Talk:Positive Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion. This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Giovanni's revert to long standing version 2 For accuracy and NPOV 3 some documentation 4 Ann's last edit 5 Nativity Plays 6 German original 7 Merge 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Sturmer Nordic Jesus.JPG

[edit] Giovanni's revert to long standing version

Positive Christianity is an ideology that refers to a form of Christianity consistent with Nazism. This was the long standing version. This was changed to remove the fact that Positive Christianity is a form of Christianity by instead simply stating that Positive Christianity is merely an attempt to reconcile Christianity (as if there is one true form of Chirstianity!?), and Nazism. This is not only not accurate for what it implies but its blatently POV pushing. This is why the professor corectly restored the NPOV and accurate version from Str1977, and as is the norm ML reverted in defesne of her fellow devout buddy. It said see, talk, but there was nothing in talk, but I'm leaving my explaination here.Giovanni33 07:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, since I said "see talk", in my edit summary, and since you claim that you always assume good faith, would it not have been better to have assumed that I was typing my explanation, rather than to have said in your edit summary that there was nothing in talk? I have made my arguments below. There was no edit conflict, as I used the + button, so I had not seen your post when I saved. Since you started this section without a heading, I have added one, but since it was you who started the section, feel free to change the heading if you wish.

With regard to your uncivil remarks about my reverting "in defense of [my] fellow devout buddy", it really is foolish to keep making such insinuations, because anyone of good will can see that my support for Str1977 amounts to less than 5% of my total contributions, whereas you have a history of violating WP:SOCK, as shown by checkuser and by this, so when you start complaining about Christian meatpuppets it makes you look like that editor (now banned) who last July used a string of sexual and scatological abusive terms towards a female editor, and then filed an RfC against her complaining about her "personal attacks", giving diffs to show her saying things like "don't be so rude", and "I must ask you to change your tone". You have or had several users whose wiki-existence consisted of over 90% reverts to or votes for your version, and who made the same spelling mistakes as you. That cannot be said of Str1977 or me. By the way, perhaps you and Professor33 might like to state whether you are one user, two users who know each other, or two users with absolutely no connection to each other? With your history of deliberate deceit, I hope you'll agree that it's understandable that we should wonder. I notice that Str1977 asked that question on the Hitler talk page, and it was ignored, although both (? ? ?) of you have been on that page since his question was asked. AnnH ♫ 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never had a socketpuppet and I never lied about such a thing. I've already explained the very logical explanation for using Freethinkers account to place a message on my talk page and then correcting it all in the open. Since these are real people they are not socketpuppets. Userchecks have cleared me every time, and the ONLY time it showed any connected was because it was my wife. But you already know all this so its really funny that you seize on this "evidence" to paint a picture of those who don't know the story to essentially engage in deception, and poison the well against your opponent.Giovanni33 03:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If Freethinker99 and BelindaGong are separate people from you, then they were meatpuppets, and you were still knowingly violating the WP:SOCK policy, which you were referred to many times. A quick look at BelindaGong's contributions will show that she was constantly reverting to your version or supporting you on the talk page. You have admitted elsewhere that you pretended not to know BelindaGong, and she also pretended not to know you, so it's rather odd that you should accuse me of engaging in deception. I am aware that user checks have not shown a link between you and Kecik (who has 40 reverts to your version out of 45 article edits) or MikaM (whose record is not much better), but that doesn't "clear" you, since meatpuppets don't usually show up in user checks, and since the same person can log on from different addresses. I am also aware of your extremely implausible explanation for this, and I don't think any administrator believes it. For one thing, you were denying in that post that you had any connection to any of the users who had turned up to support you. You say that you didn't see Freethinker's name, since that question had been added after the original question was asked.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] But "And User:Freethinker99" was in the editing box right above the very first word that you typed in your denial, so it would be impossible not to see it. If you opened the edit box earlier, and then came back to the computer (which can't have happened, because Freethinker, or else you as Freethinker, was editing in the meantime), there would have been an edit conflict, and you would have been shown what had been added since you started typing. Finally, since the question concerned the fact that many new users were turning up and supporting you, and we wanted to know if they were connected to you, and since we were referring you to the WP:SOCK policy, it would have been extremely dishonest of you to answer that you had no connection to any of the users, knowing that Freethinker had just arrived and that he was running around supporting you, reverting to your version while you were blocked for puppetry, and pretending not to know you. You knew perfectly well that we were asking you if you had a connection to any user who was supporting you. (Though, as I said, your story that you hadn't seen Freethinker's name in the question is not in the least bit convincing.) And I am still waiting for an answer about whether Professor33, who has followed the pattern of registering a new account, supporting you, showing up on pages that you frequent, is in any way connected to you. Perhaps Professor33 would like to answer it as well? Of course, if he has no connection at all, the suspicion may seem unfair, but it comes as a result of your past behaviour. AnnH ♫ 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about but it seems you are being extremely hypocritical since you are making all kinds of insinuations and other uncivil remarks which I really have no idea about, nor are they even relevant to the actual merits of the edits or arguments are you are pushing for here in this article. I simply note that this is a continuing pattern of anytime Str1977 reverts and making POV edits on Christian related content that, if I find myself opposing him, you will ALWAYS show up to revert to his version WITHOUT EXCEPTION (or at least not one I can think of). You like to make lots of uncivil remarks about me having meatpuppets, and now you will bring into this topic all the usual nonsense about socketpuppet allegations and other things that have nothing to do with this but distract from the issue by focusing on an attack of the editor instead of the arguments relevant to the edit conflict. That is an abuse of the talk page, so please don't do it again.Giovanni33

