User talk:ADM/Archive 6

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Proposed deletion of Roman Catholic sex abuse cases in the United States

The article Roman Catholic sex abuse cases in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Duplicates material in other articles

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Richard (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My basic position is that the article Catholic sex abuse cases should be as small as possible, and that matters of local nature should be in specific entries. There is actually a name for this, it is called subsidiarity, an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. However, this does not necessarily include large countries like the United States because most of the scandal occured in the United States. Therefore, any content fork should primarily concern dioceses, such as Sexual abuse scandal in Boston archdiocese for example. It is still possible however to have something about the scandal in Ireland or Australia, because only a small part of it happened there. Regarding financial matters, I have consistently argued that these are to be treated separately from the actual cases of abuse, because it was primarily an abuse scandal and not so much a financial scandal. ADM (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Porn Star
		For your creation of Religious views on pornography and your subsequent cleanup of Anti-pornography movement, I give you this shiny toy. ThemFromSpace 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work! ThemFromSpace 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Historicity of the Acts of the Apostles

While I applaud the idea of having a page on the subject of the value of Acts as historical source, or as a historical book, I am troubled by the title given. It looks ultimately misleading to me.

Indeed, historicity has a clear meaning; see historicity or the entry in the Wiktionary.

Might something like Historical Information in the Book of Acts not be more adequate?

Keep up the good work!

--Dampinograaf (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it misleading ; the historicity of Acts is part of the broader issue of the historicity of the Bible and the historicity of Jesus. To the extent that the book is part of the Bible, it fits in nicely with related questions of biblical historicity. ADM (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that the articles you refer to are different, as reflected in their title. While one is about the historicity of Jesus (a person), the other one —which you refer to as historicity of the Bible— is in fact correctly named the Bible and history. It doesn't make sense to talk about the historicity of the Bible, any more than about the historicity of Acts: their existence has never been in doubt.

--Dampinograaf (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Historicity is not about existence per se, but about historical accuracy, especially when discussing the essence of history. The notion comes from Hegel in his writings about the ability to define truth as it is. Likewise, just because something already exists doesn't mean that it has a pre-determined historical value. On the contrary, historicity is usually assessed by critical philology, as in the ability to survive a critical analysis on the part of scholars. [1] [2] ADM (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What a nice idea to propose a philosophical discussion! But why then remain stuck with old 19th century GWF Hegel? Incidentally, please note that his book on The Philosophy of History does not contain the word historicity. You might want to explore —and profit from— the work of Herbert Marcuse on the same? More recent thinkers such as Hans-Georg Gadamer or Paul Ricoeur certainly offer interesting observations, not to mention the structuralist Jacques Derrida. There is even much material there to complement the page on Historicity (philosophy). (Gadamer points out, by the way, that the enlightenment goal of eliminating all prejudices is a prejudice; it is a prejudice which cloaks our radical historicity and our finitude from us.)

But that is not the point: let us leave the philosophical Spielerei to the philosophers. Is it so hard to simply accept that the word "historicity" has a generally accepted and clear meaning? You might want to refer to a simple and interesting presentation here.

Regarding the two texts you refer to in your last post, I'm sorry to say they do not support your quite contorted "philosophical argument":

• "The Historical Reliability of the Acts of the Apostles": just look at the title… You might even want to rename thus the page on Acts. This interesting article uses the word "historicity" once, and I dare submit that it is a clear case of a slip of the pen!

• The text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission: here we have a nice example of perniciously misleading translation! Indeed, the title of the original Latin document (see here), De Historica Evangeliorum Veritate will be translated by every serious person: "[about] the Historical Truth of the Gospels". I doubt the seriousness of this translation, for it does not even respect the name of the author… Tellingly, the word "historicity" does not even appear in the English text provided (with its own "electronic copyright"!) by the Eternal Word Television Network.

To conclude — I do not want to spend more time to illustrate the obvious — let us respect our words, and use them appropriately. Dampinograaf (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Moral theology of John Paul I

I think you should take certain precautions before claiming that John Paul I was a friend of the LGBT community. There are many pseudo-leftists and pseudo-liberals in the modern world who are also pseudo-homophobes, notably Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il. As the researcher and expert on the talk page noted, much of Lucien Gregoire's writings are at best dubious, they tend to create a white legend on Pope Luciani, as opposed to the black legend on Pius XII. I myself appeared to be convinced that Gregoire's writings on the subject were credible, but now I am much less certain after reading opposing views that suggest he wasn't really ready to make any drastic changes on contraception, and that he was also highly critical of abortion. ADM (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We do need to be very careful in how the article deals with the issues. Considerable doubt seems to have been cast over Gregoire - and we need to do further work to unpick this. To be fair though I've not yet seen anything that strongly refutes what we have in the article. While publicly endorsing the official line on contraception, other sources do seem to suggest that he was personally hoping for a more relaxed line. Luciani's role in adoption rights (including for gay couples) seems to be in the public domain. What we need to firm up are sources around his private correspondence, theses, and private meetings. Let's continue to work on this. I don't think the question is whether he was a friend of gay men and women (I think all priests need to be that), it's more of an issue around whether there was a discernably new approach on matters such as adoption and same-sex unions in contrast to the official line. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Ritter edit June '09

