User talk:LotR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Contents 1 Padre Pio 2 Paganism and GK Chesterton 3 A Doubt about the Paulo Coelho Article. 4 Slavery 5 Maximilian Kolbe 6 Catholicism and Freemasonry 7 Wikiproject invitation 8 history of science 9 An edit in the Padre Pio article 10 Dominic Savio 11 Christianity 12 :) 13 CPC 13.1 CPC 14 Image copyright problem with Image:Interior of Martyrs Shrine Coliseum.jpg

[edit] Padre Pio

Dear LotR, Thanks for noticing what I did and encouraging me. I had just read about St. Pio and felt that his article was too small to do justice to him. So, I am trying to expand the article. If you have the time, please take a look at the article and correct any errors that I might have committed while working on the article. I am still new to Wikipedia and so it is quite possible that what I contribute might go against some of the rules here. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could correct any mistakes I make. By the way, I wanted to tell you that I, too, am an admirer of Tolkein. I have read the LOTR ( I haven't watched the movie since, as a rule, I don't watch movies based on books) and am starting with Silmarillion.

Yours, Savio mit electronics 05:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Savio, you're right -- the article (Pio of Pietrelcina) was too brief, especially given there is so much written on him and that he is the best example of a contemporary mystical saint that I know of (unlike St. Francis, et al., he lived in the 20th Century). I'll try looking over the article more carefully in my spare time, but at first glance everything looks good. I like the St. Pius V image, and didn't even know that this was the source of St. Pio's name. Glad to hear you like Tolkien -- Hobbit/LOTR is definitely my favorite story of all time -- never will be surpassed in my opinion. The movies weren't too bad, although I was skeptical at first. LotR 16:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lotr,

I have (roughly, at least) completed expanding the biography section.( I wish I had read the article Citing Sources before starting my edits. Apparently, there is a template to be followed while citing websites, which I have not followed (ie. Retrived on {{date}}, etc) . I shall try to remedy that when I have some free time in the future. Also I had placed the citations before the commas and full-stops. Now I find the article says that the reverse is correct. I have started correcting these, I shall continue when I have free time.) However, I fear it has become a tad too long. If that is the case, I am not sure what to leave out. Perhaps I should leave it to other editors to decide which information is unnecessary. Also, when I read through what I had written it seemed to me that my writing style was a bit dry and rigid, but that could be just my imagination. Another aspect I am unsure of is whether I have managed to maintain the Neutral Point of View throughout the edits I did. If you have the time, I humbly request you to go through the article and kindly give me your opinions on these. Thank you in advance.

Yours,

Savio mit electronics 12:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Savio, don't worry too much about having all the formatting perfect -- you (or others) can tidy it up at leisure. Most of the articles on Wikipedia are not perfect in this regard. I and others are constantly making the little formatting improvements. The most important thing is the time taken to organize and write a thorough article. I won't have time to read it carefully top-to-bottom in the near future, but from my quick scan of it it looks good to me. As far as length goes, there are many articles that "exceed the recommended length" on Wikipedia -- the key word is "recommended." As far as NPOV, it seems pretty neutral to me. I did not notice any statements like "Padre Pio was the greatest Saint of the 20th Century," "Padre Pio was a fraud," "Padre Pio's miracles have been scientifically proven/disproven," etc., you get the picture. Most of what's written about him presents him a positive light (much of it direct first-hand knowledge from those in contact with him), but so would any article about an almost universally admired person. Just because there are unexplained supernatural phenomena (miracles) attributed to him does not make it any less NPOV. LotR 16:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear LotR,

Thanks for your reply and your encouragement. By the way, the post below this interested me very much. Out of curiosity, I visited the GK Chesterton article, and, while I was there, I learnt of Chesterton's book The Everlasting Man. Since I had just a month ago read for the first time, Mere Christianity by Lewis, (got it from a second-hand shop) and since the article said that Lewis was influenced greatly by The Everlasting Man, I was naturally very interested, and on searching the web, I found the book in PDF form and have started reading it. So, a lot of good can come out of disagreements, too. :)

Yours,

Savio mit electronics 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paganism and GK Chesterton

I notice that you have removed the comment about GK Chestertons "massive girth" from the article on Pagansim on the grounds of irrelevant and/or POV insertions. May I ask you to reconsider as in the context of GK Chestertons subsequent quotation it is indeed relevant. If Chestertons waist line had no relationship to what he himself consumed, e.g it was required to accomodate a massive and generous heart, then furnish the evidence or let people, if they wish, place GK's words in a humorous context that I hope he himself would smile at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.129.9.

