Talk:Christianity/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

recent changes

I want to go over some of the changes I made to try to accurately characterize the positions fairly, and some change to improve the NPOV language. Finally, removal of some sections which could be combined, removing redundancies.

It orginally said "scholarship suggests that Christianity may have also emerged, in part and out of the various mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East in antiquity, such as Gnosticism and various mystery cults. Among those that may have had an influence on the form, language and doctrines of Christianity include the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and there is much speculation..."

I changed this by introducing a brief statment that this is a minority view in Christian scholarship, but common in secular sholarship that "Chistianity was also strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed. Among those that may have had an influence on the form, language and doctrines of Christianity include Gnosticism, the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Dionysus, and various mystery cults."

Notice how above it states mystery teaching twice needlessly, and does not characterize the fact that this is just a view among secular scholars. My changes characterize the positions and removes redunancies.

I also changed, Professor Barry Powell, and others, argue that many elements of Christianity were also influenced by the cult of Dionysus.

To the more accurately worded,

Many scholars, such as Professor Barry Powell, argue that the cult of Dionysus played a signifiant influuencing role in the development of Christianity.

I also noted that when I quote scholars points of view, as long as it says , "According to -x---, such and such influenced.." it can be stated as a fact. Even if its their opinion, its factual. since we are only stating what so and so scholars said. There is no need to add words such as "alleged" in their statments unless we get rid of "According to...." Then its needed. Ofcourse, we can quote scholars from the other point of view, too, if they refute these the view points. Giovanni33 10:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Giovanni. There is no such thing as "secular" scholarship - don't try to paint those scholars who don't subscribe to the views quoted by you as "religious"/"Christian" and therefore dubious.

Although a minority view among mainstream Christan scholarship, its is commonly accepted in secular academic circles that ..

It isn't possible to seperate this into two fields. And while theories about the influence of MCs are common to scholarship no one theory or all of the together are "commonly accepted", nor is a "Christianity started out as a MC" common - the common theories consider MCs an influence and not a starting point.

I agree with you quoting scholars in principle and would advise against weasel words such as alleged unless it is absolutely necessary. But keep in mind the overview character of this section here - but at the moment I am a bit liberal on this, as Early Christianity might benefit from this. Str1977 10:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Str, I dont think Christian scholarship is a bad thing, and doing scholarhip from a Christian view doesn't imply its therefore dubious, any more so than an Atheist doing scholarship for his view. It might produce different emphasis in their final works but none are dubious alone for this reason. It only refects the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) most Christian scholarship by Christians in Biblical Studies who are in the mainstream dispute these links to mystery religions, etc. Am I wrong? I think that is what the argument claimed. Whereas it is common in secular scholarship circles to argue for such links, but they are in the minority of biblical experts. Am I mischaracterizing the disputes of the parties visavis these positions accurately and fairly? Giovanni33 11:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you don't thinkg Christian scholarship a bad thing, but I was worried that your version suggested that, putting it into opposition with the phantomg "secular scholars". Also, adherence to the "traditional account" is not bound up with being a Christian - and there are probably also Christians that agree with the "MC account", so I don't understand them. Str1977 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
And yes, I agree that common theories consider MC and influence, not a starting point. I don't believe anyone has ever made the argument that MC would a starting place, only one out of many possible influences in its development. I try to adopt the same language and reflect the arguments made by these secular scholars. I know you object to the use secular scholars but I think its important to state since it does seem to be a point of division, and therefore relevant. Giovanni33 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
In past versions this was at least suggested ("C. existed as a variety of mystery cults" etc.), but I am glad that that appearently wasn't intentional. Str1977 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Str, lets try to review changes here, esp. any drastic changes before making them in the main page, because it looks like we are both working at the same time. Giovanni33 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

All right. Str1977 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Str, I took to heart your suggestion and removed the mention of any division of secular and christian scholars, with this new text: "Although some of the attributed influences are a minority view among mainstream scholarship, its is commonly accepted in academic circles that Chistianity was also strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed."