I was surprised to find you'd moved a substantial block of info from Bruce Ritter's entry to a [section in his name] in Sexual abuse scandal in Philadelphia archdiocese. What's the Phila connection? That's not spelled out. I also don't understand the rationale for taking the information out of the individual's entry, if you could explain. Seems part of the individual's legacy. I can see having the overview scandal article, and the individual linked in, but the individuals IMO need to be well documented at the base of the story.

Thanks.Swliv (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I put it into the entry about Philadelphia. I noticed that there was one such Covenant House in that city, which might have been associated to some of the bishops of Philadelphia, although I'm not sure. I guess I'll cancel that particular edit after double-checking on previous motives for making such a change. ADM (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexual abuse scandal in Springfield in Massachusetts diocese

That's all very well, but you are gutting my articles to create other pages with very little information. Tajm (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not your article, it could easily be mine too, but it's not, it doesn't belong to anyone. Also, some of those pages are inappropriate under WP:Attack because they exist only to disparage the bishops. ADM (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, they're not my articles but I either created them or substantially added to them. Why don't you just leave that information on the bishops' pages, as well as the pages you create? Tajm (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that some of the information should be left on the bishops' pages, but that all of the available information should be on the scandal entries, in order to paint a more complete picture of the affairs per diocese. I think this is more constructive than just separating the content into the biographical articles of bishops, because many bishops were involved together in the managing process, and were not just acting alone, as certain narratives would have you believe. ADM (talk)

I'm going to jump in here with a cautious leaning toward Tajm and away from ADM. I'm just off the defense, I'll call it, of the Bruce Ritter article against what (see section immediately above, or at User talk:Swliv, re: Ritter) turned out to be a sort-of wacky move of a block of biographical info into a regional "scandal" report which bore no or only tangential connection (regional or any other) to Ritter. Now, I'm not antagonistic automatically to what is clearly substantial efforts by ADM on this and other subjects, but I raised my own concerns about the favoring of the "regional" v. the biographical approach in the Ritter case, and am building on it here. I add my voice to Tajm's "leave that information on the" bio pages. I hear ADM's response about regional (not to mention national and international) management, and Tajm did not defend against ADM's "Attacks" charge, but I think we all lose if the individual bio pages aren't as strong as they can be. If regional/national/international analyses can link the individuals together, SO MUCH the better FOR SURE, but I'll finish by asking ADM to please be careful and thoughtful about pursuing the regional/diosesal strategy you're pursuing at the expense of the biographies.

I'll also note there's a wierd, invisible-on-the-final-page instruction -- in part "Error:must be substituted ...PRODWarning" -- just in front of my entry, here, and I haven't taken the time to research it.Swliv (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to change too many things, I just want to show that many cases were linked together. It makes more sense to link the cases together than to present them as if they all occured by chance, as if no lessons could be learned from the affairs, like it was all just a coincidence. On the contrary, the records show that the bishops were collaborating together the whiole time on a diocesan basis and were not acting alone, i.e. there was no single bullet like in the JFK assassination case. ADM (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chance or Purpose?

The article Chance or Purpose? has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability of book not asserted. Article is WP:Coatrack for discussion of author's views which are already discussed in his own article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Theo Sandfort, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I put hang-on instead. ADM (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Theo Sandfort. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User talk:Eeekster. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Eeekster (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism if you try to respond to someone. I think you are abusing some of your administrative powers. ADM (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You copied warning templates onto other people's pages. Please don't do that, it causes confusion. Also, neither me nor Eeekster are admins. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just copy-pasted a bit too quickly. I'll be more careful now that you've warned me. ADM (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm guessing you haven't dealt with CSD before? Irbisgreif (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have, but only a few times and it often depends who proposes the CSD, and whether you add the hang-on as a replacement banner or as an extra banner. It's rare that you have two people proposing the CSD at the same time. ADM (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

From now on, don't remove the CSD tag if you made the page. Also, always add hang-on as an extra banner. See you around, and sorry for any misunderstandings. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Protestant denominations, unions, and movements established in the 20th century