First off, I was unaware that the man was portly. However, this is precisely the point: Such a trivial fact is irrelevant to the article. I fail to see how someone's waist line, or any other physical attribute, has any bearing on the content of his or her statements. Also, I was not aware that Wikipedia had become a repository for editorial satire. Such a "snide aside" has no place in an encyclopedia. LotR 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You indirectly associate G.K Chestertons quotation with the word epicureanism - the inordinate love of food etc. Since this article is not meant to be platform for Christian apologetics it follows that the quotation should be relevant and accurate to the subject at hand - an unbiassed introduction to paganism. The quotation is heavily biassed and inncaccurate but I don't suggest its through any malice or hypocrisy by such a great man - he had a sense of humour to match the size of his girth and his heart. By simply pointing out that his most famous attribute it balances and throws into context G.K's remark that might otherwise be taken seriously by those who know little , as you claim, about Chesterton and his sense of humour or paganism. My thoughts now turn perhaps to taking out the section and rewriting in an neutral non christian apolgetics/confrontational style.

"Just the other day in the Underground I enjoyed the pleasure of offering my seat to three ladies." - G. K. Chesterton

Your thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.129.9.

I did not associate Chesterton with anything. The quote already existed; I didn't put it there and I don't know who did. Perhaps it doesn't belong in the article -- that's open to debate. Just remember that NPOV on Wikipedia tries to include different viewpoints, which is what I think the original intent of the quote was. In this regard, I do not see how the article approaches anything close to "a platform for Christian apologetics" -- on the contrary, it seems to take many POV jabs at Christianity. All this aside, however, if the quote does remain there, then the sarcastic editorial comment must go. Sarcasm has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia (other than articles on "Sarcasm").

P.S. -- Please sign your posts by typing four tildes as per Wikipedia policy. LotR 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I gather you have not followed the progresss of the article. A some point several quotations were added all written by either C.S Lewis or G.K Chesterton - the two most famous Christian apologists from the 20th century. The quotes could be easily shown to be innaccurate by extensive examples in their broad brushstroke treatment of paganism. There is a note in the discussion page that deals with this pending issue. The article was left with a heavy and innacurate Christian bias. Pending any significant objection being made to the removal of all such biased apologetic material I have attempted to put in balancing quotations but I think the correct way is to remove it all, including my quotations. I came to the article looking for a good introduction to Paganism, not Christian apologetics, but instead found large amounts of what I can only describe as Christian graffiti. I think Christians would have every right to object to non-Christians plastering key articles with innaccurate material that demonstrably misrepresented their faith. Perhaps somebody might wish to develop several articles exploring the relationship between Christianity and the other Abrahmic religions wrt to paganism down through the ages but I think its out of place in an introductory article. Regarding my supposed "sarcasm": I am sorry you think that. Chesterton was being used as broad brush stroke authority to support the charge of "epicurean" against all religious experiences that come under the pagan umbrella. Rather that vandalise the text, pending a resolution to the whole quotation issue, I inserted an accurate and relevant observation that allowed an alert reader to weigh up the spirit of GK's comments without suggesting he was a hypoctite. Perhaps I shall insert a note containg one of his own self deprecating remarks regarding his rotund shape and then the impartial reader might capture the spirit of the man - humble, humerous and not to be taken literally at all times especially about pagans and Jews.

Could I also point out that the distinction you made between the Catholic and Orthodox church's is likely to cause offence to Orthodox christians. They too consider themselves as being part of the Catholic Church, as do other groups. The orthodox church thinks the Roman Catholic church has entered into error and vice versa: "while Orthodoxy considers itself to be the true Catholic Church, it is not part of the Roman Catholic Church.." 'The Orthodox Church' by Simon Ware, Pelican Edition, Introduction.

G. K. Chesterton to George Bernard Shaw: "Looking at you, people would think there was a famine in England." George Bernard Shaw to G. K. Chesterton: "And looking at you, they'd think you were the cause of it."

80.195.129.9 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that I am not familiar with the history or progress of the article. However, I am only concerned with the present versions, which, as I just stated, is far from Christian apologetics. The bias appeared anti-Christian, if anything. However, I most certainly agree with you that the article should provide "a good introduction to paganism," and not a be a soapbox for individuals with political/ideological axes to grind (Christian, anti-Christian, or otherwise). In this regard, I am in total agreement.