What do you think? Giovanni33 11:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a feasible starting point and I will include it for the moment, as I have to leave shortly. But I will get back to you soon. Str1977 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I already did include it. I'll make suggestions for changes, and I notice you have your own version for several sections. Maybe place them here so I can tell you what objections I have with them and why I think my version is more appropriate. I think we can come to a compromise. Deal? I really want to get passed the silly edit wars. Giovanni33 11:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Giovanni, Str1977. Lets all work together on this...this time. :) BelindaGong 11:49, 26 January 2006 (
I am at a loss to understand what seems to be a new proposed policy by Giovanni and Belinda that new, controversial stuff which is disputed by many on the talk page should stay up in the article while we discuss it, and that those who remove it are starting edit wars but that it's perfectly okay to keep inserting it despite objections. Belinda, you're close to violating the revert rule, because, like Giovanni, you're splitting reverts between your user name and your IP address AnnH (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ann, maybe you are a loss to understand because you have not been following the talk page. For most of the evening editors have been working on the new content. We are making significant progress. All of a suddent its all removed and are again back to square one--if this is left up. This is not a new proposed policy by anyone its what was working and apparently consensus among editors since they did not revert but choose to contribute with their edits. In just one day of doing this its markedly improved. Now you would have us go back to this old version which a matter of contention because you claims we dont have consensus yet? Are you the defender of the old order until we reach some undefined consensus (we have to take a vote before making changes?). Removing material that several editors are working on based on compromises taking place here on the talk page is counter productive. And, on I did not make any reverts using my IP address within the last 24 hours as you claim. BelindaGong 12:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You have certainly reached your 3RR threshold now. I didn't see any consensus...just a starting point paragraph (which I retained but reworded for spelling & clarity). Please review WP:3RR before reverting again...thanks...KHM03 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Belinda, I have been following the talk page. The new material in the article, added by Giovanni and supported by you and a few new editors with no prior history, who may or may not be sockpuppets, is controversial. Several editors have problems with it. I and others think that when something is disputed it should not go in the article until an agreement has been reached. That seems far more logical than the idea of leaving it until we can get you, Giovanni, and the others to agree that there are problems.
Well, the editors who were all working together by making edits within the context of the new sections intorduced by Giovanni after there he reached a new consensus on here for doing so include: Mikereichold, MikaM, Fubar Obfusco, Storm Rider, Wesley, Giovanni, Belinda(myself)and even Str1977 (until he reverted back at the end for some reason, and then you and KH03 came to enforce that old version). So you see why I am sad that after so much progress that was started by a proposal from Storm Rider, which gained a lot of support, we are reverted once again. Well, whatever works, but the reverting to the old version that is also hotly diputed, didnt' yield much progress since it was defended by a couple old editors who were not open to change. BelindaGong 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Since you criticized my behaviour, I will explain. I am more than willing to work on a compromise with you, but I will not accept your constant substitung the earlier, less contentious version for the contentious version. If smaller edits got lost in the process, that was not my intention. Most of all, I will not accept the "blind faith" paragraph, which constitutes a legendary account from former times and a gross carricature of historical reality. Str1977 17:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your denial of reverting with your IP address, I have already asked you if you are User:38.114.145.148 or not, and you have not replied. It seems to be strongly indicated by your signature here and by your creation of an account with the name Belinda a few minutes later. If you are User:38.114.145.148, could you please confirm it, because it's getting really confusing with all these signatures on talk pages, and all these reverts from anons. Also, is this edit (which has nothing to do with reverting, but comes from a very similar IP, and makes your arguments) yours as well?
I dont' know what my IP address is, but if my name is there (Belinda) that its probably me. The other IP adddress you list is not mine because I didn't write that. And, no that other person doesnt make my arguments. I have never been a Christian. I am a Buddhist. I think you should do a puppet check it is much better that you do that and confrim the truth and simply keep speculating and insinuating. Its better for us that we are given more legitimacy too and I don't think its fair for Giovanni either, so I hope you do a check so that issue is settled. BelindaGong 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If you are User:38.114.145.148 your revert rule violation is here.
12:26, 25 January 2006
12:59, 25 January 2006
11:44, 26 January 2006
12:00, 26 January 2006
12:31, 26 January 2006
Even if you're not, it's still a violation, because only the first one came from the anon.
Could you please confirm. And in any case, please stop reverting to controversial stuff that was added recently, has not been accepted, and is still under discussion. Thanks AnnH (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you can explain to me what appears to be a double standard in effect here with the use of "needing to get consensus before making changes." Is this standard supposed to apply to everyone equally because it certainly is not in practice? Perhaps there is some rule I'm not aware about. In practice KH03 and STR1977 can introduce changes, new paragraphs, sentences, make deletions, etc, and will revert to their version to enforce it. And then you enforce this if too many other editors contest and rv back. But, you will not revert back their new work under the claim of "no consensus was reached." However, this is exactly what you do whenever I and/or other editors make our own changes-- even small ones, and even when we do make the case on the talk page for the changes first and get some agreement. These changes, however, are not allowed to stand, if KH03 or Str19977 disagree--but not the other way around! And, they don't need to make the case on the talk page, or get consensus—or even try to--either!
There's no double standard. The version I and KHM base our edits on happens to be the version preceding yours (apart from my stylistic changes) and it would be a great help if you used it as a basis too - your (small) changes wouldn't get lost. Also, neither I nor KHM changed this version all that much and when we did it was to reach consensus with you guys and your legitimate requests. KHM did a great overhaul to try reach compromise (to no avail) and I yesterday and today have made compromises with you, Giovanni, e.g. on Beowulf, on the "scholars" passage. If your are unhappy with any of our smaller changes than please speak up and point out your grievances and we will address them (I think I can speak for KHM on this too). Str1977
So, I have to wonder what is the rationale behind this seeming double standard? It is just discrimination based on editors being new, and if so how long do we have to be here before we get equal rights? Or can we ever have equal rights since we will always have less seniority? Or is it due to having a different perspective from the church elders? Does one have to be a Christian first to have equal rights (or maybe special privleges?) Or maybe its just because they are your friends? I don't know but the fact is that they can revert and make changes, without needing to get a consensus first. However when I or others try this, it's a matter of "needing to get consensus first!, and you enforce the revert to whatever version (new or old) that the aformentioned church elders introduce.
There has been discrimination on editors being new, as I think both I and KHM (he more than I) have been quite patient with you. Ann also has not used her powers as an administratrix despite your violation of the 3RR. Str1977
Lastly, I wonder what getting a consensus really means, in practical terms. Does it mean everyone must agree, or just a majority? Or at least 50%? And, what if no one responds? Does that mean no change can be introduced, or that its not challenged and can be introduced? And if so, after how long of a wait? When others dont agree, even though references are produced to support the proposed change and all their objections are refuted, and then there no response, but they still dont agree anyway out of, say, dogmatism--does this in effect mean that just one or two people can block it the change? Would such a senario be a case here you'd say there's still no consensus? I’d like to know the rules about how this works because right now it seems very unfair to say the least. 64.121.40.153 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Consensus, in Wiki standards, doesn't mean everyone agrees and it doesn't mean a majority of 50%, but an overwhelming majority. If no one responds then there is no objection, but there has been response both here and on Early Christianity, since you are obviously referring to this page too. Str1977 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The reverts need to stop as everytime I come back to my computer I'm about 6 changes behind! Even though I'm really interested in the stuff Giovanni (& socks?) are saying it really doesn't fit here. This should be sorted out in the Early Christianity page where there is room to structure all the ideas that have relevant scholarly backing (Christian or otherwise) and section these ideas to give some indication of their general acceptance. Part of the problems here are that lots of information that raises loads of questions is having to be squeezed in a way that distorts it to no ones satisfaction. At the moment the changes on either side are not staying long enough for anyone not involved in the edit war to read them and make sensible comments.
In 50 years time what Giovanni is saying may be mainstream but whatever my POV I agree that it has no place in the top level Christianity page other than to mention the scholarly discussions and provide links.
Maybe, maybe not. These theories were fashionable about a century ago. Str1977
Am I wrong in saying that there was a general consensus to add a reference to Elaine Pagels and Gnosticism to provide further reading for those interested. Also a link to Early Christianity should be added somewhere to the history section (if it's not already there)at this term is used on the history graph (if it hasn't disappeared again) and this will allow interested users to follow up.
You are right in what you say about Mrs Pagels - but it should be concise. A link to EC is certainly valid and will be included. Str1977
Bear in mind Giovanni that some poor kid out there is trying to do his Religious Education homework from this site and he's going to get really confused if we go into huge (contested) detail on this page. SOPHIA 13:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly my argument for a couple of days. Thanks Sophia. Str1977 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
nit picking technical note: Please, Str1977 and others, please don't interleave your comments with someone else's unless you sign each and every one. Otherwise it quickly becomes very difficult to know who said what. Doing that also separates the original person's comment from their signature... the only good "defense" against this I've seen is for the first person to sign every paragraph individually just in case someone decides to respond in the middle of their comment. Avoiding the interleaving would make that less necessary. Wesley 17:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
We are the Queen's subjects and must obey. ;-) Str1977 18:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't often find much to criticize in Str1977, but I have to confess I groan as well, when I see unsigned comments indented inside other people's comments, especially if I've been away from the page for while, and lots of people have contributed. Of course, on another page where I've seen him doing this, I was able to guess who had written what because of the plenking and klemping (or absence thereof)! But I don't have that little aid here. ;-) By the way, Wesley, you need the pipeline rather than a colon in the unsigned template. I've fixed it. AnnH (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Acutally, I've now, while tidying the page in other ways, got rid of the unsigned template for Str's posts, and replaced them with a forged (!) signature, which I thought was more appropriate, since he did sign his posts. The problem was that posts got broken through having so many comments breaking other posts. If we keep doing that, maybe we should just type the name of the contributor just before breaking his/her post, and sign our own comments. AnnH (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I promise that I will avoid doing this. I agree that indenting it all at the same level does not work when discussions get long and full of different people. Maybe I spent too much time discussing with a single individual, though he changed his name once in a while.
I hope you like the allusion I made, Ann. Str1977 00:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes! :-) AnnH (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki NPOV Policy Review