I agree with Giovanni that we should stick to the point of the edit conflict and article and lets leave personal suspicious, motivations or other allegations that only serve a divisive end to our respective talk pages. I also have no idea what AnnH is taking about but lets not litter the talk page of this article with it. I do not think recoginzing that you and Str1977 are both "devout buddies" is really uncivil. As I have seen you do call him your buddy, you two are close, and you both devout believers. Is this not true? It points to bias, in the same way that someone may point out that my being an Atheist explains my POV. It does. That is fine and not a problem, and its not uncivil to mention it. We should not take offense, unless its not true. I don't think Giovanni saying this was saying you two are the same person. We don't know that unless we do a user check at the very least and I do not think one is warrented in this case simply because you two share the same POV and regularly help each other out. That is fine with me. Professor33 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Professor, that the question of puppetry is extremely relevant to the talk page of any article where someone known to have used puppets in the past is suddenly supported by a new user who appears very familiar with Wikipedia, and with past disputes, and who seems to like to frequent the same pages. It may seem unfriendly to you, but we tried to give BelindaGong and Freethinker99 the benefit of the doubt. If you are a separate person, unconnected to Giovanni, I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's dishonest to get your wife to join, to have her constantly revert to your own version and support you in talk pages and in votes, and to pretend not to know her, despite constant queries from other users. I'm sure that if you're not Giovanni, you'll also agree that getting a friend to join Wikipedia, while you're visiting him, and to sit with him at his computer, showing him how to revert to your version while you're blocked, and to deny that you have any connection to any of the new users who are supporting you (whether or not you know that that friend's name has just been added to the question) is dishonest. I'd like you to have a look at WP:SOCK and to assure me that you don't condone Giovanni's past violations of it, and even more, that you are not another Giovanni puppet (of either kind — you'll see from the policy page that there are two different kinds of puppet, and that they are both forbidden). By the way, "devout buddy" is uncivil, because it's a snide remark. I don't consider myself devout, and don't actually know if Str1977 is devout or not. And it's a bit ironic that a brand new user who is supporting someone known to have violated WP:SOCK in the past and is frequenting the articles he frequents and editing in the same way would say that he doesn't think there's any need to do a user check for two Wikifriends who are both respected, established users with no history of deception, and who have independent editing histories. But that's not relevant to editing this article. What is relevant is the question of whether or not Giovanni is engaging in new performance of puppetry. AnnH ♫ 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this some sort of joke? Look at these names: Giovanni33, Professor33, Freethinker99. You'd think that this guy would pick more subtle names for his multiple sock puppets. I know this his highly circumstantial, but come on. Mitsein (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For accuracy and NPOV

Professor33 made this change, with the edit summary "For accuracy and NPOV". I disagree. First of all, "ideology that refers to" doesn't really make sense. You can say, "An elephant is a large mamal that . . .", or you can say, "The word 'elephant' refers to a large mammal that . . ."; but you can't say, "An elephant is a creature that refers to a large mammal that . . . " If you're trying to say that Positive Christianity is something, don't say that it's something that refers to something, unless you're talking about the word, or unless you're saying that part of this ideology is to go around talking about how Christianity is consistent with Nazism.

Secondly, "refers to a form of Christianity consistent with Nazism" implies that that there is a form of Christianity which is consistent with Nazisim. That is hardly undisputed; hence it is POV. Remember that on Wikipedia, the rule is verifiability, not truth. That's not to say, of course, that we don't want truth (though actually, it's not true to say that Christianity is consistent with Nazisim), but simply that we can't insist on an edit just because we are convinced that the statement it makes is true. AnnH ♫ 07:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you go back another step you will see where the error you mention for your first objection arose: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Positive_Christianity&diff=60025918&oldid=59589812 I have reverted back to the long standing version which can be seen with my edit, which was simply fixing a link, to the change that Str1977 introduced. The professor correcting this did not fully correct it, hence the remaining problem. It is not corrected back to the long stadning version.

As to your second point, this is not a question of a POV this is a verifiable fact, which happens to also be true: There is a form of Christianity practiced and adhered to by the far right-wing which are fascists of the Nazi variety, and one such form is known as Positive Christianity. There are two established facts here: One is that it certainly IS a form of Christianity by any general definition that identifies the religion, which necessarily must be broad to encompass all Christian groups and varieties. Otherwise we are pushing a POV that excludes Christian groups as Christian, i.e. they are not true Christians. This is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. The second fact is that such a form of Christianity is compatible with Nazism, since that was whole purpose of it, it raison d'existence, composed, almost totally, of fascists, and championed by no less than the Nazi leader Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Party platform which adopted Positive Christianity. We just went through a pretty good documentation of these facts from numerous sources on the Adolph Hitler talk page about this very subject, in particular of the various fascist Catholic leaders and movements. If this is not a case of it being compatible, I don't know what is. Do I need to copy the sources from there over here? I noticed in the debate there the other side was silence, as expected, having lost the debate, it was quickly archived.Giovanni33 08:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Giovanni, the debate wasn't lost. You were abusing server space in posting long essays trying to prove that you were right. You've been told before that that's not what talk pages are for. If you want to argue about how the wording of a passage could be improved, use the article talk page. If you want to argue that Hitler was a devout Catholic, and that Christianity is like believing that the moon is made of cheese, use Usenet, or start a blog. We had been through everything you said before, and there was no reason why others should abuse talk pages just because you did. AnnH ♫ 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did lose that debate and Giovanni did prove he was right. The argument was, for the record, whether Hitler was a Christian or if he even had expressed any Christian beliefs, which Str177 rather amazingly denied.Professor33 20:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, the reason for the change I made is exactly what Ann has stated above, a concern for NPOV - the former version stated as a fact that Positive Christianity is a form of Christianity (one that is compatible with Nazism) - however, this is a disputed point and not even barely correct, as PC originated from the attempt to bring these two together. Anyway, your claim that I changed a long-standing version is incorrect - you yourself changed the long-standing version by removing the quotes around Christianity. These were probably an attempt to a void the POV implication that PC was a form of Christianity - that attempt was ill-founded, as this is no way to proceed and this regard your change was justified. However, it pushed the POV problem to the front again, to which I reacted by my edit. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The scare quotes were "probably an attempt to void the POV implication that PC was a form of Christianity"? What? There is no "POV implication". If that's what it said it was then that's what it was in the eyes of its adherents. PC did not "originate from the attempt" to bring Nazism and Christianity together. In fact its essential characteristics were in place before Nazism came into being. I don't know who coined the actual phrase and when, but the ideology grew up over time, first emerging in the 1880s. I think my version is the best (of course!) but essentially I think this "debate" is MUCH ADO ABOUT B-ALL, and does nothing to improve the article.Paul B 01:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Infact the statement that PC is an attempt to bringing together Christianity and a political ideology is not very instructive besides not being accurate for it was not an attempt it was an actual form of Christianity, with forms that can be traced back, but which was always able to be made compatible with fascist ideology by refining certain interpretations along those far-right lines of thought, in particular racial theories. The same can be said of Liberation Theology and Marxism at the opposite end of the spectrum, on the far left, where you have an expression of theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty, and human rights influeced by Marxism, and often termed Christian Socialism. This view also emphasises the active role of Jesus as a fighter and liberator. I doubt Str would say that deny this sect within the Catholic Church is not a form of Christianity? I guess the maintream Catholic church does call it a heresy, if I recall and that is the most that one could say.

