User talk:Irmgard/Archive 2003 - 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149


Thanks for the welcome. As for staying: I have the strong suspicion that the place is addictive;-). Let's see how much Wikipedia life outside of Wikipedia will suffer.
I've learned already a bit about the rules here (I belong to the rare birds who actually do read help files and manuals), and I'll sure learn more with the time - and meanwhile I trust not-so-much-beginner Wikipedians to correct me where needed (this works really well here). -- Irmgard 20:05 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)


Your additions to Bible and reincarnation - specifically the issues about reincarnation supposedly being removed from the Bible by the church - are very valuable and most welcome. This page has been transformed into a great article by the efforts of yourself and others. One Salient Oversight 01:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can only echo the above comments by One Salient Oversight. Keep up the good work. -Rholton 03:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Unverified image

Thanks for uploading the image

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the image and I'll tag it for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 05:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Being a contributor to the previous vote you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move in the new vote on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette alerts

Irmgard is complaining about my POV and claiming my sources are superficial or non-existent. This is not true. I have provided references. Irmgard is not following WP:AD and instead selectively censors content and makes a personal attack by filing a false Wikiquette alert about User:AI. I have discussed his disputes in the William Sargant article, they are mainly unfounded. Contrary to Irmgard's claims, I have never even touched the Ewan Cameron (MKULTRA) article. Also, there were no entries in the talk page for the Louis Jolyon West article as of the writing of his complaint, despite this claim of dispute. Irmgard's actions and decision to enter a Wikiquette alert is abusive imho. --AI 20:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) (statements retracted --AI 21:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC))

Thank you --Irmgard 21:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) :-)
Hi Irmgard, sorry for the misunderstand between us earlier and thanks for your contributions to some of the articles we both have been involved in. --AI 00:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal

Irmgard, you reverted my changes to this article without even a word in the Talk page. Please discuss your changes on this article.--AI 18:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Szasz

From the Thomas Sasz article, you added

Szasz was 1969 together with Scientology the co-founder and the first director of Scientology's anti-psychiatry front group Citizens Commission on Human Rights.

Don't really understand that. Could you clarify?

[edit] Irmgard as an Argument ;-)

You said in Talk:Free Zone "is Irmgard paying you?": as I'm to my knowledge the only user Irmgard here, I'd like to know how you got such an idea? BTW, I have on my German page a collection of not-so-convincing arguments used in Wikipedia discussions, for amusement of slightly stressed Wikipedians, and I'll ad this real gem to it (without mentioning names, of course) - thanks for the contribution. --Irmgard 17:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I got the idea because I saw your messages to Antaeus. You're welcome for the "gem." Is your last name Möller? BTW do you still think I am being POV in my edits to psychiatrist articles? I think I am being fair and being very careful to only add information which can be verified. What do you think about my cleaning up of the psychiatrist and psychologists categories? The psychologist category is still being sorted. Aloha --AI 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
My last name is not Möller - BTW, even if you would find someone by that name, it's very probably not the one in the Wikipedia: there exist many dozens of "Irmgard Möllers" existing in Germany, both names are not unusual. ;-)
The categorizing by country is a good idea - though there might also be other ways to categorize, especially regarding psychologists: there are many schools of psychology (Freud, Jung, Adler, etc.). Also not every psychologist is a psychotherapist - it might be useful to classify them by field of specialization.
Regarding POV - well, from your contributions, you definitely do have a point of view (POV) which is no crime at all (I'm convinced the big majority of Wikipedia contributors has a point of view regarding the stuff they write, else they would not be interested enough to care to know about it) - and it is not too difficult to guess, that you are, e.g., no fan at all of psychiatry. Though you avoid in your contributions any gross emotional evaluations, that does not mean you are always fair.
There is more than one way to violate NPOV: (see e.g. Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.
For example, even if all facts mentioned can be proved, this does not mean that an article is neutral (imagine an article on WW2 writing only about the US bombing Germany and Japan, only proven facts, detailing damages and deaths of civil persons - but nothing about cause of the war, about German or Japanese war actions, etc. - this would give a very wrong impression about the role of the US in WW2, even though each single fact was proven and documented). Sure no one can have all the information of all sides - but then it is helpful in creating an encyclopedia, if you mention the missing points in the talk or edit summary (e.g. Charismatic and Evangelical view on the Lord's supper are done, could please someone add the Catholic view).
Also, especially in the case of controversial statements, if might be helpful for other users if you state your sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability
--Irmgard 19:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC) :-)
Thank you for reminding me about all this. I am aware that I have sometimes failed to cite sources. I am willing to dig up the references if you question specific statements. In the future I will reference sources when I initially write a statement into an article. I agree that any "other side of the story" should be contributed by people with opposing or different POVs. Please don't mistake my failure to solicit such as an intentional violation of NPOV. Aloha --AI 21:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Die Schweiz und Sekten