My interpretation of sarcasm comes from the fact that I don't think he intended his quote to be humorous. And the context in which the quote was placed itself was certainly not humorous. I don't doubt that the man had a sense of humor, or that he may have been self-deprecating, or that he may have liked food and drink. But none of that is relevant in an introductory article on paganism. His quote, which may be considered a Christian POV on paganism, may or may not be relevant -- that's debatable.

Regarding "Orthodox" versus "Catholic," these are commonly used shorthand terms for these churches. The Catholic Church likewise considers itself "the orthodox church," just as much as the Orthodox may consider themselves catholic. We can change the text to read "Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches" if you want (or something along those lines) -- I have absolutely no problems with that, but the Eastern Orthodox should be included since they venerate the Saints every bit as much as Catholicism. And, for what it's worth, there are no major differences in Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, aside from the filioque clause -- neither church considers the other in heresy. The Eastern Orthodox just don't recognize the Bishop of Rome to be Supreme Pontiff (but they do recognize him to be a legitimate bishop).

Also, perhaps discussion about the article is more appropriate on the article's talk page? LotR 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Doubt about the Paulo Coelho Article.

Dear LotR,

Sorry to bother you, but you are one of the few people I know here on Wikipedia. Hope all is fine with you. I was adding a book cover image for the The Manual of the Warrior of Light article and in that process, I visited the Paulo Coelho article. If you would go to the Bibliography section of the article, you can see that the final entry is as follows :

2006

Ser como um rio que fluye

To Be Like a River Flowing

Free download (.pps)

I was intruged, since I had not heard of any book he wrote after The Zahir, and so, I downloaded it from said website. On the completion of the download, I found that the file was a *.pps presentation of fifteen slides. Do you think it is all right for this to be included in the table of his novels? I was not sure of what to do, and so I did not modify the table in any way. I was sure that with your experience, you'd know what to do about this and so I decided to post you a note about this. Please take a look at the article. Thank You.

Yours, Savio mit electronics 13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Savio, I see your point -- I am assuming that the PPS file is not a novel. If it is not a novel, then it does not belong in that table. What do the slides present? If they are relevant to the article, then you could move it out of the table to another part of the article, perhaps "External Links," or something. But, by all means, you should correct the oversight and remove the PPS file from the table. Just be sure to give an edit summary explaining your edit. LotR 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you know! There is a book by that title written by Paulo Coelho. I saw it in a local bookstore today. However, it is not like his other books. It is a collection of his reflections. Perhaps that explains why it is not very popular. At the same time, that PPS file was certainly NOT the book. Anyway, my mistake has been remedied, since someone has added the book title to the table again, and this time, there is no link to the PPS file. So all's well that ends well.

Yours,

Savio mit electronics 02:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavery

both the Old and New Testament recognises and accepts the institution of slavery. The Jews are frequently reminded, in both the Bible and the Talmud, that they too were slaves in Egypt and should therefore treat their conquered people decently. Numerous Biblical references allude to equality : "Did not He that made me in the womb make him [the slave]? And did not One fashion us both?" (Job 31:15).

But slavery was a clear reality of the Biblical Judo-Christian societies. (25:44) As for your male and female slaves who may belong to you, you may buy male and female slaves from the nations all around you. (25:45) Also you may buy slaves from the children of the foreigners who reside with you, and from their families that are with you, whom they have fathered in your land, they may become your property. (25:46) You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. However, as for your brothers the Israelites, no man may rule over his brother harshly. It is also clear that slavery is accepted in the New Testament as a fact of life. Some passages in the Pauline Epistles even endorse it. Thus in the Epistle to Philemon, a runaway slave is returned to his master; in Ephesians 6, the duty owed by a slave to his master is compared with the duty owed by a child to his parent: "To be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, in fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." Parents and masters are likewise enjoined to show consideration for their children and slaves. Thus it can be concluded, In Christianity, all humans, of the faith, are equal in the eyes of God and in the afterlife however this equality didn’t extend to, and hence was not recognised before the secular laws of man. Those not of the faith, were in another, and in most respect an inferior group. In this respect, Greek perception of the barbarian and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic perception of the unbeliever coincide. --Halaqah 01:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My small comment on the article's talk page bears repeating here: Slavery was not a Judeo-Christian invention. It existed long before Jesus. The scriptures provided practical advice and/or counsel surrounding the reality of slavery within the context of existing social structures/hierarchies. They most certainly do not establish, in any way, shape or form, a new Christian "doctrine" of slavery. We do not find anything anywhere in the Bible resembling a Commandment from God establishing slavery as a God-ordained institution. Furthermore, these scriptures have metaphorical meanings (i.e., submit to those in authority, respect those under your authority), which you seem to acknowledge, in addition to the obvious literal ones. Thus, the topic of slavery is not exclusive to Christianity by any stretch, and thus it does not belong in an introductory article about the Christian religion. Otherwise, we would need to include such a section "Slavery in _________" in hundreds, if not thousands, of other articles as well. Finally, further discussion on this matter belongs on the article's talk page, since there are other long-term editors of that article who object to this as well. LotR 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maximilian Kolbe