So when it comes to religous beliefs, in particular religions that can be all over the place and map, we have to go by how its adherents viewed themselves regarding their professed faith of Christian beliefs, no matter how twisted it seems from some other Christian perspective. We are not dealing with science here. Hitler thought that his actions were consistent with the needs of the German people and the dictates of Christianity. Hitler’s speeches and proclamations clearly reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. But, I understand that Nazism presents an embarrassment to modern day Christianity but it does clearly demonstrates the danger of blending “faith with politics.” I'm sure Str and Ann find it it “spiritually disconcerting” to discover the depth of Hitler’s hermeneutic. How about his exegesis of Matthew 3:7, 12:34 and John 2:15? Infact many Christians today rail against the "feminization" of Christianity and argue for a more masculine, muscular Christianity that can help the US maintain it's place of dominance in the world.Giovanni33 03:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, Paul, that if the wording can be read in such a way as to imply that Christianity is consistent with Nazism, and if a reasonably significant number of people (i.e. not a fringe minority) dispute that the two are consistent, then there is a POV implication, regardless of your good intentions. People can write something with absolutely no intention of pushing a POV, but they can still unintentionally use a wording that favours a particular POV over that opposing one. AnnH ♫ 13:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is disputed Str1977. But this is not very interesting observation; it is a common feature in the history of Christianity. Christians are diverse and often accuse each other as being false, that their own theology is the only correct one, that they will be the only ones saved, and that all others are heresies, going to hell, etc. It goes without saying that these far-right Christians groups reject the beliefs of most modern orthodox Christian denominations, and vise-versa. That is those who adhere to the theology of Positive Christianity claim that modern Christian Churches are teaching a heresy, and in turn, most modern Christian denominations and organizations denounce their theology as a heresy, too--and condemn the use of the Christian Bible as a basis for promoting anti-Semitism or other hate. But, the modern adherents of this form of Christianity found in the Christian Identity groups such as include the Aryan Nations; Church of Jesus Christ Christian; Confederate Hammerskins; Jubilee; LaPorte Church of Christ; Kingdom Identity Ministries, are all types of Christians in any non-bigoted sense of the word: they believe Jesus is the Messiah, based their theology on an interpretation of the Bible, and take a particular view on all the Christian concepts within the theology of the religion but their churches use a racialized theology that promote a Euro-centric version of Christianity. It is true that they do not enjoy good relationships with mainstream Christianity, and this can be stated as a fact, but to say they are not a form of Christianity is siimply asserting a POV by hiding succh a fact. Lets characterize the group and the views of other groups to it--that is fine, but saying it is not a type of Christianity is not allowed, unless you are doing so as part of the characterization according to mainstream views.Professor33 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to say in the article that it's not a form of Christianity. I, at any rate, am trying to find a wording that doesn't say that it is or that it isn't. Bear in mind, though, that it's also not allowed to say (or to imply) that it is a form of Christianity, since that is disputed by some. AnnH ♫ 13:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By this logic we can't say that Catholism or Mormonism are each forms of Christianity because other Christians dispute this. This, obviously is not true. If the view is not a fringe one that we can mention that, as is typical, different Christian groups reject them as heresies (which is true), but that they in turn reject mainstream Christianity as heretical just the same.Giovanni33 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of this article was written by me. My original opening sentence was "Positive Christianity is a term used in Nazi ideology to refer to a form of "Christianity" consistent with Nazism." Note, I put "Christianity" in inverted commas. I still thinks that's the best option here. We cannot say that it isn't "really" Christianity. Giovanni is right that the No True Scotsman fallacy is relevant here. But we can reasonably express scepticism. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, this form of "Christianity" emerges from the debates of the nineteenth century - the so-called higher criticism, and the attempts to see Jesus in his historical context. Chamberlain, Burnouf and others argue that Galliee was significantly culturally and racially different from Judea, that there were extensive Celtic and Greek influences which made it an "Aryan" enclave (the Celtic argument derives from a strained attempt to derive the words "Galilee" and "Gaulanitis" from the Gauls). They claim that Jesus's mission represents Aryan culture confonting Semitic culture. This viewpoint is so alien to traditional Christianity that it is at least arguable whether it can reasonably be called Christianity at all. It would be like labelling Dan Brown's theory of the Jesus bloodline as a form of Christianity. Still, the fact remains that some Nazis did think that Positive Christianity was consistent with the orthodox theologies of various churches,and that those churches could be reformed to to accommodate the "Positive" model, so we have to accept that this viewpoint did exist, even while acknowledging that some prponents, like Rosenberg, cannot be seen as Chrsitian in any meaningful sense. Ideally we let the facts speak for themselves. Paul B 13:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, your comments here are quite reasonable and accurate. I think we can state that this form of Christianity is rejected by all mainstream Christians, expressing the fact that withing Christianity it occupies a fringe viewpoint. Im not sure that putting quotations marks around it is the best way to express this sentiment without sneaking in the POV that its not really Christianity (which is may not be to most Christians but we can't assume this POV ourselves in this article). There are still adherents to this racialized version