Talk:Jeanne Marie Spicuzza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Blessed by the Pope?
+ :Note: anonymous editor 76.166.123.129 (talk • contribs) seems to be claiming, if I understand his or her edit summaries correctly, that this posting has been confirmed to not actually be from Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. I am unaware of any such confirmation but even if this is the case I do not think that removing the post entirely is the right answer, let alone removing the postings of other editors from the page, which has also been done. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ms. Spicuzza, I can't seem to find a single citation -- outside of yourself -- that your movie was "blessed by Pope John Paul II". Do you have some objective evidence? --Calton 06:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/12/prweb492594.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.123.129 (talk • contribs).
- Press releases are almost by definition not "objective evidence". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Assessor Monsignor Quintana, +39.06.6982
In accordance with The American Heritage Dictionary, a press release may be considered "objective", i.e., associated with a material object, having actual existence or reality, or based upon observable phenomena. As to whether or not a "blessing" might be defined as objective can be determined only by metaphysical constructs.
-Here's another good one from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: relating to object of thought without consideration of independent existence; ref. Abelard, Eco: see medieval applications
(perhaps R.L. archives?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.123.129 (talk • contribs).
- That's not the definition of "objective" which is meant here, however. Even if the standard really was "associated with a physical object", then the press release would indeed be "objective evidence" -- for the existence of the press release only, and not for any claims made by that press release. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The intended definition of the orginal querent is not present; therefore, the intended defintion is unknown. Failing to supply the querent's intended definition, and without verification of the querent, such methodology does not adhere to first priciples, and therefore remains unsupported. Explanation and justification for the querent's intended definition is needed.
Postponing any attempts at logical argumentation, for reasons stated above, one might propose that the original querent's use of the phrase "objective evidence" refers not to the "blessing" itself, which is non-corporeal and therefore renders the request absurd. Rather, the querent's indended definition might suggest the presence of an existent or written confirmation of the "transpiration" or "occurence" of a blessing. I can only venture, then, that such confirmation may be obtained vise-a-vie the Divine Offices of the Holy See, whose telephone number precedes this reply. I suggest that method of verification for such purposes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.123.129 (talk • contribs).
- Explanation and justification for the querent's intended definition is irrelevant. Either it was consistent with Wikipedia policy or it was not, but whichever it was, Wikipedia policy is what counts, and Wikipedia does not allow extraordinary claims such as that of receiving a blessing from Pope John Paul II to be added based on an unreliable source such as a press release from an unknown source, or for that matter, based on a phone call since no one else can be sure that what some editor claims was said in a phone call is actually what was said. Please see Wikipedia:Attribution as it may clear up these issues. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I must disagree that "Explanation and justification for the querent's intended definition is irrelevant". Such a proposal renders the query, albeit Wikipedia policy itself, incommunicable and henceforth irrelevant, which is of course, absurd! That being said, a written confirmation of "blessing" is available vise-a-vie Vatican sources. Therefore, criterion is met in accordance with Wikipedia:Attribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.123.129 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Templates
Filling a page and a half of an article with ugly templates is not going to help anyone stamp out the suckiness. All but one of the boxes are redundant or false. If the article has fundamental notability problems, the avenue to address that is AFD, not making the article so undesirable that no one wants to look at it. WP:POINT etc. Milto LOL pia 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Telogen 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