Können Sie bitte helfen? Danke im voraus. Talk:Cult#Switserland Andries 21:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Ross

Thanks for your help on Rick Ross. I would just want to express that your comments in the discussion page sometime border on advocacy against this or that group. Let's keep these discussion on USENET were these belong. Let's stay on purpose and discuss the article itself. Together we can make this encyclopedia the best there is. Thanks again --ZappaZ 23:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sidney Gottlieb - Attribution

Please indicate the sources for your information - this is part of NPOV. Irmgard 13:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What content are you disputing?--AI 22:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Irmgard, this was one of the first articles I wrote and regrettably I didn't log the references I used. (Some of them were government documents, btw) I believe others who are familiar with the subject can also verify that this article does not contain innacuracies. Give me time and I will try to reference EVERYTHING written in this article. (See Talk:Sidney Gottlieb#Attribution) You can help verify it if you search for Gottlieb plus keywords in google.com. --AI 21:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of purported cults/2

You may be interested in the above VfD -- especially since you'll recognize some of the editors involved. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David S. Touretzky

Dear Irmgard,

Thank you for correcting me instead of simply reverting my changes to articles. Aloha --AI 20:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, in general I see reverts as a "last possibility when all else has failed". I have an (informal) gradient scale of corrections, sort of :
  1. take up on talk page,
  2. make minor corrections,
  3. add other viewpoint (+talk),
  4. rewrite section (+talk),
  5. revert (+talk),
  6. revert.
That doesn't mean I work through the scale each time, but I try to keep the number low - higher numbers do not always improve relationships. :-) --Irmgard 20:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arnaldo Lerma

After such a number of reverts in the last few days, I have reported you and Maureen D to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:AI and User:Maureen D to stop this edit war which is only costing times and nerves. I am aware that neither of you has violated the 3RR rule to the letter and I have stated that in the report. --Irmgard 10:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank Irmgard. I wikified the article and cleaned it up and was very careful with anything I contributed and I also cleaned up Lerma's link farm on his article; only to come back and see Maureen simply revert all my contributions and call my work vandalism. I will not allow Arnie Lerma's #1 associate to abuse my time and contribution in this manner and am thinking of filing an RfC. I think my changes are valid and if anyone disputes them they should dispute specifics and not simply revert the entire article. I appreciate your report and thank you for you support in seeking to resolve this edit war at the [Arnaldo Lerma] article. --AI 18:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Murray

Again, thank you very much for your contribution to another article I am involved in. I agree about the reference to Sidney Gottlieb and will attempt to confirm or controvert claims of Murray's connection to the "dirty trickster." --AI 21:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


Not fan the flames but I wouldn't be surprized if there is a Murray-Gottleib connection, but it would probably be still be quite inconsequential in Murray's history. However, it must be said that there is not much on Murray's govenment connections except the usual. The real issue is the nature of the culture that grows up around covert governmental actions. There is an awful lot that governments do that shocks or outrages us, or seems only capable if the people are insane. So, as much as I would not like to hear that a Murray-Gottleib connection exists, I am enough of a student of human nature to not be shocked (surprized, maybe). Also, I am enough of a critic of governments that I think that whomever is involved in "dirty tricks" should be outted, not to disgrace them but further the documentation of the perniciousness of covert actions.
Tangential but relevant is to acknowledge to Irmgard that I received you note just as I was looking at the Murray page and thinking, "Something needs to be donelle here." So, I will. Thanks for thinking of me. Rsugden 01:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have no idea if he was connected to Gottlieb and I have no personal reason to defend him, but I am working at an encyclopedia here, and in such a serious matter of reputation, it should contain only verified or precisely attributed data. Information repeated in a dozen anti-government sites with visible bias and more or less obvious agendas repeating information from sources they do not mention is something that might be taken up by sensational press, but it does not belong into an encyclopedia if not verified by more reliable sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). --Irmgard 08:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about your recent large scale revisions to the CoS article