of Christianity among various Identity Chruch's among the neo-nazi far right political spectrum.Giovanni33 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you did a good job, Paul, although obviously the nature of Wikipedia is that there is never any such thing as a "finished" version. Some of the squabbling here is being carried over from other pages, as we've had trouble with a user who is known to have violated policy repeatedly (check archives for administrators' noticeboards) but who denies it repeatedly. Anyway, what we need is to find a wording that does not state that Christianity is or is not consistent with Nazism. Since many Christians (and perhaps some nazis) will deny that it is, it's POV to assert it as a fact. I'm not aiming to deny it either, since some people will say that they are compatible. AnnH ♫ 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I note that you have reverted, Paul. I think I have laid out fairly clearly what my objections are? If I and others find that your wording (regardless of your intentions) can give an implication (however faint) that Christianity and Nazism are compatible, then I think there is a good reason to look for an alternative wording, and not simply to revert based on the fact that you don't accept that there's anything wrong with the original wording. Can you explain what problems you'd have with "an ideology that aims to reconcile"? Or can you think of anything better? AnnH ♫ 13:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By this logic we can't say that Catholism or Mormonism are each forms of Christianity because other Christians dispute this. This, obviously is not true. If the view is not a fringe one that we can mention that, as is typical, different Christian groups reject them as heresies (which is true), but that they in turn reject mainstream Christianity as heretical just the same.Giovanni33 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with ridiculous edit warring over a non-issue, so I reverted to the original version. PC is "a form of Christianity" and it is also "an ideology that aims to reconcile Christianity and Nazism." Both are true, but if the latter wording is being prefered simply because it avoids saying that it is a form of Christianity then I object. There are any number of forms of Christianity and we can't exclude PC on the grounds that we don't like it. It's a form that emerges in a specific historical and cultural context and which thankfully had a short shelf-life. Paul B 23:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It can't be a non-issue, Paul, if two Catholics do not want the article to say or imply that Christianity and Nazism are compatible, and an editor with a history of anti-Christian editing (and of blocks for violations of WP:SOCK for that purpose) wants it to say that they are compatible. Besides, if you feel that both are true, then surely it makes sense and follows NPOV policy to choose the one that "avoids saying that it is a form of Christianity", since that is something that is disputed? Of course, I can see that it's annoying, when you put a lot of work into an article and then a few other editors appear and seem to be carrying on a squabble from other articles. Nevertheless, that is the nature of Wikipedia. Regards. AnnH ♫ 18:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"It can't be a non-issue, Paul, if two Catholics do not want the article to say or imply that Christianity and Nazism are compatible." Since when did Catholics (or any denomination) get to say what is and isn't Christianity? Yes, I can see that Giovanni/Professor has a history of edit-warring, and I certainly didn't see the relevance of the stuff about Catholicism, Orthodoxy and non-Nazi forms of fascism that were posted here at great length. However, the fact is that positive Christianity is a form of Christianity in the eyes of its adherents. That puts it on a par with all other forms of Christianity. Whether you or anyone else agrees is neither here nor there, any more than it is relevant to the definition of Unitarianism or Mormonism as forms of Christianity. The NTS fallacy does apply here because the form of the argument offered is essentially a variant of saying "no true Christian would believe X, therefore this form of Christianity, which requires X, isn't real Christianity." In this case X would be some aspect of Nazi ideology, but it could just as easily be anything else. This argument is only legitimate when it addresses the meaningful definition of the term itself. Furthermore, it underestimates the complexity of Nazi ideology and the variety of political and social positions it contained at various stages in its existence. Nazism was not monolithic and more than Christianity is or has been. The reality is that a number of theologians, both Protestant and Catholic, were sympathetic to many Nazi aims. This has been well documented in many books on the subject, such as Robert Krieg's Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany and Matthew D. Hockenos's A Church Divided: German Protestants Confront the Nazi Past. There are also Christian Identity groups who continue to espouse Positive Christianity. See for example this website.[6] Paul B 10:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. I note that the article on Christian Identity itself does not dispute that CI is a form of Christianity (it uses the word "version"). Its opening sentences read "Most of them [CI Churches] promote a Euro-centric version of Christianity." I really don't think it is appropriate to try to "jump in" with judgements and rejections in the way that the current opening does. We should just describe the subject, as the CI article does. Paul B 10:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. You say, "Since when did Catholics (or any denomination) get to say what is and isn't Christianity?" They don't and shouldn't get to say that (at least not in Wikiepedia articles, which have to follow the NPOV policy), except in very clear cut cases (for example, I don't think you'd object if a Catholic said that belief in Zeus etc. was not Christianity). But you only quoted half of what I said. My point was that two Catholic editors (established, respected editors) object to a statement or implication that Christianity and Nazism are compatible (I'm sure you'll agree that many Christians say they are not), and an atheist editor who has a history of breaking rules (often in an underhand way) in order to push his version is extremely eager to make it say that they are. Therefore, the dispute can't just be written off the way we might write off a drive-by edit from an anon.

