User talk:Marax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!



Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 06:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the reliability of the testimonies by apostates in general and in Opus Dei and its subpage please take into account on that this is an extremely sensitive issue. I had minor involvment in Opus Dei, but I am an apostate in the sociological meaning of the word ("critical former member") of another religious group. I consider the negative generalizations that Wilson makes about a very diverse "group" of people untrue, outdated (they may have had some truth during the time of the anti-cult scare of the 1970s and 1980s), insulting and his excessive scepticism that he prometes ridiculous. It is simply hate speech. Andries 10:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Marax for your sympathy. How would you feel when you went through a traumatic experience and were labelled unreliable, not just by a defender of the faith, but by an academic on the basis of sweeping generalizations? Here is my story if you are interested. [1] Here is an article that voices some of the objections that I have against Wilson's generalizations. [2] Andries 10:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

(X-post from Talk:Opus_Dei). Not sure if you did this Marax, but the intro para seems to contain a contradiction. It indicates first that Opus Dei was "created by the Roman Catholic Church" and then that it was "founded" by St. Escriva. It seems to me that we ought to distinguish b/t something created institutionally by the Pope or the College of Cardinals, and something created by an individual who was just a priest at the time. To that end, I think it's misleading to say that Opus Dei was "created" by the church. --Kchase02 07:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations

Hi! The page Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations appears to be orphaned. It is not referred to and is untouched. Would you object to its deletion? --William Pietri 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it! -- William Pietri 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I see. I understand that the article at least partially deals with the accusations, but perhaps I need clarification on Wikipedia policy regarding uncited statements. Since the sentence I mentioned is both contentious and uncited/unsourced, is this still ligit? Thanks, and I don't mean to press the issue, just wanted to clarify this for my own understanding.

Another interesting issue to discuss is the characterization of Catholic Church affiliates of being liberal/progressive or conservative/orthodox. The fairness of the labels differs from religion to religion, but it seems that with Catholicism, since it's precepts are clearly laid out in writing, and many are declared unchangeable--as with the mission of the Church--I think that the orthodox/heterodox labels are more egalitarian. In a sense, there is no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" Catholic, only orthodox and less orthodox ones; that is, those who choose to embrace all the Church's teachings and those who choose only embrace some. So since the definition and limits of orthodoxy are so clearly laid out for Catholics, it would seem that the orthodox/unorthodox labels are preferable.

Pianoman123 14:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flannery O'Connor picture

As much as I prefer your picture, I don't think it can be used in the Roman Catholic Church article. As a copyrighted picture, it can only be "fair use" in an article which deals with her. The Monica picture is public domain due to age, and doesn't have this limitation. Is the O'Connor picture is public domain? (You can respond here.) Gimmetrow 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gimmetrow. Thank you for this background information on the O'Connor picture. My profound apologies for missing this point. You are correct. :-) it is better to bring back the image of St. Monica. Marax 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flannery O'Connor

Hey. I didn't upload the Flannery O'Connor picture; that honor goes to RudyLucius. I do agree with you about puting it in the Catholic Church article; she does represent Catholic laity quite well. Good luck finding permission! Caesar 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment to User:Heavyrock

Hello, I was in the process of moving the comment you left on Heavyrock's user page [3], but I noticed that you repeated the comment on their Talk page. I still removed your comment from their user page [4]. -- Gogo Dodo 08:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re your message: Not a problem. It happens from time to time. No worries. =) If Heavyrock gets back to you, you might consider telling them that they can probably find an admin to delete the blank user page that was the result of my removal. That is if they prefer a non-existant user page over a blank user page. -- Gogo Dodo 05:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Could you help?

There's a Request for Comment at Talk:Opus Dei.

After going through the process which led up to mediation (here), a mediation that resolved that the majority POV is the view of experts such as John Allen, Jr. and Benedict XVI, the main opponent of the article replaced the old article with his own personal version, and then asked for an Request for Comment.

