User talk:Tb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome, Thomas, BSG, feel free to ask any further Q on the Pump. Share whatever knowledge you like here, but never insult another. You'll see that we, as a community, are very friendly and cooperative, and we're determined to keep it that way to facilitate unbiased contribution here.

And, sign your name w/ 4 tildes (~~~~).

What's BSG? Some kinda religious order, or Bachelor of Strange Gimmicks, or British Society of Gastroenterology?

--Menchi 00:10 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Brotherhood of Saint Gregory, a religious order of the Episcopal Church. http://www.gregorians.org is our home page.

--Tb 03:14 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You left a religious comment on my talk page and I wondering what it was in response to? MB 17:01 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the context was clearer but of course it wasn't. You said, on the Religion of Wikipedians page, that a list by religion was bad the way a list by race is. I was explaining the difference. --Tb 20:13 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, most people are hostile to religious beliefs that do not correspond to thier own. Similarly, a lot of people are hostile to people of a race not of thier own. I would like a world where religion doesn't matter, for I myself have been persicuted for my [lack of] religion. It think that the distinction between race and religion here lies in the fact that most people are more passionate about thier religion, than there race. In addition, passion towards religion is generally considered culturally acceptable, which passion towards race, is considered less socially acceptable. As I said in my post though, it is my opinion that catagorizing oneself by religion is equivalent to catagorizing oneself my race. (P.S. Please post responses to my talk page in the future) MB 20:15 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Isn't the race-religion distinction you mentioned ("passion") precisely why religion can be a list, like organizations by region/country can? Race is a blurry artificial construction. Religion isn't, for the most part. You're either Shiite or Unificationist. You can't be both simlutaneously. (Although some Eastern religious apparently can. But you must note that even they cannot be "joined" with a Western religious.) But race isn't like that. You can be many "races", if your ancestry happens to be so. Anyway, people adore...love deeply their religion, who cares if they wanna tell everybody that they are so-on-so-ist? (Just so long they don't go Jesuit on us.) --Menchi 20:46 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You can abbreviate "Correct reference to X" to "Wikify X". --Menchi 23:12 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I thought "wikify" meant add a reference. The changes you're speaking of

were existing links to the old "efficient" or "efficiency" pages, which I was adjusting to point to the correct places. --Tb 00:22 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I misread "correct" as "cross-"...three times until now! :-D Mmm...eyeball replacement.... 8-] --Menchi 20:46 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey! "Mediaeval" is modern - don't confuse that point with whether you're using the US dialect. Since C.S.Lewis was British, you ought typically to use what is correct in this context - the British spelling. PML.

The page before I corrected it said "mediaeval" sometimes and "medieval" sometimes. And, before you insist that "mediaeval" is the British spelling, I'd note that according to the article itself, C.S. Lewis used "medieval" in the title to one of his works.

  • Note: I've repaired links to the disambiguation page for "British" in the above paragraph, to reduce crowding on the "What links here" page for that article. Cheers! -- BDAbramson talk 21:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ah... you're touching on the ambiguity. But see below - "medieval" is not the spelling in ordinary use in the UK and similar. PML.
 Neither is distinctively British or American; but

a glance at the quotations in the Oxford English Dictionary shows that "medieval" is used on both sides of the pond, and "mediaeval" is not used in any recent writing (on either side), including by Lewis himself.

That is false. "Mediaeval" is more common than not in British English. Should we check this to independent sources? It seems to me that the burden of proof lies on would be updaters in this context. The US-centric nature of your preference is on a par with the pattern of all those things like "anesthesia", "ameba", etc., which can be checked within wikipedia. I won't revert just now, but I do suggest you check outside specimen usages within the author in question, rather look in things like the OED. PML.

Actually, I did check the author in question. In the title to "The Discarded Image" and throughout the article he uses "medieval". I was not expressing a "preference" but rather after your change I checked in the best lexicographical resource I know of. The OED is exceedingly careful especially with spelling, because one of its purposes is to track spelling changes. And, as I said, Lewis himself wrote "medieval". The fact that the British spell "amoeba" doesn't mean that the British therefore always say "mediaeval". Both spellings are correct, but as I said, most important is consistency within the article (which you failed to achieve in your reversion of my change) and consistency with the author's own usage, which was, in fact, "medieval".