Back to the point of who gets to say what is and what isn't Christianity — I am fairly open on talk pages about my personal views (though I don't post thousand-word essays trying to prove I'm right, like Giovanni, and then spam them to other talk pages, in an effort to prove that I won the argument). But while I may (and do) have my own ideas about whether or not Nazism is compatible with Christianity, I do not see how the wording that says that Positive Christianity aims to reconcile them is making a statement in the article that it is not a valid form of Christianity, or that it's making a statement, as Giovanni claims, that there is only one form of Christianity. I have studied textual analysis at Master's level, and I simply do not find those meanings, overt or hidden, in the wording. On the other hand, I do find an implication that they are compatible in the wording chosen by an editor who claims in his thousand-word talk page posts that Christianity is like believing that the moon is made of cheese, and who edits articles to say that Galileo was tortured (he wasn't) and that Hitler received the sacraments "devoutly" as a child (completely unsourced).

I "only quoted half of what you said" because the second half is irrelevant. This is not about the sins of Giovanni it's about the article. I don't give a fig about him. The moral standing of Catholic "established, respected editors" in comparison to a sockpuppeting "atheist editor" does not help us decide which argument is more coherent. You do not respond to the point that Christian Identity is referred to as a "version of Christianity" and even carries the Christianity template. I have already implicitly addressed the point about Zeus, since the issue concerns the reasonable use of a word, not the validity of a theology. Indeed PC as such has no theology. Paul B 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So I'd like to make it very clear that I am not trying to make the article say something that's disputed. I may personally dispute that Christianity and Nazism are compatible, but you will not find in my wording an attempt to say that. (For example, although I'm not a feminist, I do believe that there is a form of feminism which is compatible with Christianity, and I could talk about "aiming to reconcile Christianity and feminism" without implying that such an aim was or was not capable of being fulfilled.) What I am trying to do is prevent a wording that claims something which is disputed — disputed not just by me, but by many Christians. If Giovanni really wants to follow NPOV rather than take yet another bash at Christianity, he will agree that the article should not imply that they are compatible, just as it should not imply that they are not. AnnH ♫ 12:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I value your contribution but must state that using quotes around Christianity is not a feasible way to achieve your aim. OTOH, simply removing them moves the article clearly into one direction. However, I think the current version neither affirms nor rejects either view.

Gio, please don't use silly analogies: if a fringe denounces the oldest (at least in the West) and largest of all Christian denominations as non-Christian, that is different from the wide range of the mainstream denounce a defunct fringe group (and again you are pushing your relativist POV, namely that there are no criteria of defining Christianity). And "heretical" is of no importance anyway here, as heretics are Christians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current version neither affirms nor rejects either view, and feel it should be preferred for that reason. AnnH ♫ 20:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree its a form of Christianity, Str, since it these forms of racialized Christianty are termed heretical by mainstream Christianity, and by your own words, "heretics are Christians."In anycase I addressed the objections by adding in, "used in Nazi ideology to refer to a form of Christianity consistent with Nazism but rejected by mainstream versions of Christianity.This should be enough to make this NPOV as it states give a voice to the other POV. This is how NPOV is handled, not be censoring the disputed POV.Giovanni33 20:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, don't twist words in my mouth. Some groups straying from Christianity still fall within the bondaries of the religion and are dubbed "Heretics", while others exceed that boundaries are no longer Christians. Of course, there is a certain amount of subjectivity and POV involved, but that doesn't change the overall framework. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some documentation

This is a small section from the the same argument, but that focused on denying that Hitler was not only not a real Christian, and that Hitler never expressed any Christian belief. This argument is almost identical here because Hitler was a Nazi and if he was also a Christian then one can be both a Nazi Christian and hence the two ideologies can overlap and be compatible. Giovanni33 08:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Link to the section Giovanni is referring to can be found here. I have removed it, Giovanni. I have asked you before not to clog up pages with your arguments. First of all, talk pages are meant to be for discussing improvements to the article (or, to a lesser extent, Wikipedia-related problems such as dealing with vandalism or puppetry), not for discussing who is right and who is wrong with regard to a particular theory. Of course, nobody wants to be rigid about this, and we do tolerate an occasional off topic post, if it's not too long, as we are dealing with human editors, not machines, and a community does build up, so a certain amount of latitude is desirable. But I have asked you before to provide links to online stuff that you want us to read, and you're here long enough to know what talk pages are for, so copying over 1,439 words from another talk page is simply disruptive. It's also confusing, as it looks as if two different people added that stuff to this page. It also discourages people from reading the talk page comments when there's so much there, and when they can't see which bits to omit or skim, and might miss something important. Finally it's an abuse of Project server space, which you do not pay for (unless you donate to the Foundation). Please don't do that again. AnnH ♫ 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann's last edit

Str1977, you re-inserted the word "term", and I'm not sure if you mean that the term itself (or the use of it) is part of the aim to reconcile Christianity and Nazism, or if you mean that it's simply a term for an ideology that aims to reconcile them. Your wording suggests the first meaning, but I think it's possible that you intended the second. The first meaning is, of course, plausible, as language can be used for political ends. Depending on our POV, we could say that the term "fetus" is used to dehumanize the baby, or that the term "baby" is used to confer personhood on the baby. So can you say exactly what you meant?

I did some changing from -ise to -ize. I generally don't although I prefer -ize, because Wikipedia discourages changing from American to British usage, or British to American, or BC to BCE, or BCE to BC, when both are correct, so I normally stick to what's already there. However, I saw that this article used both, so I started changing. When I had changed a few, I realized that there were more -ise spellings in the article than -ize spellings, but I had nearly finished at that stage. Apart from my preference (shared by Oxford and Cambridge!), I think it's a matter of common sense for Wikipedia to use -ize in general, because words like recognize, realize, etc., are correct with either spelling in the UK, but are only correct with -ize in America, as far as I know, although that could be changing now. AnnH ♫ 13:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant also to add that I changed "an historical Jesus" to "a historical Jesus". In the early 20th century, upper class British people did not pronounce the initial h in words that came from French (hotel, historical, herb, etc.) For that reason, it was common to write "an historical novel", "an hotel", etc. Gradually the aspiration of the h became widespread in many of these words, so the "an" was replaced by "a".