Dear Irmgard,

I have noticed that you have added many good, well informed, and insightful edits to the English Wikipedia since you first began contributing here. But your recent edits to the CoS article over the last five days all appeared to me to either delete, move, or to bury all of the most pertinent information of that article, which in my humble opinion all concerns the fundamental highest-level teachings of the CoS and how those teachings on some level permeate the entire organization.

I will elaborate as to why it seems to me that these types of teachings are the most pertinent information of the article; For example, it seems to me that the fact that Hubbard taught his highest level students that Jesus was essentially evil (entheta), tends to affect the way that a typical Scientologist views Christianity (which happens to currently be the most dominant religion on earth). In as far as I can tell, this teaching will affect any given Scientologist, whether or not that given Scientologist might happen to be consciously aware of this teaching. It seems to me that whether or not any given CoS student is aware of this teaching, he or she invariably hears subtle comments about the value of Christianity, and eventually tends to reject Christianity as evil him or herself on some level of thinking (assuming that member remains true to Hubbard's overall message).

Why do I feel that this tendency to subconsciously endorse Hubbards teachings, even though consciously a student may not even know these teachings, is noteworthy enough to justify keeping a reference to this teaching prominently featured in the main body of the article? Because on a very deep level, we are dealing with two very different world views or weltanschauung's. The Christian weltanschauung teaches essentially that God is love, and as such, the world we live in is filled with that love, making it essentially a positive place. Hubbard, on the other hand taught the weltanschauung that the world is a place void of meaning (MEST) or any inherent value, and thus it is a place of negative value, for which the only sane response is to work to escape from. As a result of this fundamental difference of weltanschauungs, the fundamental behavior pattern of a typical Scientologist is generally quite different from the fundamental behavior pattern of a typical Christian.

OK, having said all of this, unless the article continues to place this distinction in a prominent place in the article, and to state it clearly, then the readership is left in the dark about all of this. But placing this fact in a prominent place enables the readership to begin to assess these fundamental differences quite readily, which is what a good encyclopedia article is usually intended to enable.

So, at any rate, I just wanted to apologize for reverting many of your recent changes to the article, and to try to explain to you at least a little of why I did them. Finally, I must confess, it would appear to me that you must have some kind of direct involvement with the Church of Scientology, which I respect. Well I have never been a member, I have indeed had some of my own involvement with the Church of Scientology. Perhaps some day the opportunity might arise for me to elaborate.

Thanks for reading this. Any comments, questions or suggestions you might have about any of this subject of the recent reverts would be most appreciated.