Yea, feel free to move 'em to Category:Protestant denominations, unions, and movements established in the 20th century. Most were moved to the parent category by bot-- at my request-- but to move 'em to "Protestant..." needs a little closer look, one by one. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposition in the United States to the Israeli Occupation

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Opposition in the United States to the Israeli Occupation, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between the pro-Palestinian lobby and opposition to the occupation of Palestine ? To me, they just seemed to be equivalent. I noticed on your page that you said you were Jewish. It is possible that as a Jew, you took offense to being labeled as part of the pro-Palestinian lobby, whereas you are just critical of Israeli policies. ADM (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that pro-Palestinian lobby is POV. Some people are opposed to military occupations, whether in Western Sahara, East Timor, Tibet, or the West Bank, without necessarily being pro- anything. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Media bias in the United States

You made an edit [3] that included a quote and a reference tag. However the ref tag seems to be an orphan and is causing an error message: Cite Error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named StephenZunesFPIC.

Stephen Zunes writes that "mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized considerable lobbying resources, financial contributions from the Jewish community, and citizen pressure on the news media and other forums of public discourse in support of the Israeli government."<ref name=StephenZunesFPIC/>

I can't seem to find the source of the quote, maybe you can go back and add the full source to the page. Thanks 75.69.0.58 (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The original quote comes from the article Israel lobby in the United States#Media and Public Discourse, where it is referenced under , although I'm not sure how to make the ref appear properly in the new context. ADM (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And done, I just had to cut & paste the full reference text from Israel lobby in the United States#Media and Public Discourse to Media bias in the United States. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of references

Why do you make edits like this? [4] Its hard for me to see the value of importing text from elsewhere on Wikipedia and then nuking the references. Savidan 16:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This version shows that the references ph36 doesn't show up properly on the article. I figured that the material was already covered in Phayer, 2000, p. 37. and that it didn't necessarily need to be added. See the previous column called media bias in the United States where the same thing happens with another ref called StephenZunesFPIC [5] ADM (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't show up because you imported subsidiary references (they refer to another reference in the original article which you did not import). It would be better practice to fix them than nuke them. You can do this in two ways. One: look at the original article and just copy and paste (in this case you would only have to fix one and the other two would work again). Two: since I was the one that wrote the references, you can usually tell without looking at the article (ph36 means Phayer, 2008, p. 36.). Savidan 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Feminist views articles

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Feminist views on prostitution appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.

I have to say, the Feminist views on prostitution article is one of the most unbalanced articles I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time. The Feminist views on prostitution, while more balanced, is unreferenced and basically factually inaccurate in much of its presentation of sex-positive feminism, and also not entirely accurate in how it presents the anti-porn feminist movement. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the entire article, I just transfered some relevant content in order to create a useful entry, while attempting to write a summary of what was already there.

I don't think it's inaccurate to say that radical feminism is a dominant current among the feminist movement, because it tends to serve as a type of social orthodoxy, as opposed to sex-positive feminism, which has a reputation for heterodoxy. When you examine the different feminist organizations, their leading activists often come from the radical feminist crowd because that group had arguably been the most vocal in its opposition to what it deems to be violence against women.

ADM (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do think its inaccurate, and if you're going to declare sex-positive and sex-worker feminism a minority view, then you damn well better have some sources conclusively proving that radical feminism is the majority view. (This is one of the many contentious statements in the articles in question you've failed to back up with proper references, by the way.) I'm familiar enough with the literature on feminism and pornography to know that such a statement and such a slanting of the article is unsupportable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, lets keep the discussion on the talk pages for the respective articles, and discuss the specifics of article issues in the appropriate place (see Talk:Feminist views on prostitution). I'd rather not go back and forth over 2 user talk pages in addition to the article talk pages. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

God is in the detail

Could you motivate why God is in the detail is being moved around? It semi-breaks links to that page, because users who find the page are presented with its complement rather than what they were searching for. If the other term is as notable as you seem to claim and cannot just be represented in the "variants" section, why not create a new one to avoid the confusion? Also it's left broken as it is with half the article seeming to be about its complement and the other about the original phrase. 85.226.0.106 (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The term God is in the detail is not notable, I am sure. To me, the real expression has always been the The Devil is in the details, which also has more hits on Google. [6] [7] Incidentally, it isn't appropriate at all to replace the the Devil by God when we know that the devil quote is much more widespread. ADM (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) 85.226.0.106 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

Yes, I see now what you were doing with the Chaput article. I just saw a lot of red text, and the article has a history of POV-oriented additions, deletions w/o explanation. Regrets! DavidOaks (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not

I realize we may have disagreements but I would never stoop to such attacks. Tajm (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)