On another note, I see that Giovanni did one of his "blind reverts" (which he has frequently criticized other editors for doing). It's a classic case of edit warring to be so anxious to revert to your POV that you wipe out corrections to formatting, spelling, etc. that other editors have made.

In the meantime, I see that Professor33 has reverted, stating that he is "correcting for accuracy and NPOV" and that he sees "on talk page this has not been addressed". Professor, we have explained on talk page that it is more in keeping with NPOV not to state (or imply) as a fact something that is disputed. This is how I look at it:

1. The Giovanni/Professor33 wording implies that Christianity and Nazism are compatible.
2. There are groups more significant than lunatic fringe groups (which could be discounted without violating NPOV) which dispute that Nazism and Christianity are compatible. Pope Benedict, St Edith Stein, the Dutch Bishops, and many others have disputed it.
3. Therefore, in order to respect NPOV, we must not state it as a fact. However, we must also avoid stating that they are not compatible.
4. The wording that I have suggested does not imply that they are or are not compatible. Therefore it is more NPOV.
5. I don't doubt that you believe it's true that they are compatible. However, what you or I believe is not relevant here. Some people, for example believe that a fetus is a human being (I'm one of those people), and others believe it isn't. But you don't get to insert something into an article because you think it's true.

Could you please state which of those five points you have a problem with?

Additionally, I would like to know why you state that you are reverting "for accuracy". What is inaccurate about saying that it "aims to reconcile Christianity and Nazism"? Paul has agreed that that is true.

Finally, I find it odd that when I have posted extensively to the talk page stating my objections, you would state that "this has not been addressed". What do you want me to address that I haven't addressed? I'm still waiting for answers from you. AnnH ♫ 18:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite a reputable scholarly source (not other Christian groups, which would of course reject this group, just as they often reject each other) that states an assessment that PC is NOT a form of Christianity. I do not think this fact is disputed unless there is a fringe view of what is means to be a Christian, which excludes other forms. I do not think this can be excluded as a form of Christianity without committing some basic problems in logic in regards to this definition, in particular the No True Scotsman fallacy. Until you have a good source that not only makes the case but represents the scholarly consensus on the question of a definition of Christianity that is sufficiently inclusive but still exclusive of PC as one of its manifestations of the religion, we do not get to delete the factual statement that PC is a form of Christianity. At most we can state that it is disputed, which Giovanni has done. It does not make any claim regarding the compatibility of Christianity with Nazism, but it does say that PC is a form of Christianity that is consistent with Nazism. If you dispute this, then please state what part parts of PC are not consistent with Nazism as an ideology? Lastly the major problem with your version is that it assumes there is such as thing as one kind or type of Christianity, which is of course not true, or begs the question. Insofar as this implies that there is one Christianity, it is not accurate.Professor33 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr 33,

I can't see how you can legitimately demand a "a reputable scholarly source ... that states an assessment that PC is NOT a form of Christianity", when the article ("our" versions) is saying nothing of the sort. Neither does it say that PC is a form of Christianity, which is the problem with "your" version: it affirms a POV - a POV by the way for which neither you nor Gio have provided the source you demand in regard to negative.

Above I ommitted the parts in brackets because it is basically an insolent attempt of eliminating Christians from the category of serious sources. Such attempts are forms of bigotry.

Also, please educate yourself about the No True Scotsman fallacy. It doesn't work in this case, as it refers to people doing or not doing something and not to belief systems. No true Scotsman puts sugar into his porridge" - the equivalent would be "no true Christian does wrong", which is of course incorrect both from experience and from Christian doctrine. However, Christianity and Positive Christianity are not people that can do something or not - they just are. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, this is a prefect example for the fallacy as it is particularly apt for denials of some forms of Christianity as true Christians. This is precisely because the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people, and that it is common for different versions of Christianity believe they are the true and correct version. Even when there is agreement because of the broad nature of the category it has very little meaning when it comes to defining it to say that some groups of Christians are not real Christians. This can apply to a group, which means we are talking about what makes the group-- its actions and ideas that make up the nature of this group (not just specific things they do). This fallacy is particularly fitting because there is no one accepted definition of the subject, other than some very basic contextual professions of the faith, reference to its sacred texts which itself yield a vast ability for great interpretation and differences (there are tens of thousands and growing). Hence, the definition must be understood in context of such, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand as to what it means (which we can't do that here as that would be original research). It is also a common fallacy in politics, in which groups or even individuals within groups disagree on matters of policy. The No Scotsman fallacy is evident when you can't come up with an accepted definition and yet you wish to exclude a group that professes membership in the group on the basis that they are not liked and have disagreements among other members of the group or other groups that share the label, and are usually unaware that in doing so they are in effect re-defining or defining in a way that is not justified by the expansive nature of the group itself. If it is justified to curtail it to only certain groups, then you should be able to show that and explain how-- but please do so in with a legitimate source that just doest not repeast the same fallacy. This is required if you wish to exclude that statement that PC is a form of Christianity, and not simply state that its disputed by other mainstream Christian groups. So, on what basis do you wish to exclude it on that stands up to a necessarily broad umbrella definiton of Christianity? If you have a good reason that is supported in a way that does not violate some basic reasoning as exemplified in the logical fallacy explained above, then please provide it. Otherwise to not say its a version of Christianity is to give undo weight to the POV's of other Christians who do not wish to be associated with their far right-wing variants.Professor33 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the Professor.Giovanni33 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, of course you do!