So, the burden of proof has been met:

1) The OED (a British source) reports no recent uses of "mediaeval", and many recent uses of "medieval", from both British and American authors; 2) C.S. Lewis himself used "medieval" in "The Discarded Image", not just in the title, but in the body of the work itself. 3) The article should at least be consistent. That requires spelling it one way throughout (and it should probably be consistent with his own spelling of the title of "The Discarded Image".

--Tb 06:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Ah, another source. I trust this will put it to rest. Magdalene College, Cambridge: http://www.magd.cam.ac.uk/alumni/lewis.html. Note the title of his professorship, and the spelling. (Actually, since this is a titled professorship, I need to fix the capitalization there!) --Tb 06:30 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, another source. At Cambridge there is the "Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages": http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/ --Tb 06:39 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed several edits where you claim that deuterocanon isn't a word. While it admittedly doesn't show up in many dictionaries, it's in common usage to mean the second or secondary canon of the Old Testament, namely those that most Protestants call the Apocrypha. You can verify this with a simple web search. Wesley 21:18 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I checked the Oxford English Dictionary, which knows nothing of it. I'm a scholar and I've never seen it in print. Note that it occurs in the web only 10% the times as "deuterocanonical", and almost always in Protestant sources. I would stand by saying that it's clearer and better English to stick with the adjective; the noun is a neologism at best, and an encyclopedia generally should avoid neologisms. Especially note that the primary sources of the people who are most attached to the word (RC texts, Bible publishers, and the like) always say "deuterocanonical", and never say "deuterocanon". So perhaps I overspoke in my comments (though I'd be prepared to insist that the OED should control, if I had to)--but regardless, I think the changes are an improvement. --Tb 21:36 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, the lowercase rule reflects American english. That rule is not followed rigidly by users of British english, Hiberno-english etc on wiki (as rows over the naming of birds, political systems etc showed. It has evolved into one of these 'agree to differ' areas, as in using commas to disambigulate American cities but parentheses elsewhere, an evolving concept as wiki goes from being purely American to being international.) The rule dated from a time when wiki was almost totally American and so reflected American english not international english, which not merely uses more capitals but sees the failure to use them in certain contexts as 100% incorrect. It seems to have evolved now into something akin to our general policy on American english versus British english. Secondly, Apostolic Succession has two meanings. One if it was being dealt with would be lowercased as it is purely descriptive; ie who succeeded the apostles in their varous sees, quite literally the Apostolic succession. The article deals with a specific and defined theological concept. In that context Apostolic Succession is the formal clearly and narrowly defined name and thus the proper noun for that very specific theological concept, so is capitalised. Capitalisation is used to make the distinction between the specific narrow definition with its own formal name, and a broader more open-ended generic concept, as in president and President of the United States. lol FearÉIREANN 23:35 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

fair 'nuff. --Tb 23:40 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Welcome. I've been following your contributions, in the past few days, and I'm glad for your numerous improvements. Mkmcconn 23:31 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tb 23:51 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Community of Christ is a Later-day Saints church, not a Stone-Campbell "Restoration Movement" church. This is a common misunderstanding, as Mormons often call the founding of thier denomination "The Restoration". - Efghij 02:42 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's true. What do you think whould be the best way to fit links to the pages about bishops into the table? - Efghij 22:49 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say that Pole was the last Ab of Cant recognized by Rome. Many recent Abps of Cant have met with the Pope and been called the "Archbishop of Cantebury". Michael Ramsey, famously, and all since him, at the very least. So I'm reverting your change. The true story is much more complex, and isn't a matter of just one sentence as you put it. Feel free, of course, to add to the page a more complete description of the story, which would be an improvement! --Tb 18:12 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We're probably dealing with the multiple meanings of the word "recognize" here. I think the one sentence I've changed it to avoids that problem. If you have a fuller story to add, please do! The Catholic Encyclopedia's take on this

The tradition was not reversed till the time of Cranmer, who, like his predecessors, received his pallium from the pope, but considered that he held the archbishopric from the king. Having broken his own vow of celibacy, he easily divorced the king from Queen Catherine. He allowed the shrine of St. Thomas to be desecrated and plundered in 1538, and in 1541 he ordered the tombs of all the canonized archbishops to be destroyed. Most of the property of the see he was forced to surrender to the king. In 1539 the two great monasteries of Christ Church and St. Augustine's had been suppressed, and their property seized. By his office Cranmer was the head of the Church in England, but under Henry he helped to despoil it, and under Edward he led the reforming party against it, abolishing the Mass, and stripping the churches. The spiritual and material ruin thus accomplished could not be effectually remedied during the brief episcopate of Cardinal Pole (1556-1558). This prelate did all that was possible in so short a time, but his death, which took place on the 17th of November, 1558, brought to a close the line of Catholic archbishops. With the accession of Elizabeth—which took place on the same day—the new state of things, which has continued to the present time, was begun. Canterbury, as a city, has never recovered from the loss of St. Thomas's shrine and the destruction of the two great monasteries, but the cathedral still remains, one of the finest buildings in the country, as a witness to its former glory.