Respectfully,
-Scott P. 20:45:39, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
Hello Scott,
First a clarification on my part: I`ve been a Scientologist for 13 years (including management position on continental level) and now I have been for more years an Evangelical Christian with a strong interest in theology - so there is no real need to explain to me that these world views are very different (no offense meant). I don't think either, that I have to stress the fact that I'm not precisely a fan of Scientology. I do my best, though, to write neutrally when I'm writing in an encyclopedia.
Regarding the Scientology article: I did not delete anything, except obvious redundancies and one obvious mistake regarding tone scale and suppressives. The situation I found was that there were several big articles: Scientology and Scientology beliefs and practices Scientology controversy and several more articles on the detail points - the long articles did treat some points summarily others rather detailed (probably depending on knowledge and hobby horses of the contributors) other important points not at all, while the detailed articles were mostly stubs.
So I did shorten the descriptions in the overview articles and moved all the details to the detail articles - which have the added advantage, that also the critique of the subjects can be taken up in detail.
I do think it is important to state in the main article that Christian leaders do not see Scientology as compatible with Christianity - which is also true for New Age, Moonies, etc. (I went today once more over the article Bible and Reincarnation which I had cleaned up some months ago - sigh). But the details of the incompatibility should not be in the main article, but in a (future) article Scientology and other religions or Scientology and Christianity. To be convincing, it will need to show the Scientology views and contrast it in sufficient detail with the Christian views (not only "God is love" but view of creation, view of man, view of God, view of Jesus Christ, view of redemption, view of ethics - not one of these is compatible). There is just no room for all of that in the main article - and I honestly do not assume that everyone reading it is interested in the finer points of comparative theology.
Moreover, I do not think the fundamental difference is the worldview - actually, the New Age worldview is in most points pretty similar to the one of Scientology and average New Agers are not nearly as fanatic as Scientologists. The real difference is Scientology ethics: - the firm attitude that any action is good if it helps Scientology and any action which harms Scientology's enemies helps Scientology and therefore is good. Read the article Fair game to get the idea. But, again, these details (which have, as the case is, to be referenced point by point) do not have room in the main article.
Also, please do not assume that a typical average Scientologist will read this article - Scientologists are not encouraged to use the internet and, moreover, they get by the organization a Net Nanny which prevents them getting any negative or neutral information on Scientology (it's enough to have a link on xenu.net in the article, so they won't be able to see it).

A detailed point:

Scott: For example, it seems to me that the fact that Hubbard taught his highest level students that Jesus was essentially evil (entheta), tends to affect the way that a typical Scientologist views Christianity (which happens to currently be the most dominant religion on earth).
Irmgard: By my personal experience and observation, Scientologists in general do not know what Hubbard taught his highest level students (the stuff is available in the Internet, yes, but Scientologists firmly believe they'll die of pneumonia or so, if they read it before "being ready"). They don't see Christians as enemies either, just as people way back behind the times (like all other non-Scientologists) - admittedly not a very informed view. Jesus Christ is seen as a good guy and a sort of almost-superman, but not quite as capable as an advanced Scientologist.
Maybe you think over your reversions - we might take this up on the Scientology talk page. --Irmgard 21:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I think I can see your point (continued from CoS talk above)

Dear Irmgard,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my questions. I think I might be able to see some of your points, perhaps not wanting to introduce, and summarize, the information about upper level teachings in the main article because you feel that such an introduction and summary of these materials in the main article cannot possibly be fair, as it requires too much article space to lay these questions out fully. Still, I feel that such important points as these are best introduced and summarized in the main article, as that is what I feel a good encyclopedia article should do, summarize, then elaborate. A difference of personal preferences and styles I suppose. I agree with your suggestion just above, if the main structure of the article is to be significantly changed, then this might best be discussed first on the article talk page.

By the way, my own involvement with Scientology came about at about the same time as I was first told I had been put on the CoS's list of Suppressive Persons for opposing the CoS's attempts to infiltrate a certain organization that I was once a senior member of. This organization initially had no interest at all in either promoting or demoting the interests of the CoS. The infiltration of this organization simply happened to be one of the 'strategic objectives' of the CoS at the time they began targeting it. Much pandemonium resulted from the CoS's official 'handling' of me, but ultimately they failed to infiltrate my organization. This particular organization that I speak of happened to be a Quaker church. As a result of the CoS's 'handling' of me, at first I believed I had lost many things in my life that were quite important to me, but only later did I realize that this episode of my life had been in fact a blessing in disguise. Ultimately it enabled me to be much more free of many things that I now know were spiritual 'dead-weight'.

During this difficult experience, I met and befriended two Scientologists. I know now that these two may not have been asking all of the questions of me that they did for the reasons I had at first assumed, but I also know that they were both doing what they thought was 'ethical' and 'right'. I very much enjoyed the company of these two, but they have both now apparently been ordered to 'disconnect' from me, which is rather sad for me. I miss them to this day. If I call or write either of them, then I am now either hanged up upon, or never replied to. I know that now that I have told you I am on the 'CoS-SP' list, by official CoS policy you are not supposed to have any further contact with me either, but I sense that you may not be an 'official policy' type of Scientologist. I hope not.