I think that we can all benefit reviewing the Wiki policy on NPOV. I know we all think we know it, but in practice, I think many of us can slip back into non encylopedic mind frames. I excerted several sections and include them below so that we can review this and see how it applies to solving the ongoing conflicts here. I feel that if we did follow these guidelines from the start we would have avoided a lot of needless edit conficts. I think Storm Rider tact refects the a Wiki NPOV stance, and I hope that after reading the text below, we can all come to an agreement with him about allowing the content I've been advocating inclusion for. Giovanni33 08:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy. Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased. . What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense.

Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted. We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. The presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral" or "intermediate" among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them.

Undue weight Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

· If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; · If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

Bias

Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view. The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. Certainly, there are bound to be borderline cases where a fact is disputed but we're not sure if we should take the dispute seriously, or where the distinction between fact and value will itself necessarily be in dispute. Nevertheless, there are many propositions that clearly express undisputed facts, and others that clearly express values or opinions. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact.

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation. But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can.

The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically.

The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion).

Neutrality dictates that there can be multiple prominent interpretations to the meaning or validity of a work, but often the contents can be objectively verified, especially in the case of modern documents.

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Religion

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.)

Giving "equal validity" But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. See this humorous illustration of the "equal validity" issue. Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.

Avoiding constant disputes

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.

Making necessary assumptions What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc.

Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.

It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view.

