that we are now far from other neutral reference encyclopedic works. Hope you enjoy Wikipedia and it is a productive and pleasant place for you to work and study in. Taam (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dingerooz says above, "There is not one Catholic prelate, clergyman, nun, or Catholic church-goer, even lapsed Catholic church-goer, who would ever refer to the Church as 'Roman Catholic'." This is not true at all, as can easily be proven with Google.  Just pick a Catholic diocese and do a Google search for "Roman Catholic" using a "site:" specification pointing to the official diocesan web site.  See what comes up.  I did this on my local diocese and got almost a hundred hits, including references to "the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church", "the directives of the Roman Catholic Church", "the ministerial priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church", "an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church", "Roman Catholic religious emblems", "the Roman Catholic community", "the Roman Catholic lectionary", "Roman Catholic liturgy", on and on and on.  How about the Archdiocese of Boston?  Over 200 hits, including a number of official documents referring explicitly to the "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston".  New York?  "Welcome to the web pages of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York".  The Vatican?  Just selecting at random:  a biography of Pope John Paul I which gives the date on which he was "Created Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church".    A 2006 Homily by Cardinal Stafford, Apostolic Penitentiary, which says, "In 2001 the Roman Catholic Church beatified the first married couple in her history."  Pope Pius XII's encyclical "Humani Generis", which says, "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing".  A rite for the creation of new cardinals in which the Pope explains that the red hat symbolizes their willingness to shed their blood for "the spread of the Holy Roman Catholic Church".  Were all these documents on Catholic web sites (including a papal encyclical on the official Vatican web site!) secretly authored by Protestants?  The fact is, when the (Roman) Catholic Church even today wishes to distinguish itself from other religious groupings, whether Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or Muslim, it officially refers to itself in its own documents as the "Roman Catholic Church".  Given all that, I think this is also how it ought to be denominated in any neutral venue such as Wikipedia.  To do otherwise is to embrace one side of a contentious issue (i.e., implying that the churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the only "real" Catholic Church--a claim with which lots of other churches would disagree); and in fact it is not even consistent with the Church's own terminological usage in its own official documents. Harmakheru (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church and slavery
I have found it difficult to expand on the relationship of the Catholic Church to the institution of slavery in the article on Christianity and slavery. That article is already badly written and poorly organized and adding more information about the Catholic Church will just make things worse.

I have therefore created Catholic Church and slavery which focuses specifically on the relationship of the Catholic Church to the institution of slavery. I invite you to review my first cut at creating an article and give me your feedback.

One of the many areas of improvement are that the current text includes a number of excerpts from Maxwell but does not really provide an overview of what Maxwell's thesis is. Can you provide this?

Thanx.

--Richard (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard, after looking at last nights contributions to the talk page of Catholic Church, i.e large dumps of information copied from books that don't actually deal with the simple issues raised, coupled with the continuous bluster from another editor, I am concerned that getting involved in this new article will be another distraction to avoid dealing with the issues outstanding in the main article. I can detect no sincere attempt to accommodate alternate scholarly opinion, it simply a case of might equals right. They are obstructing every little effort that would take away from a perfect Church depicted in the passages in question. Once you step out of the books of "scholarly" piety there is no question about Popes at times permitting slavery but these editors what to revert in the Cultural Influences section to an idealized airbrushed account. Would you mind dealing with the main page first? No scholar I know of doubts that these bulls were issued so what is the problem here in acknowledging them other than it offends those who control the Roman catholic Church article? Taam (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV/Catholic Church
Hi Taam, you might want to have a look at the 'Vandalism?' discussion we're having at Talk:Catholic Church.Haldraper (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)