Enough about personal stuff. I will look forward to further discussion of this on the Scientology discussion page.

Scott P. 15:42:06, 2005-08-18 (UTC)


PS: I just updated a section of the Bible and reincarnation page, regarding the question of the texts regarding John the Baptist. This topic has always been of interest to me, and I have written about it elsewhere in Wiki.

I was a Scientologist in the past, but I have ceased to be one in 1989. Actually, I was not better than others - I also did practice disconnection at that time (and meanwhile I'm getting again well along with the people concerned). You see, Scientologists learn the reasons for an SP declare only from the organization which presents it in a biased way, if at all, and in any case they don't see any reason to disbelieve the organization. Moreover, if a Scientologist does get into contact with an SP, he has to undergo some more or less heavy ethics interrogations, and woe to him if he has been slightly influenced by the ideas of the SP or feels just a little bit unsure regarding them... Scientologists avoid SPs as strictly as normal people patients with an unknown but heavy contagious disease - they are actually afraid to get "infected" by the SP which would endanger their spiritual way. Sounds crazy - but that's how it is.
--Irmgard 17:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Irmgard,
I apologize for not closely reading your first reply, and for not realizing quickly that you are no longer a Scientologist at all. All of the edits you made seemed to me to be consistent with what I would have expected a Scientologist to do. I must also confess, as a result of having been targeted by the CoS, I also took it upon myself to become a sort of a self-proclaimed expert at Scientology, so (no offence) but so far nothing you have mentioned about the various views and teachings of Scientology at the various membership levels was new to me.
I view the CoS as a sort of a ship, where the sailors are not told where they are going, but only to stand watch and do their duty. The upper level officers are the only one's who really know where the ship is supposed to be headed. Carrying out this analogy further, if we were to try to write a good encyclopedia article about such a ship, wouldn't we want to put the real destination of that ship clearly on the front page of that article?
Scientology seems to me to have a hidden but very real antagonism towards Christianity. I experienced that when they attempted to infiltrate our church. Even the two that befriended me were ambivalent about this. On the one hand they told me that they believed that Jesus was a force of good, and I think that in their minds they somehow justified this. Yet on the other hand they followed instructions to act in ways that they could only have known were antagonistic towards both the members of our church (especially myself), and also towards the message of Christianity as a whole. So by and large, I theorize that even though most CoS'ers are probably not consciously aware that they are members of an organization that is at its core antagonistic towards Christianity, on some deeper subconscious level they sense this.
I have heard Hubbard's teaching that Jesus' level of consciousness was 'just a shade above clear'. I suspect that 'sponsoring auditors' or whatever the personal auditor of someone is called, gradually drop hints to their 'auditees' to the effect that: "Jesus is 'nothing' compared to what is in store for you". These types of hints eventually create a certain subconscious antagonism towards Christianity that prepares them, should they ever make it to the higher level teachings, for these types of teachings.
This is why I feel that these 'upper level' teachings deserve main article placement. They seem to me to be the 'real' intended destination of the ship of Scientology. They are not the 'shore stories' that are told to the lower level mass of CoS'ers, which an encylopedia reader really doesn't want to get distracted by. They seem to me to in fact be a part of the true aspirations of Scienotology, which is what Scientology is 'really' about.
Take care,
-Scott P. 21:28:30, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed compromise re: CoS article

Dear Irmgard,

I have given your comments and replies some further thought, and here is a proposed compromise that might be acceptable to us both. It seems to me that the article as it now stands may not make it clear enough that the vast majority of practicing Scientologists do not view Christianity as 'entheta/ evil'. Perhaps if the final paragraph of the Scientology and other religions section were to read:

"It has been estimated that perhaps (95%, 97%, 99%, would very much appreciate your input here??) of all Scientologists have not yet reached a sufficiently high level of advancement in the course of their Scientology studies to have access to, or knowledge of, the Church's esoteric teachings about the supposedly 'evil/ entheta' nature of Christianity. Still, all Scientologists are taught from an early stage in their Scientology studies that the spiritual teachings of Scientology are far advanced above and beyond the spiritual teachings of any, and all, traditional religions."

Would this be accurate and acceptable?