Consensus edits

Gio, Balinda, etc.: Here's a suggestion which could save you from revert violations and watching your edits be reverted by myself or by others. Please note that a consensus means not a "work in progress" (which really defines all of Wikipedia), but an agreement by both/all sides regarding a change. So, before making an edit, please go over it here, on the talk page, to see what "the other side" thinks of the proposal. Perhaps we can tweak the language and come up with a version everyone can live with...then we can add it and it truly would be consensual. Many of your edits/reverts were made with an edit summary claiming "consensus" where none existed. We can avoid this in the future if you discuss things here first and gain a clear consensus before making such obviously problematic changes. This is just a suggestion. Thanks...KHM03 18:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I promose to re-include the suppressed information that several of us editors worked out per StormRiders compromised solution, but which was still suppressed. A case has not been made why all this work of many editors is to be reverted. I understand that not everyone agreed on the other side but Storm Rider was on the other side and he agreed,he proposed the comproise to include both the secular view and the Christian view. From what I see of the responses people agreed with this. Those who disagree please state the objections. I restored the sections. MikaM 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or nor Mika I really think you have some interesting stuff but this is not the place for it. There isn't the room to fully explain it so it looks inaccurate as it differs so vastly from what people thought they knew about the history of Christianity. That doesn't make the established view right or wrong but we must accept that this IS minority stuff. We should be having this debate on the Early Christianity page. When things have calmed down I will make sure the link is added to this section - I've seen agreement for that.
I've had disagreements on this page but you will not be taken seriously by anyone if you carry on like this - you'll just get banned. That's not a threat (I'm not an admin - just a new user like you) but the way things are we can't make any progress. There are other edits that need doing such as adding the Elaine Pagels link but it's pointless at the moment. You just have to accept that as you are new in you need to find the right place for your information with the right links for it to be found by those interested. This is a dynamic project - I have stuff I'd like to add but I'm not sure where it fits in best so I'm spending my time doing a lot of reading and learning. Believe me I've had STR1977, AnnH and KHM03 all at me at once so I know how you feel. No disrespect to them but because they know each other well in the Wiki world it can be quite scary for new comers when you do something they don't like. The reality of Wiki is that you have self selecting editors so anyone working on this page is bound to have strong views. Look upon this as a long term thing - you don't need to get everything you want in right now. But please stop reverting to a contentious version as we're getting nowhere. SOPHIA 23:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Sophia, if we scared you, which never was our attention. But I know how you feel and can positively state that no offense is taken (and I think I can speak for the others on this). I also appreciate your attempts of calming down tension despite our own differences. Goodnight, Str1977 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining this to me Sophia and your advise. I see where you are coming from and I started to speak up here because I thought Giovanni was not being treated fairly. I read on Giovanni's talk page where they were accusing him of bigotry, being uncivil, and other nasty things all over wikipeadia. No suprise then that now he is blocked (or banned?) and so is Belinda, and probably others who disagreed too much. I thought this place was about what you could prove, about making the arguments, which I think Giovanni did. I see I was mistaken. I don't plan to revert again but I'm sure its probably already too late for me too. I'm sure I've already been target for elimination. Sadly, might still makes right. If all other places of Wikipeadia are equally governed as badly as they are here, then I'm not sure I want to be a part of it anymore. It's a loss to wikipedia to lose good contributors, and I hope they do something about the unfairness. MikaM 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Mika, our two fellow editors have not been banned but blocked for a period time, as I understand, for an overdose of reverting. It takes much more to be "eliminated". The "accusations" against giovanni were directed at several specific posts he made.
Giovanni hasn't proven that his inclusions are either fact (which he did claim in he beginning) or, in the version he posted, significant minority views.
It certainly is about arguments and might doesn't make right - it is exactly such self-potrayal and, I say it again, vilification of opposing views that poisons the well.
Str1977 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, if people disagree with something and you suggest something similar but slightly modified as a compromise, wait to see if it is accepted. And, since you're both so grossly in violation of the 3RR rule, it would be better if you didn't insert your suggested compromise yourself. What you've been doing is making a case on the talk page, and then posting your version (which people disagree with) with an edit summary of "case made on talk page", or in cases where people made their objections, you posted a slightly modified version, with an edit summary saying that this was according to consensus on the talk page. If there really is consensus, if would be better if one of the original opponents posted the compromise version, or if you waited an appropriate amount of time for comments. Giovanni, I note you're still reverting at Early Christianity. Please note, as I told you on your talk page, that people known to revert a lot can end up getting blocked for "disruption" or "gaming the system" (i.e. making a fourth revert or partial revert after 24 hours and two minutes) even if they manage on a particular occasion to stay within the rules. AnnH (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some of the information that some have preferred to enter needs to be put on the Early Christianity page; however, a brief statment with a reference to the appropriate article should be an acceptable alternative rather then nothing at all. As far as reverts go, except for vandalism, I see too many on both sides of the issue and there are no angels. We have gotten much too liberal in what we revert; often it seems to be more out of laziness. I would prefer to see no reverts, except for vandalism, from anyone at this time. If it is something you disagree with, edit by adding a corresponding point with references. I know that this adds a lot of work for everyone, but it ensures that no editor feels like MikaM and Sophia above. Their point is well taken; when you have several editors "defending" their turf as aggressively as this page has been, newcomers can feel very unwelcome and that is unacceptable. One caveat to my advice is that controversial edits should be discussed first and other/all edits need to be referenced. Compromise is difficult and demands a lot of each participant; I am not sure we are there yet, but I like the direction we are taking. It will be much better when Gio and others return. Then we will see if real progress has been made. Storm Rider 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus edits Part Two

Hi, looks like I'm back (for now). I've been a bad boy and had to be punished. hehe Thanks, Ann. :) I agree with Storm Rider and feel that most of us here do have a general consensus already that my point of view while it may be a minority one is not extreme or fringe, which would justify supression. The fact that I can easily point to prominent scholars even within the field of reglious studies departments who argue this, proves its a at the very least a significant minority view. This is all the more the case given the those who argue otherwise have only asserted it but have not backed up their claims with any references, much less purported refutations of these views. Again, I think most of us here agree that its a signifant minority view. The question now, then, is how much and in what way do we incorporate it in this article within the section on history and origins? I'm willing to compromise (as I always have), and make it short, with a link to Early Christianity where is should be allowed to have a more promient role (its being suppressed there too--even more so where it was mostly being reverted back to a stub). In anycase I'm confident that we editors all being reasonable intelligent people can come to a sensible agreement.Giovanni33 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