Dear LotR,

I hope you remember me. Hope all is well with you. I edited the St. Maximilian Kolbe page yesterday, updating the infobox using the template. I noticed that there are no pictures of St. Kolbe on that page. Now, St. Kolbe is Polish, and he died in 1941. More than sixty years have elapsed since his death. Any photograph of him would be sixty-five years old by now, at the very least. I found a gallery of photographs at the Catholic Forum. At first I thought I'd upload one of those photographs here under the PD-Poland template. Then I realised that in the course of his work, St. Kolbe had travelled to Japan and India too. Thus it is possible that some photograph in that gallery was taken when he was away from Poland. After reading the PD-Japan and PD-India templates, it seems to me that this image can be safely uploaded under them, too. Please give me your opinion. Do you think it is necessary to include all the three templates if I upload the image?

Thank you.

Yours, Savio mit electronics 22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Savio,

Unfortuntately, I've never uploaded an image, so I'm not certain on what the policy would be on this. However, as you mentioned, St. Maximilian Kolbe died 60 years ago, so the photos are all older than that. Even if the pictures were take while he was abroad (which I doubt), the man was still Polish, so I don't see why you would need the other templates. Also, you could use one of the "prayer card" images, which aren't photographs and are probably public domain (I personally like these, especially the one on the far right). On a side note, I commend you on your editorial choices. Maximilian Kolbe is one of the heroic Saints of the 20th Century, right up there with Padre Pio.

LotR 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear LotR,

Thank you for your reply and your compliments. I agree with you when you say that the prayer card is a good choice, since it is indicative of his devotion to the Blessed Virgin as the Immaculate Conception. I also wish to ask your opinion on the Sample prayer in the Infobox. Since the infobox template had not been used ere I edited it, the source of the prayer had not been provided. I searched the internet and found that it was part of a Chaplet to St. Kolbe, and have included that in the infobox. Today, I was thinking about this, and it occured to me that, since St. Kolbe is the founder of the MI, and since Consecration to the Immaculata was arguably the focal point of his spirituality, the prayer (composed by him) known as the Solemn Act of Consecration to the Immaculate would be a better Sample prayer since it reflects a characteristic of St. Kolbe. On second thoughts, perhaps both prayers could be put into the box- a prayer to the Saint and a prayer by the Saint. What do you think? (Also, please take a look at the picture on the page linked to above. Really interesting, symbolically- The Immaculata, robed in white and crushing the head of the Serpent, and in front of her, St. Francis, founder of the order to which St. Kolbe belonged, (identified by his stigmata), and St. Kolbe, (identified by his Auschwitz concentration camp uniform). Too bad the picture is low resolution. Can't see the titles of the writings St. Kolbe has in his right hand. They, in all probability have some significance, too. The patch on his chest is also not clearly visible. It is probably his prisoner number.) Also, I would like to draw your attention to this story about St. Kolbe's beard(fifth post from the top). Too bad it is on a forum and thus can't be cited as a verifiable source. I am searching for a verifiable source for this story. I have asked the question about the prayer on the discussion page of the article too. But, surprisingly, that page is not visited much.

Thank you for your time.

Yours,

Savio mit electronics 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholicism and Freemasonry

Although I had earlier reverted your edits, I've actually reinstated most of it - in pieces. I would not have described all of this as a simple clean up, especially not on such a contested page. JASpencer 20:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was in the midst for fomulating a point-by-point rebuttal to the revert, but thankfully I updated my watchlist before getting too far into it. Obviously I'm a newcomer to the page (but not Wikipedia), so I was not aware that the page was contested -- in fact, I just assumed that it was a page that wasn't maintained. I probably should've made made more incremental edits. Anyhow, glad to see that many of the edits are being accepted. I still don't like the terminology "the Catholic Church bans so-and-so" -- I just don't think it's an accurate statement, or at least it doesn't sound accurate. The Church is not like a state government where it can "ban automatic weapons, etc." enforced by law. It only claims to say what is or what is not acceptable to God -- the person then has freewill to obey or disobey. I will be away from the computer the rest of the week but will take another look when I return. LotR 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The church may not be able to bring the police round, but it does threaten excommunication which most people accept as a ban. JASpencer 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject invitation

Hello, LotR!