-Scott P. 14:10:11, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Sorry for late answering, Scott, I was busy with some other articles and did overlook your contribution. Here's my version (you also can turn it around, but that's not the way people experience it. I can't give percentages, these statistics are not public. Maybe you could get some from Kristi Wachter <humanrig...@racerrecords.com> who has been collecting data on Scientology for many years. The "sales argument" in Scientology is not the teachings/doctrine, but the spiritual advancement you can - allegedly - reach with it (though I never met one who actually did). --Irmgard 15:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"Scientology claims publicly to be compatible with all other religions. Beginning Scientologists are, though, taught from an early stage in their Scientology studies that the spiritual levels that can be reached through Scientology are far advanced above and beyond the spiritual level which can be reached by any, and all, traditional religions. It has been estimated that the majority of all Scientologists have not yet reached the advanced Scientology levels which contain Hubbard's esoteric teachings about the supposedly 'evil/ entheta' nature of Christianity."

Thanks a million Irmgard, I have now incorporated your suggestion here, entirely accepted in principle, though somewhat reworded, into the 'other religions' section. -Scott P. 16:28:27, 2005-08-21 (UTC)

[edit] Admin noticeboard

I posted a note here that you might want to see.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CARM editors (was "#One user, many IPs). Cheers, -Willmcw 10:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a request for assistance

I created a Christian apologetics area. I thought it would be helpful. It has precedence as there is a Mormon apologetics subject area. It needs to be Wikied up and made to look nicer. Also, please add content.

ken 20:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

[edit] RfA

Irmgard, my recent nomination for Adminship has raised a huge amount of animosity from a small group of editors with opposing POVs. Given that you and I have indeed opposing POVs and despite those differences have managed to find a way to work together, resulting in better articles overall (better researched, more NPOV, etc.), I would appreciate your voice in the RfA process. Vote as you wish: support, oppose, or neutral, but please add a comment and some feedback that I can use to improve as an editor. It would be much appreciated. --ZappaZ 17:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Status of religious freedom in France

Just did a quick read-through, when I have more time, I'll take a more critical look at it. --Easter Monkey 15:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiChristian

I notice that you are a Christian. Come and take a look at www.wikichiristian.org and consider contributing. It is still small and has very few users. I'm praying that God helps the site to grow and become a forum for Christians to write and read about all aspects of Christianity. It is not meant to be a copy of wikipedia. It is not meant to be purely an encyclopedia. For any given topic, it will hopefully contain a short summary of the topic followed by links to many sub-articles - some containing simple facts; some sharing experiences; some explaining a particular viewpoint and so on.

Take for example the article on grace. It has various "Definition and explanation" articles explaining the meaning of grace. It has a few "Articles / opinions" about grace. It has links for "Quotes' about grace and links to "Songs about grace". The site is also meant to be a resource site containing information about Christian texts, literature, art, music, radio, television and internet.

Take a look at the example article on the song Shout to the Lord. It has links to information about the song, lyrics and chords to the song and links for comments or opinions to be expressed about the song.

The site also intends to explain the history of important events in Christianity. Take a look at The Reformation section. This has links for "Overview" articles, "Opinion" articles, "Quotes" and "Travel" stories.

The site intends to be a reference about major (and minor) figures in the Bible, the early church and today. Take a look at John Stott. It contains "Overview" and "Opinion" articles. It contains texts of "Talks" given by John Stott and links to "Books" by John Stott.

In summary, I suppose, that my hope is that WikiChristian becomes a major reference point for Christians and non-Christians to go to find about any issue related to Christianity. I don't believe that this should be carbon-copy of wikipedia. It should resemble it in some ways, but in other ways, it should be quite different in structure and evolution. I realize that there are different views about different topics - and accordingly, there should always be the opportunity for a person to write his personal view under the "Opinion and articles" section of any given page.

I would love you to take a look at wikichristian and contribute. If you don't wish to contribute, would you consider visiting it's world wide directory of churches we are setting up and entering your church into the database. The point of the database is to state the location of a church with the service times and add a brief description of the church. You can take a look for example at: Church Directory -> Australia -> South Australia -> Adelaide -> St Matthew's Anglican Church

If you don't wish to contribute to WikiChristian, you could consider one of the other wikis related to Christianity that have been set up by other people. These include: Theopedia, Compass or OrthoxWiki.