One comment I do want to suggest for a change, and which I've never been happy with in the orthodox version is the statment "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially the Gnostics (who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge),..." To me this sounds too POV, as if we are speaking from the point of view of the Chruch, who had to "deal with internal heresies." Well they are only heresies from the POV of the Church. Man of the groupd that came to be labled heresies was a matter of sometimes just one vote. To the Gnostic Christians, the other side was the false belief, and they were the true Christians. By calling the Gnostics heresies that had to be dealt "dealt" with by the Chruch takes one POV and makes it seem like this other branch in early Christianty were a problem to be dealth with. This POV language can be corrected to something like "which the Chruch at such and such time, declared them to be "heresies," but Gnostic Christians, like others groups in the Christian movment, also considered themselves to be the one and true Christianity." I hope my objections make sense. Other issues in general that I dont like are when things are spoken of in static terms, instead of historical, dyanamic, and other terms that connote emergence, and lack of finality. So instea of just starting out, I prefer emerge. Its more historical as it suggests coming out of what was before, insteas of just dropping from the sky in a vacuume. There are other examples in the text prefered by the other side as contrasted with my version. I just thought to explain my objections on this point. Giovanni33 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni. I'm new too and wondered about the changes I kept seeing when I was browsing this Wiki article based on a search I did. I was very happy to see the information about early Christian influences presented in the way you have argued for. The reason why I became interested in participating was because I was disappointed that at other times this information was no longer available. I see now why. I hope that my own experience and help for others to realize that it would be a good thing to include. It does not confuse people (that much), and confusion is not always a bad thing. All learning first begins with confusion. It only makes for a better education to be exposed to these forerunners to modern Christianity, which so many people are rather ignorant of. I made my first edit, a very humble one based on your suggestions above, and ones I know keep the article accurate. I hope they can restore to the version I saw before that had all the links included to the other mystery cults. I do not now how to find that version or how to restore it. I am still learning. Thank you, Richard. 198.144.207.115 06:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Blind faith"

Another section I'd like to hash out is the one about characterizing the resulting state sponsored Christian orthodoxy, as one that emphasised "blind faith, etc." I think its important because in my view it played a prime role in bringing about the Dark Ages, one of the worst periods of human history from an intellectual point of view. I knew this would be probably incite provocation so I included it not as a fact per se but used the voice of three scholars who said this to represent this point of view, the view itself a statment of fact. I know Str1977 dismissed this as false, a legend from the Enlightenment (a saner period in history), and said it can never stand, etc. Well, to supress it I'd like to see support for your claim that refutes this from other scholars, and show that this view is fringe and discredited. I happen to think its a signifiant point of view, which therefore should be fairly chracterized and represented, along with the other point of view, that disagrees. This would make it NPOV. What say all ye fellow editors on both isles of the fence? Thanks. Giovanni33 03:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I concur with you to a degree on appearing as if WIKI is taking the point of view of orthodox Christianity. My counsel would be to refer not to the "church", but to the historic Chrisitian church or orthodox church. In doing so we are not taking sides, but rather we are identifying the source of the belief. Please remember to continue to discuss those edits that you know will be most controversial here first. Always reference your edits in the article when you feel it might be raise some eyebrows. I have encourged all simply to stop reverting edits unless the edit is vandalism. We still have too many reverts going on. The objective is edit other edits rather than do wholesale reverts. It does create a lot of work for each editor, but right now I think we need to demonstrate that everyone with expertise is welcome.
The blind faith conversation is interesting...I am not aware of another type of faith; it is always blind. Couching it as blind faith is POV because of its negative connotation. A definition of faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; if you have faith you hope for things which are not seen, which are true. The attack on science led by the historic church was motivated by a number of things, not simply faith. Storm Rider 08:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Strom Rider, I agree to abide by your suggestion and agree with you that it would make things better. So, I will not revert, again, unless it obvious vandalism.
I look at the contested passage again, and it doesnt say blind faith at all. I'm not sure why I thought it did, but I think it was Str who used that term. Anyway, here it the text on the idea to review:
According to American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler, the resulting orthodoxy "emphasised faith, produced a thinking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology"), a reliance on the miraculous and supernatural, under the old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed."
This is clearly a POV but that’s ok because it’s stated as a fact according to these authorities, scholars in the field--their point of view is being reported. The question is if it represents a significant pov in how it characterizes 4th century orthodox Christianity. I'll do some research in the question just to make sure but I believe it is a very common view. The other thing is that these authors make statments of fact. Are the alleged statments of fact here as reported accurate,i.e. not that they are diputed by widley debunked and discredited by all current POV's? Again, I'll research it just to make sure. Maybe there is a better scholar(s) that can be chosesn if it is a legitimate pov, anyway.
Now, if this is a real, legitimate POV, and its presented, we need to find out if its refuted by the orthodox Christian point of view; then we need to find the mainstream Christian orthodox point, a good spokes person to quote in this regard, i.e, of view regarding how they characterize themselves about their attitude towards and what they say about this critical view as espoused above.Giovanni33 08:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the "blind faith" quote was way over the line in terms of POV; can another quote be found (by a reputable authority on Christian history, of course) which communicates that thought in a less POV manner? Also: does the mystery religion article, which we should provide a link to, provide links to the various mystery religions you had wanted to list? KHM03 12:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the following are missing, from the article on mystery cults. Im not sure why Dionysus is missing and probably can be added there but other early Christan forerunners are not mystery cults so they are not listed there. Gnosticism, the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Dionysus, various mystery cults, Mithraism and Osiris.