seems unduly vituperative for a list, though its point of view might be reflected in a longer article. In any case, listing the Archbishops of Canterbury as a single series of men fails to reflect the Roman Catholic view, so some notation is needed there. -- Someone else 20:31 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is dated, especially--very especially--for anything related to ecumenism. Saying "the last Roman Catholic incument" (as you did) is just fine. I don't think a long historical essay is necessary. The article should in general speak of the present, for which "Archbishop of Canterbury" is an Anglican office, in continuity with the whole list.

It's not like there was a separate RC Archbishop of Canterbury, the way there is for the Abps of Armagh and of Dublin. --Tb 23:25 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good, I certainly agree with you about the datedness of the CE (but this makes it a valuable resource for historical opinion). The article doesn't speak just of the present, it speaks of history, and I think the "last Roman Catholic" is a reasonable and concise way to denote the place at which the nature of the position changed. -- Someone else 00:13 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly accurate and NPOV. Well, except that I wouldn't say that the nature of the position changed. --Tb 00:31 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, we can probably agree that it's the point at which the Archbishop began reporting to a new boss... <G> -- Someone else 00:38 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nope, that won't do. For most of the history of the office, the Archbishop was not reporting to the Pope. He was appointed by the King, and pretty much reported to the King or to nobody. His appointment was, sometimes--but not always--submitted to the Pope for ratification. --Tb 01:24 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, then we do disagree. No matter though, as long as the concise statement in the article is not disputed. -- Someone else 02:12 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. :) The disagreement is precisely about whether you see the Church of England today as continuous with the ancient Church of England. If you are Anglican, you are almost certain to say "yes". If you are Roman Catholic, "no". As far as jurisdiction goes, this is just going to be a central dispute. --Tb 03:00 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Sorry for not replying to you about Statutory Instruments. I don't really know the answers, and though I could look into it, I think it's probably a job for somone with more of a legal background than me. As far as the number of Acts passed by Parliament and Congress goes, I suspect that the tighter control the UK government has over Parliament restricts the nuber of bills that get passed - only the big bills proposed by the government really stand a chance. --rbrwr

Just passing through on an obsessive quest to remove links to disambiguation pages ;) Regards -- sannse

Thomas, would you (and anyone else interested) take a look at the three related articles, Episcopalian, Bishop, and Apostolic succession, and consider with me how or whether they should be merged? Mkmcconn 18:47, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with your plan. The redundant material should be merged into its most appropriate home, but the articles should remain separate. Mkmcconn 00:02, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Where did I do that? --Jiang 23:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry. Based on the information that was originally available in the article, what I did (as I thought) was a formatting change. I did not know that the incorporated name is "not used to refer to the church as an ecclesiastical whole." Thanks for clearing that up. --Jiang 23:56, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please expand the new article, Catechism, if you are interested. Mkmcconn 00:03, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] scientific method

tb, Just blundering around, and noticed that you have professional status in philosophy and 'competence' in phil of sci. There is an ongoing controversy at scientific method (see its Talk page and (at least recent) archives thereof) about assorted things, not least tone. Since you have professional (meant in most senses, of course) qualifications in other areas, it might be that you could poor oil on the troubled waters and ease troubled hearts. There is some sore need of something, and it's not entirely a vituperative edit/revert war. There is, I think, rather more and more significant going on, I'm just unable quite to see what most of the time.

Might I invite your attention? And if you are brave enough (or foolish enough) to attempt to help, your efforts? An auxiliary resource to examine for the history of some of the dispute would be talk:phil of sci, and in particular the back and forth betwixt myself and Banno, now all archived, I believe. You may even find a quip or two for use in your thesis. Possibly, just possibly...

Anyway, congratulations on having your design heart in the right (FSF) place. I applaud, most sincerely.

ww 14:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

== Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?

==

It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

- Eric 30 June 2005 23:17 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Wales to Attend San Diego Meetup on October 18 2005

Hello, Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\talk 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 21:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/b/_/User_talk%7ETb_386c.html"