Thanks

Graham Grove

[edit] Regarding systemic bias...

I think that the box on systemic bias on your page is not funny and of very poor taste. --ZappaZ 17:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not meant as a joke but as food for thought. I think some parts of it are rather serious ... --Irmgard 17:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, IMO it is of very poor taste and certainly reflects a POV that I abhorr. --ZappaZ 01:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Good for you, have a cookie. Seriously, what's wrong with you? Do you just spend all day looking for things to be offended by? It's not like Irmgard is forcing you to read the page. -Kasreyn
P.S. I found it hilarious, of course.  :)

[edit] Cult-related articles

Dear Irmgard, we are clearly at opposing POV ends in regard to this subject. I would appreciate a more constructive editing relationship so that we can have some fun editing articles. To be honest with you, I observer a deliberate attempt by you to skew related articles to fit your POV, and I in turn do the same. That may be the only way, but maybe there is a better way. Let me know what you think. Thanks. --ZappaZ 17:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear ZappaZ, your observation is not correct. I emphatically do not want articles to show only my POVs (Which one? European? Swiss? United Methodist? INTP? ADHD? Slightly leftist in social politics? Evangelical Christian? ), I do want to collaborate with other writers (in fact I do, with most of them), and I object to POV pushing - actually I started to get intensively active in the English Wikipedia during the last months because of some people who where doing exactly that.

I am very interested that Wikipedia articles (no matter what the subject) are good encyclopedia articles

  • stating all relevant facts to the subject of the article but linking to respective articles on diverging subjects
  • stating all relevant POVs in an impartial style adequate to the content (facts or non-derogatory views on a subject can be stated, accusations can only be alleged)
  • stressing factual information and not opinion about facts
  • mainly describing facts not quoting them
  • giving quotes in the original context (from the horses mouth) and without interpretation
  • containing only quotes which substantially add to the article
  • using no disparaging words or tone about people or groups of people - includes omitting quotes which do Wikipedia:Point of view
  • being overall neutral Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial Wikipedia:Words to avoid Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#How can one disagree about NPOV?
  • being careful regarding sources, especially Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating secondary sources
  • using a good English style
  • having a balanced and reader-friendly structure

Overall: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles

A lot of what I see as constructive collaboration is covered in Wikipedia:Editing policy#On editing styles and in contributing knowledge, in trying to formulate controversial points better (own or those of others).

Points which come as obstacles on the way of constructive collaboration and consensus-finding:

  • Personal ownership of articles or text (I wrote it so no one is allowed to change it)
  • Reverting instead of discussion ("my text is much more important than your text")
  • Reverting while a discussion is not yet finished ("my text is much more important than your text and whatever you say will not change that")
  • Deleting as "own research" or "editorializing" instead of asking for a reference - violation of "assume good faith". (A different case, if you got no reference provided after asking for one)

--Irmgard 21:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but I must stress that your "conversations" with David Monniaux about my edits and your overall attitude in editing these articles show a determined bias against new religions, and does paint a very different picture on my mind that the above comments. Nevertheless, I will continue editing these articles with the hope they become better due to our collective involvement. Thanks.--ZappaZ 01:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have had more than once the strong impression that your view about NPOV is very different from mine. I repeat, I have no bias against NMRs - I am member of a minority religion (in Switzerland) which also is called a "sect" at times, here. On the other hand, I do think your way of presenting NMRs is too onesided to meet the requirements of NPOV (maybe you personally have the best intentions but you evidently do rely on onesided sources) and I am determined to correct that in the interest of Wikipedia. I would do the same in case of an article with Christian or Evangelical bias (and have done so more than once in the German Wikipedia).
Points where I have seen you violate NPOV:
from Wikipedia:NPOV: "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."
from Wikipedia:NPOV: "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section."
from Wikipedia:NPOV Tutorial: "One common problem with politics is the natural tendency of considering the major political opinions of one's country as "normal", while considering those held in other countries as "abnormal", silly, or misguided. Thus, for instance, an article written from an American point of view may judge that the European fondness for welfare state solutions is misguided, or express this point of view in oblique ways; the same could be true of an article written from a European point of view on justice and firearms in the United States. Writers should thus combat this natural tendency of considering the point of view of one's groups as the "majority" and "natural" point of view, and giving to it more space and more focus."
from Wikipedia:POV: "A good rule of thumb in avoiding POV is to never refer to someone in a way you would not want to see used to refer to yourself or a loved one."
As to David Monniaux - I asked for his help because he is an experienced administrator, knows a lot more about French politics than you or I, and can provide the French POV which was sorely missing in the religion articles about France which were edited by you (and which is sure the major POV to be considered in such articles). I have no idea about his attitude to NMRs. I am aware that you regard his additions as "apology" where they contradict the official US version, but official US texts regarding French religion politics, on which you seem to rely, have often been uninformed or onesidedly informed - so Monniaux is really needed here.
--Irmgard 07:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your thorough analysis, Irmgard