I always thought that the Dionysian rites were the mystery cult "par excellence". KHM03 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the Mystery Cults article could use some work.69.106.226.3 21:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
About the proposed section above, even though its a POV, I think its an accurate one. If someone disagrees with me please cite a reference that argues such. Otherwise, I agree that we should include this critism in its most powerful, direct way (pov), and also characterize the mainstream view/response to the critics, even if its only their rationale. I think its important that this criticism be included becaues the intolerant dogmatic nature of the resulting orthoxy of the Church had profound effect on the vigor of the persecution against intellectual freedom advocated by the Church and carried out with the backing of the State. I disagree earlier that it was simply done in the name of the Church--their intolerant outlook sanctioned it and pushed it. Just take a look at some of the mainstream Church fathers, such as Thomas Aquinas, for example. He he held that heretics "deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death", and thus that heresy should be punished by death (ST II:II 11:3), He also maintained the intellectual inferiority of women and their subjection to men on that account (ST I:92:1), which is one reason why he opposed the ordination of women (ST Supp. 39:1); He also held that "a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction". (ST II:II 65:2) What we see is a very reactionary institution that was intolerant of anyone who deviated from their dogma and advocated such such people be murdered, not to mention justification for other brutal and opppressive practices like slavery.MikaM 03:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A World History of Christianity

What do people think of this book as a reference, A World History of Christianity
by Adrian Hastings (Editor) [1] Here one can find a through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[2] Even though this book is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history, I note they also make the point: "Hastings notes that after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues."
About the above passage , Prof. A.D. White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology" (3 vols.), as well as prof. Draper, and Kohler, are all authoritative in their subject matters and I say we should use them as perfect representatives for the the view, characterization of the orthox Christian stance against intellectual freedoms. MikaM 05:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mika, it is one thing to state what happened in history, but it is another to interpret that history. For example, above you state what Thomas may have taught, but then you go on to state that it was a "very reactionary institution that was intolerant of anyone who deviated from their dogma and advocated such people be murdered, not to mention justification for other brutal and opppressive practices like slavery." I would call this type of history reconstructionist...it is looking at history through the perspective of today's social morays. You open a can of worms that you don't address: what was happening in other societies? Was slavery practiced elsewhere? How did other people raise their children? How were minority religions treated elsewhere in the world? It is so POV that it is unjustified and really seems more like grinding your axe, rather than improving the article. I suggest if you want to cite the thoughts of early historic church fathers (it would be best to handle in their respective articles), but don't attempt to interpret them or spin them to meet your POV; just simply state what happened in history. Does this make sense? Storm Rider 08:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. Aside from that, this section is meant to give a brief overview in an article which discusses many aspects of Christianity, not just history. There are articles such as Early Christianity, History of Christianity, and Criticisms of Christianity which deal with these problems more precisely. KHM03 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Storm Rider. Aside from that, this section is meant to give a brief overview in an article which discusses many aspects of Christianity, not just history. There are articles such as Early Christianity, History of Christianity, and Criticisms of Christianity which deal with these problems more precisely. KHM03 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I dont think Mika was suggesting to include her views and her text as part of the article, only to support inclusion of my brief passage about the fact that the brand of Christian orthodoxy was distinguisable for certain attributes; these attributes were widely noted and had signifiant ramifications. I agree with others that should anything else specifically be introduced such as the morals views of the Church fathers that is has to be 1. historically contextualized, not contrasted with todays moral compass, and 2. that in anycase this all goes beyond the summary of this article and is best left for the other articles mentioned by KHMO3. Still, my passage or some passage like the one quoted above, is appropriate for this article. That passage, was: "... after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues." However, I like my passage because its states the case in better, clearer terms with some specifics, and uses three well known scholars and cites their work in doing so. Giovanni33 11:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I added that passage as a comproise, instead of the White passage. BelindaGong 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Belinda, if you are refering to this edit, I can only say that the substance of this passage is already covered a few lines beneath and in the persecution section. Also, it is unclear where the quote "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older Pagan religions." is quoted from - the context suggests it is a quote from the decrees but that's incorrect. The wording is also very fuzzy (what is "upon any who cling" supposed to mean? - the decrees supressed the pagan cults - nothing less and nothing more) or down-right wrong ("all rival religions" would include Judaism, which wasn't affected at all). Str1977 09:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I looked it up, the quote comes from this source: Joseph McCabe, "A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science," Gryphon Books (1971). Excerpts appear at: http://www.christianism.com/articles/18.html
I think it belongs in the history section for context since it characterizes the nature of the established state Christian orthodoxy. I think this is a compromise over bring the other quote by the Jewish scholar and White. 64.121.40.153 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Str1977, I believe you have already violated the 3RR rule regarding the above version. Correct me if I'm wrong. Just wanted to point it out. I suggest you work out the differences on the talk page. Otherwise all we have is an edit war which is not productive. Thanks. Giovanni33 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Hi Ann. I just wanted put you on notice with this warning incase you are not aware it. You blocked me for the violation and claimed you seldom revert yourself, which I disputed. Here I present evidence where, as is usual, you revert back to Str1977's version. I also note that there is no case made for this version while the other side has made a case and has asked that the disagreements be worked outinstead of edit warring. There is no response yet on the talk page for days about this dispute from your side that wants this version. I suggest you stop edit warring, and ask that those who support your side (seems to be only Str1977),at least make their case instead of blindly reverting, along with you following him, which suggests a possible meat puppet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38385983&oldid=38384074
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38403075&oldid=38400630
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38507904&oldid=38507249
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38510080&oldid=38510031