Kindly give your comment. Please. :) Thanks and God bless. Arturo Cruz 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Grant

Hi, Marax. Yesterday I transformed a previous redirect to Ted Grant in an article about the historian Edward Grant. However, today I noticed that around two weeks ago you created Edward Grant (Historian and philosopher). Now we (or somebody else) need to merge both articles. I think Grant is notable enough for the article to be named simply as "Edward Grant" (he is the first subject that appears when someone google for his name). I suggest that we merge the content from the version you started earlier into the one I started yesterday, and then make "Edward Grant (Historian and philosopher)" a redirect page. What do you think? (I would happily do the merge all by myself, but notice that if I am the one merging your text into the new article it will appear as if I was the author). --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 13:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei GAR

I actually quite like the Opus Dei article, and if the material in the Replies to criticism section was distributed in the rest of the article it would probably have my support in its GAR. I completely agree with you that the research findings of Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Plunkett, et al are worthy of a serious encyclopedia, it's just that their presentation as an apparent refutation of the previously stated criticism that I think tips the POV-meter slightly into the red zone. With a little bit of reorganisation I think it would be a fine article, well up to GA. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei GAR

Dear Alec, Thank you for your work at Opus Dei. You might be interested to know that its GA status is under review and the major question raised is the present structure which you ably proposed and implemented: a separate controversy section containing both criticism and response. I tried my best to defend it but I believe you will be able to defend it better than I do. :) Marax (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this-- I'm sorry that my words actually probably do more to have it de-listed than kept, but, ya know-- I have to offer my honest opinion, even though the article really is partially "my baby" and even though I worked really hard on it, I don't, objectively, think it's a good article.
something you might consider doing, if this does get delisted, is to make a private fork like I did, write up what your "dream Opus Dei" article would look like, and then submit it to the GAR/FAC people, and see what they think of it.
As I've said elsewhere-- the controversy and rebuttal to controversy isn't good, but it's not horrible, and I think reintegrating them, the page will get swept towards horrible rather than good. But honestly, you might consider writing up an article that's "Opus Dei" by Marax. If you can get the Featured Article people to agree that your private version is FA quality, it'll have my support also :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting suggestion, and might be worth doing whether the article gets delisted or not. It may be easier to defend the "dream Opus Dei" article from instability than defend attempts to edit the existing content towards NPOV. Geometry guy 18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of NPOV

The article is fundamentally changed, and very much for the better. Very well done, Marax. It is better structured, better balanced and generally better written. The NPOV is no longer necessary. Thanks for your hard work on it. --Jaimehy (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats on GA Promotion of Opus Dei

Hi Marax,

I reviewed the GAN of Opus Dei and found it to be an overall excellent article. Thanks for all of the hard work you put into it, congratulations, and good luck in your future edits.

Here is something for you; please pass it on to any deserving editors that you know of or worked with on this project.

This user helped promote the article Opus Dei to good article status.

Best regards,

Malachirality (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Malachirality. :) I would have wanted to thank you in your talk page, but since you requested that conversations are held in one place, I am thanking you here. It was very kind of you to review the article and give it much praise. I will indeed pass on the badge, or whatever it is called, to many other deserving editors who worked on this. Thanks again! Marax (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A belated thanks too for your hard work. The box is deserved. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!


Hello, Marax, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing!Bewareofdog 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ratzinger

Are you preparing a reply to my comments against including Ratzinger in the Truth article?

Thanks for your comments, Jim Wae. :) I've just posted a reply at the talk page.

Are we going to see Ratzinger's opinions appear on every page he has ever said a word about?

According to his own thinking, the most important question is on truth: it is, for him, the key to the whole problem of modernity. So I have been trying to help Wikipedia readers get to know the main points of this notable contemporary thinker on a contemporary issues which he believes to be very important, and where he has written notable contributions.

His remarks about Agnosticism are in no way original - essentially the same thing appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 that you linked to. --JimWae (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 does not discuss terrorism and ecological disasters. Also it lacks a discussion of the relation between truth and tolerance, an important contemporary issue.Marax (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion. I have corrected my misstatement and did my best to convey how wiki policy applies to these additions on the talk page. BTW I'm not a "wiki lawyer" as I'm just trying to make some sense of whats appropriate for the article. Modocc (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious scholars

Thank you very very much Marax. I am very happy to read your contribution in Agnosticism. Very well done. Ratzinger is a spokesman for all religious people in India and other parts of the world. Thank you. Pradeshkava (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)