Thanks for the thorough analysis of Opposition to Opus Dei, Irmgard. You are correct in stating that many points in the Opus Dei response do not have attributions. You might say that the main source is Cardinal Schonborn's article. It is a very good and it is a pity it has not been used fully. I will have to read it more thoroughly to see what are the best quotes or ideas to use. Feel free to do it yourself first, if you wish. We can collaborate. Hasta luego. Marax 10:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Due to your involvement there is an entire class of articles which I no longer worry about. I appreciate your diligence and professionalism. Thanks for being that way. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the roses :-) This kind of feedback is very welcome, in view of the other I get at times in a controversial area ;-) --Irmgard 07:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This only shows that a determined editor, with the implicit help of similarly biased editos, can skew Wikipedia's neutral point of view to push an anti-cult and anti-religious bias into related articles. A. W. Durham

If my edits look as anti-religious bias to some (probably very very religious) people, it's pretty evident that I do not push my bias - I've been a religiously engaged person all my life and am right now serving in the parish council of a (minority) church. --Irmgard 22:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency department

I wonder if you would consider supporting Emergency department atWikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. This department is where we all go if we are very ill, and I feel it needs a boost if it is ever to get featured article status. I would greatly appreciate if you were able to offer support on this--File Éireann 19:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] WP:AID#Religious_Pluralism, Tags for Featured articles

Grüezi Irmgard,

thank you for supporting Religious Pluralism in WP:AID; I already feared we'd get no more votes and that would be it for AID. I'm especially glad there is someone with a bit of experience supporting us, since I personally am a bit of a newbie, and so are most others who have voluteered to contribute to Religious Pluralism so far. I don't know if you have any time to contribute to this page, but your help would be most welcome, especially

  • your expert knowledge (on the Catholic church and on councils, I gather from your contributions)
  • some help in organizing the whole project: I'm thinking about starting a wikiproject to coordinate the work that has to be done, but I've never done that; I suppose I'll just give it a start and then ask you for help.
  • some hints on how to make the project better known with Wikipedians (if there are any places it could still be linked to, I suppose AID is already a good start)

Two more questions I'd like to ask you:

  • I've noticed that most articles on social issues I've taken a look at are rather poor, so I've taken a look at the the society portal, which is, so far, hardly existent, someone just put it there although she isn't interested in the subject. Do you know where and how to make people more interested in that subject?
  • I proposed on the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Tag for featured articles to tag featured articles so readers of the article can recognize it is a featured one, as it is done in the German Wikipedia. (I ask you because you're on both wikipedias)
  • Do you think this is a sensible idea? Could you support it?
  • What is your experience with the two-tier quality tagging system in German (i.e. Lesenswerte and Exzellente Artikel)? There seems to be a small list of "good articles" in English as well; I once saw it but have not found it again, and it's hardly possible to find it anyway. This would of course have to go with tags for both categories.

--Robin.rueth 21:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 22:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haven't been ignoring you...

I haven't ignored your alert on my talk page (which I do appreciate) but at this point I've gotten enough out of touch with those articles to be able to tell what the correct action would be. Sorry. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"
Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)