Thanks. Giovanni33 21:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have now self reverted. I did actually look through the history before I made that last revert, but somehow missed my name, among so many other edits. Could I remind you again that I did not block you. I would never block someone with whom I was in an editing dispute. I reported you after giving you numerous chances to avoid the block. You were the first person I had ever reported. I also disagree that Str1977 is the only one who supports my side. There has been a lot of opposition to your attempts to insert into articles anti-Christian bias, based sometimes on very minority, or even fringe scholarship, or simply on error (note for example your attempt to have an article say that Galileo was tortured). No, Str1977 and I are not meatpuppets. We each have a longish and independent history on Wikipedia. We come from different countries, have never met, and were quite unaware of each other for some time when we joined. I suggest you read the definition of meatpuppets, especially the bit which asks you to "be civil".
I notice that you've now added something to your own talk page about my "hypocrisy".[3] I admit that my proportion of reverting has gone up since you arrived, just as it would have if I had been editing lots of Shakespeare articles, and a new editor had insisted on inserting as mainstream scholarship a fringe theory (which does actually exist) that Othello murdered Desdemona out of frustration because of his own sexual impotence and inability to consummate his marriage, and not because he believed her to be unfaithful. Before you came, I would say that my average was one a day, or even less (not counting vandalism, of course). However, I remind you that you had eleven reverts, plus six, plus five, plus four, and were warned repeatedly while you were still reverting (rather than after). This is my first ever violation, and happened through an accident. There is no hypocrisy there. Please try to assume good faith. AnnH (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for undoing your 4th revert, back to the other version, which is widely accepted, is not inaccurate, and is not fringe. I don't know anyone who even claims that anymore and I think you are following the argument about another issue. And, ofcourse if no one challenges an established bias and POV, there is no need to enforce that one sided POV. That goes without saying.

This particular dispute pertains to a compromised version of my original White quote about the nature of the new Orhodox version of Christinaity after it assumed that status as the state religion. Specifically, the point is that it was particularly intolerant. Str1977 only objected to this final version on the grounds that the point is already made in the Persecutions section and that the quote was not attributed. This was fixed by Belinda, and this compromised version which was introduced by Mika was restored, and I note that most of what I wanted was not included. So it was added by Belinda after addressing the point raised by Str. This was after the original version that I wanted by White, was objected to as too POV by KH03, but who agreed that the idea could still be represented, just with another source. After the latest objection was addressed and (attribution and redundancy) it was included. There was no more responses from Str1977 or anyone. However he kept reverting, with you helping him. This is how this latest edit warring started again, and the communication breakdown is clearly on one side's fault.