Thank you for your contributions to a Tolkien-related article. If you are interested, feel free to join WikiProject Middle-earth, a WikiProject focused on improving Tolkien-related articles in Wikipedia. We would be glad to have you join in the effort!

Here're some good links and subpages related to the WikiProject.

v • d • e WikiProject Middle-earth subpages Project: Front page · Main discussion · Standards · Things to do · Assessment · Templates · Images · Topics (Recent changes) Other: Middle-earth Portal · Watchlist (Recent changes)

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask on our talk page.

Thank you for your contributions and have fun editing! Uthanc 12:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, just help around, cleaning up, standardizing stuff... We don't have any edit quotas or anything. You just have to sign on the main and talk pages (the roll call) to join, and for every follwing roll call (we've had it every month or two or so.) to keep renewing your membership. Thanks! Uthanc 13:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history of science

Hi! You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science.--ragesoss 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An edit in the Padre Pio article

Dear Lotr,

How do you do? Hope all is fine with you.

As you recollect, I contributed a bit to the article on Padre Pio, and it has been on my watchlist. A few days back, a user from the IP address 80.40.65.59 made this edit. Reading the sources, it seemed to me that the person had added his/her own slant to the information. I tried to make it more neutral by changing the tone so that it supplied only the dry facts, as you can see here. Today, an user from the IP address 82.40.64.23 has made this edit. (He has made it seem like the natural logical conclusion would be to judge Padre Pio as having been guilty of plagarism, and he has also provided in the footnotes, a dictionary definition of plagarism, which I think is unnecessary.)I wonder if it is the same person. Being a practising Catholic, I fear I am not able to judge this objectively. Thus I turn to you as a third party.(Even if you are a Catholic, you will be able to judge more objectively than I, since I contributed to the article to a sizeable extent) Do you think that these edits from this person are trying to put forward an opinion (i.e., Padre Pio indulged in willful pragarism) or are these edits acceptable? Yours,

Savio mit electronics 13:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lotr,

Thanks for looking into the matter. I have attempted to make the article neutral by splitting up the controversies section. However, I think that the article is being edited by some people with an agenda against Padre Pio. For example, look at what someone has added (Which I have now placed in a separate subsection ). There is a citation which is a link to an medical-report aritcle in which it is stated that a woman with psychological delusions stated that she saw Padre Pio and that he possesed her. Is this in any way notable to this article? The next citation, regarding use of relics is from a book written by a Wiccan, and this fact is never mentioned (and if Wiccans misuse his relics, how is that considered notable on this article?), and comparison to Crowley, just because they both were reported to have the ability to bilocate, is totally unnecessary. St. Francis was able to bilocate too, if I remember rightly, he appeared to St. Anthony of Padua at the same time he was also seen elsewhere, and it is considered that Jesus after his resurrection, in his "Glorified Body" had this ability. So is Crowley to be mentioned in connection to all instances of reports of bilocation? And is commercialism of the pilgrimage spot in any way unique to Padre Pio's hometown? Isn't that a common and unpreventable occurance? I'm very confused, and I'm not sure I'm seeing this objectively. That's why I haven't removed the comments, and I'm turning to you as a third party. Am I making sense, or am I just being paranoid?

Yours,

Savio mit electronics 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominic Savio

Dear Lotr, Thanks for looking into the Padre Pio matter. I was away from the computer for some time and so I couldn't reply. As you probably know, I re-wrote most of the Dominic Savio article, since it had been tagged with "Expert" and "POV" tags. I was under the impression that, though named after him, I had managed to stay neutral on the article. Now Attilios has tagged the article with a POV tag, with the comments, "Absolutely ridiculous and POVish everywhere","thi article is by, and is devoted to, jerks". Is my writing that bad? I'm confused. Please take a look at the article and give me your opinion.

Yours,

Savio mit electronics 11:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Thanks for your work there. I've warned the user and I'm keeping an eye on him. Hello, fellow immortal :D —Xyrael / 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked as he just kept going. Shame, really :( —Xyrael / 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :)

[edit] CPC

[edit] CPC

I noticed your interest in the Pro-Life article. You may want to help with the Crisis Pregnancy Center article, which is in need of contributors with solid, reasonable heads on their shoulders. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 11:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Interior of Martyrs Shrine Coliseum.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Interior of Martyrs Shrine Coliseum.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)