Professor, what you wrote illustrates that the fallacy is out of place: "denials of some forms of Christianity as true Christians" - forms of Christianity (right or wrong) cannot be Christians. The NTS fallacy applies to people not to belief systems. Anyway, the discussion is futile, as I am not trying to include a denial in our disputed passage, while you are trying to introduce a implicit affirmation, which you then try to even out by a very mellow, sneaky contradiction in the name of "mainstream versions of Christianity". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean. NTS applies to ideas, which are held by people. Can ideas exist outside of people? Are not ideas manifestations of the persons brain? Hence, are we not talking about people, still? The fallacy is about an error in thinking, a kind of thinking that is not logical given the set of circumstances. These circumstances obtain here for the purpose of the relevancy of NTS, as explained.

To state that PC is rejected by mainstream Christianity is not sneaky---in what way is it sneaky? It comes down to the fact that we must use a broad brush to be inclusive as to all forms of Christianity and not limit our ability to state that it is a form of Christianity. If it is disputed then lets mention that. If it is not disputed, lets mention that too. But lets never not mention anything for fear that it might offend.Professor33 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. The NTS does not apply to ideas, as the name implies: "No true Scots'man" (and not "No true Scottishness"). Yes, ideas exist within people but only people can do something, whether in line or out of line with the ideas the hold. So a Scotsman can eat porridge with sugar, even if that (supposedly) goes against all of Scottishness) - his eating porridge with sugar affects neither the definition of Scottishness nor his own status as a Scotsman.

Scottisheness can be defined by customs, by toppgraphy, culture etc. and maybe eating sugar with your porridge is "un-scottish" - but if thousands of Scotsman suddenly seem to do it nonetheless, the definition is weakened and undermined.

The fallacy, the error of thinking is that a certain requirement for belonging to a group is claimed and all possible contradictory evidence is then excluded because "people who do that are not really X". I have observed this often with Fundamentalist Christians, who deny that Christians have ever persecuted anyone by counting these persecutors not as Christians. This is of course wrong. Christianity in its core does not condone or allow persecution but Christians may still act differently. This might make them bad Christians but not non-Christians. Hence, the reasoning Hitler did bad things and hence he wasn't a Christian doesn't work. I have never used that reasoning. Rather, because of some of things Hitler believed he is not a Christian in any meaningful sense, let alone a Catholic. We have to define what makes someone a Scotman or a Christian independently of someone's actions to avoid the circular reasoning. And that's quite easy in regard to a Scotman (someone born in Scotland and/or to Scottish parents) or a Catholic (someone who adheres to the Church's teachings).

The addition I objected to I called "sneaky" because it is worded by you in such a way that minimizes the importance of the objection - it is just another version, albeit a big one, that rejects this. All in all, I don't object to such a note in general, if you don't claim further up that PC is a form of Christianity, as if that were a fact. No, this is the point of contention. I will attempt a compromise wording.

Ah, and please don't just revert. You have made no case and only restate your objection repeatedly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you failed to understand the concept of the fallacy in question and how it pertains here. I'm afraid you are taking the description of the fallacy literally and not seeing how it applies as a concept to any group or category, including its ideas. If a group professing certain ideas that is the point of dispute which can lend someone to say that such a diversion from their conception constitutes a signifiant break so as to deny them the label Christian. This may nor may not be valid. If it is valid then its not a case of NTS, however if it fails to apply a consistent rational standard supported by the nature of the group in question it falls into the fallacy. This is the case here. If not, then I ask again: Can you cite a reputable scholarly source which states an assessment that PC is NOT a form of Christianity either directly or indirectly by giving a deffinition that is sufficienly narrow but still inclusive and meaningful? I think such a limitiing of what consistitutes legitimate forms of Christianity is not possible, and fits into the pit of the NTS fallacy.

Until you have a good source that not only makes the case but represents the scholarly consensus on the question of a definition of Christianity that is sufficiently inclusive but still exclusive of PC as one of its manifestations of the religion, it is not justified to delete the factual statement that PC is a form of Christianity--even if most Christians do not like them. At most we can state that it is disputed, including by the mainstream which is not sneaky but identifies mainstream from fringe or marginal. Lastly the other major problem with your version is that it assumes there is such as thing as one kind or type of Christianity, which is of course not true, or begs the question. Insofar as this implies that there is one Christianity, it is not accurate. Please don't revert again until you come to a better understanding of this.Professor33 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Professor, you still haven't explained in what way saying that Postive Christianity aims to reconcile Christianity and Nazism implies that there is only one form of Christianity. There could be five hundred and seventy-two forms, and we could still say that Positive Christianity aims to reconcile Christianity and Nazism. The version that you are reverting to does not state as a fact anything which is disputed. The version that you are reverting to does. Also, your last revert undid my work in making the spelling consistent. Please don't blind revert: it's considered very poor form. And your Scotsman argument doesn't apply here, because when a group of people belong to a particular category on the basis of their beliefs, there has to be a stage at which you can say that someone does not truly belong to that category. We might associate feminism with being in favour of legalized abortion; yet some feminists are pro-life. But there probably aren't any feminists who think that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. AnnH ♫ 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To say that Christianity is reconciled with another ideology is somewhat meaningless without specfic mention of what kind and type of Christianity. There are major diffrences in ideology within different versions and forms of Chrisitanity, many of which are directly and antagonistically opposed ideological perspectives. Therefore, not to mention this implies that such is not the case. This is inaccurate and begs the question of what form, and it implies that there is one form, or many, that are essentially the same so as to give meaning to the nature of product of such a reconciliation with another ideology. Infact, to say that is it a form of Christianity that has is consistent with Nazism, identifies exactly what kind and version of Christianity it is. This is accurate. To dispute that it is not a form of Christianity is impossible to do without comitting the NTS fallacy given the nature of Christianity and the context of PC as a form of Christianity. The analogy being Christianity and feminism is intereting, and although feminism is not a religion it is a broad ideology open to different forms. Your argument is the PC is beyond the recognition of Christianity, just as being against women sufferage would be beyond the ability of feminism to encompass. This is where your argument fails to show that such is the case. PC to Christainity is much like a feminist who is pro-life: marginal, extreme fringe, but still within the ideology of feminism in any defintion that does not commit the NTS fallacy.Professor33 16:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Professor Gio, let me explain it to you again:

Your edits call PC "a form of Christianity which ..." - this is a POV statement, as it affirms something as fact that is controversial.