Your analogy about Shakespear does not apply to this situation at all. If it does, please make the case. The original claims about my original contributions also have never been supported with references to back up that charge. But its moot now since I think it better fits in Early Christianity. Your exmample of my supposed claim that Galileo was tortured (from another article) is not valid since I corrected myself saying that what I meant was that he was under the threat of torture, and that was was done to him is considered by some to be tantamount to tortue. But, that is not an issue, here, either. About the meatpuppet, I did not know. I thought simply blinding reverting based on what someone else does without any arguments being made, just to support them, is what was meant by a meatpuppet. So I'm sorry if I was wrong about the use of that term, which you used to describe Belinda. Giovanni33 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I naively assumed that since you had informed me of my fourth revert (which was an accident), you intended to be as generous as the Christian editors were towards you when you did eleven, six, and five reverts. None of the people opposing your edits has a history of reporting 3RR violations without warning. I was mistaken — I see you have reported me.
I disagree that your version is widely accepted and is not fringe. I also disagree that the example of Galileo is not valid. You put into the article that he was tortured. And I don't think you corrected yourself. Someone else reverted you, and at least two people told you on the talk page that he wasn't tortured. You then modified the wording, and argued that showing him the instruments of torture was more or less the same thing as torturing him. Not very reliable arguments or editing, in my view.
I never used the word meatpuppet to describe Belinda. I said that it was possible that she was one. To be fair, you didn't use it to describe me either. You said my reverting to Str's version suggested a possible meatpuppet. Your main support comes from newly-registered users, who turn up at the articles that you edit to revert to your version and to vote to support it on talk pages. I would remind you of the policy that "neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." And "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." While Str1977 and I certainly share the same views on Christianity, I don't think anyone would argue that we have the same editing habits. He edits articles that I know nothing about; I edit articles that he never comes near. You also, at an earlier stage, suggested sockpuppetry on the part of Str1977 and KHM03.
As far as blindly reverting without any arguments, I have given arguments on several occasions. But on occasions where I haven't, I was fully in agreement with Str1977 or KHM03, or Wesley, or some of the others. I don't always have time to make the kind of long posts that you do. That does not mean that an edit with inaccuarcies and POV has to stay up until I can prove to your satisfaction that it's badly flawed. Even votes, on Wikipedia, don't have to have a paragraphe in the editor's own words. "Oppose, per Mindspillage", is quite sufficient. Those who support you do not always provide a reasoned, in depth analysis of their reverts. AnnH (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Ann, simply repeating over and over that my inclusions are not widely accepted and fringe does not make it any more true. Just saying that is not making an argument. I assume good faith so I think you must really believe that but don't expect that this belief should stand unless you provide referenced support to support your claim, as I have always done to support my claims. Regarding the original Prof. White passage, which I generously agreed to replace with another source that expressing the same idea, per KH03's suggestion. Still, I supported my claim that the White passage is widely accepted thusly:
Prof. A.D. White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology" (3 vols.), as well as prof. Draper, and Kohler, are all authoritative in their subject matters and I say we should use them as perfect representatives for the the view, characterization of the orthox Christian stance against intellectual freedoms. To support my source as one that is widely accepted I provided a further source: "historian Bruce Mazlish certified White's thesis to have been established "beyond reasonable doubt," and the late George Sarton, a distinguished historian of science at Harvard found White's argument so compelling that he urged its extension to non-Christian cultures. See Mazlish, Preface, P. is; George Sarton, "Introductory Essay," in Science, Religion and Reality, ed. Joseph Needham (New York, 1955), p. 14."
But, this is now moot since it was replaced by another quote that states the same idea. This source was suggested by Mika. She said:
"What do people think of this book as a reference, A World History of Christianity
by Adrian Hastings (Editor) [4] Here one can find a through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[5] Even though this book is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history, I note they also make the point: "Hastings notes that after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues."
I agreed, so I used this quote instead. I note that no one disputed this source or this information from Hastings as presented by Mika. No one, that is, until right now by yourself with these sweeping accusations of fringe and not accepted. I am assuming that you were not follwing the specifics but are just making generalizations (hence your reliance on the Galileo argument to inform your views about this--which is a flawed and lazy method). If you want to make claims about this specific issue, please support your claims as I find them false. After I added this quote, it was later revmoved by Str1977 about a week later, along with other sections and he revereted to a very old version that had been objected to as POV. Specifically the language about heresies. But his objection was that one quote did not have attribution and the point about intolerance was already made in the Perecustoins section. I responded with an argument why its not the same thing, and I provided the attribution for the other quote:
"Joseph McCabe, "A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science," Gryphon Books (1971). Excerpts appear at: http://www.christianism.com/articles/18.html"
"About the Galileo issue on on another article an entire section was removed instead of fixing a small word missing, which I gladly fixed after I found out about it, but I disputed your chracterization of my stance even then. I wrote: "I did not re-insert it--I changed it to address the points in disput, which were easy to fix and did not justify removing the entire section. I think that editors should not revert others work without reaching consensus on the talk page. Adding, editing, is fine, but not undoing others work, and esp. not after it points of contention have been addressed.
Also, it's not true that there is a general accusation that the Church tortured Galileo. The claim is that he was under the threat of tourture. I note that White says that what they put him through was the equivalent of tourture. I bypassed the point by simply stating he was under the threat of tourture, instead of tortured. I don't think anyone, Catholic writer or otherwise, that disputes this claim. Giovanni33 22:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC) "
I suggest we stick to the argument relevant to this page instead of trying to find things from other articles to make general points that can not be used to justify arguments relating to specific text on this page.
Also, even though I reported you I stated that I did not want you to be blocked since you claimed that your 3RR violation was an accident. I think newbies deserve more generosity but well established users, esp. admins. such as yourself should know better. I just want you to use the talk page more to make your arguments yourself instead of only reverting work that doesnt push your POV. I see my contributions as an attempt to balance the coverage of the topic in keeping with the NPOV policy.Giovanni33 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree that newbies deserve more generosity, which is why I, and Str1977, and KHM03, and Wesley did not report any of your many original violations, or Belinda's. You were never reported when there was the slightest possibility of an accident. You reported my first ever violation, after I had self reverted, and only said that you didn't want me to be blocked the next day, after discovering that I had responded on the page where you reported me. You were perfectly within your rights to report me, of course, but, bearing in mind that you were not reported the time that you reverted eleven times in eighteen and a half hours, ignoring many requests and warnings, or on some of your other violations, I leave it for you to judge whether the generosity shown towards you or the generosity shown by you is greater. AnnH (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This is beating a dead horse, so to speak. I think I already admitted that the level of "generosity" is not the same, but you agree that it should not be the same, right? You say "I fully agree that newbies deserve more generosity," so there is no argument here. I think we should all not undo any other editors work, without first coming to the talk page and making a case--unless its vandalism. And this goes all the more for work where there has been a case made for its inclusion already. If there are objections, instead of just reverting and instigating an edit war, address those at the talk page. I and other editors have always been more than happy to address any objections, make needed corrections, or even remove our own work if its shown not to be approrpriate for any reason. This is a far more productive way. For the record, I did not report you on the reporting page so that you could get blocked. I responded to the guy who blocked me to prove an argument I had made that both sides were reverting a lot. It was to his personal page, not the the "reporting page" where these reports are made. Secondly, your response had nothing to do with my stating I didn't want you blocked. Clearly I stated that since you said it was an accident I assume good faith and accordingly I do not wish that you be blocked. I assume you will give me equal good faith. Lets all try to work together and not undo each others work so quickly. I think I have proven myself more than reasonable. 64.121.40.153 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)