Also, your reasoning given above is flawed. PC is the result of trying to reconcile (element 1) certain beliefs culminating in Nazism (racism, anti-semitism, social darwinism etc.) with (element 2) Christianity. Now you say that not "versions" of Christianity were taken into account in this attempt? You are right, Roman Catholicism for instance was not part of this as it cannot be reinterpreted at whim, Eastern Orthodoxy wasn't part of this because it wasn't common at that time and place.

Your reasoning doesn't even justify your actual edits, as you would have to write " PC is aiming at reconciling Nazim and this and that form of Christianity" and not "PC is a form of Christianity".

Finally, I would advise you to seriously contemplate what the NTS fallacy actually says, but I guess reasoning with you is pointless. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nativity Plays

"They attempted to separate Nazi officials from church affiliations, banning nativity plays and calling for an end to daily prayers in schools"

Does anyone have a source for this? I have a sneaking suspicision that someone is trying to push a POV here.

What POV would that be? Paul B 10:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German original

I added the German original: "Positive Christianity (German Positives Christentum)". I believe that that's correct, but if not please fix it. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If this were correct, there would be more than 1,200 results on google for it (By comparison, the English version returns nearly 20k results). Taking this out until someone can find what it's really called in German. Mitsein (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure this german wikipedia page identifies the correct term. Not speaking german, I can't say for sure that it's talking about the same thing. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Christen Anyone who speaks german should verify that the page is talking about Positive Christianity and if it is add it in. Mitsein (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if this is the correct german term, someone should probably include why the term "positive christianity" became the English equivalent because "Deustche Christen" probably translates to something more generic like "German Christianity." Mitsein (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Positives Christentum" is the correct term in German. Do not remove material in German just because you somehow 'feel' that's it's wrong, despite the fact that you speak no German. "Die Partei als solche steht für ein positives Christentum"; "Die NSDAP-Parteileitung propagierte in ihren Verlautbarungen ein "positives Christentum"". etc. Posirive Christianity is not the "English equivalent" of "German Christians" at all, it's simply a term used by the Nazis to refer to their vision of 'Christianity'. Paul B (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't move it because I "felt" it was wrong. The original editor indicated his uncertainty. So, based on a google search I guessed that the term was not widespread. When I said that I thought positive christianity might be the german equivalent of Deutsche Christen, I was working under the assumption that the Deutsche Christen article is about nazi christianity (whatever you want to call it) because it turned up when I searched ""Positives Christentum" and because it mentions hitler. I didn't ask to be berated--I just asked someone to verify this. Before continuing our discussion about the merge, I would like to know whether this page (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Christen) is about nazis christianity or just german christianity in general. Please try to be less hostile. I'm just trying to help here. Mitsein (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry if I seemed too techy. No it's not about German Christians, but it's not just about Nazis either. It'sd about a movement to make Christianity more "Germanic" in character, which was independent of Nazism, but camer to be closely associated with it. Several of the leading German Christians were Nazis and the Nazis tried to encourage the moverment. Paul B (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

They're the same thing. German Christians is the direct translation of the religion whereas Positive Christianity is a common English term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsein (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The German Christians were a group, Positive Christianity is a concept. Paul B (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Positive Christianity is the concept that the German Christians subscribed to. The Positive Christianity article gives more than an overview of the concept--it also gives historical context, and yes, information about the people who were in it. This subject isn't notable enough to have two separate articles-one about the religion and one about the people in the religion. Don't be fooled by the different names, these two articles are very much about the same thing. The problem is that the German Christian article is too vague to see this at first glance. Mitsein (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not about the sanme thing. The German Christian article can be expanded - by translating the German WP. But the German article itself is essentoially about the group, its members and its history. This article is about how the concept developed and how it was articulated within NSDAP ideology. There is no point to a merger. Paul B (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(working under the assumption that the German WP I linked is about nazi chrstianity...if it isn't the following line of reasoning fails) Your argument would make sense if there were a German version of this page. There isn't. The germans have a single page for both the group and concept (I only point this out because German is the native language of this article and German speakers would have a better idea of what the concept is called). You say that we could just translate the german WP page to our English "German Christians" page. This doesn't prove that we shouldn't merge the two pages: I could similarly say that the pages could be merged then expanded by incorporating the German WP page. Maybe the pages should merge in the other direction. I selected that this be the page that remains because it is much longer and more flushed out. However, if German Christians is the dominant term, even in English, then it should be merged into that. Or, better yet, these two pages should be merged into a new page entitle German Christianity which could cover the group and the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsein (talk • contribs) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there's good reason for consolidating smaller, low-traffic articles (even ones that aren't exactly synonymous). Consolidating these pages will encourage editing of these two (very closely related) subjects to be more consistent with each other. At least someone should link the two pages. Mitsein (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the merger would be a good thing and would help readers understand the close relation of the two subjects. Seize today (talk)December 1, 2007

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sturmer Nordic Jesus.JPG

Image:Sturmer Nordic Jesus.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)