User talk:ADM/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives[edit]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nota praevia (to what?)[edit]

Would you please attend to my request at Talk:Nota Praevia? It's almost a week since I renewed it. Soidi (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A preliminary note is a preliminary note, but there is only one article on Wikipedia that begins with the words Nota Praevia. Likewise, the document Dignitatis Humanae means human dignity, an expression that somewhat resembles human rights, but there is no need to disambiguate that. Dei Verbum means word of God and Musicam Sacram means sacred music, but there is still no problem with that either. ADM (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Adam says, it is unnecessary to have a separate article on something that belongs entirely to the Council's dogmatic constitution on the Church. The constitution is never printed or otherwise presented without this note, which is an official interpretation of certain expressions in the constitution. And the note is found only as an appendix to the text of the constitution, not as an independent document. Soidi (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the merge. It is not the same document as Lumen Gentium because it was primarily written by the Pope and not by the Council. Many senior bishops have never really accepted the existence of the Nota Praevia in the first place because of this. It is a separate issue which pertains to the interpretive controversies which surround Vatican II. Another thing is that we already have twelve independent sources and a wealth of information which exclusively pertain to the Nota Praevia, meaning that it deserves to be elucidated on its own. ADM (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle on Women[edit]

Hi ADM, I've made a lot of changes to your new page and changed its title. Have you got a ref for the Durant quotation on Nietzsche? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part about Durant came from the original Aristotle article, this particular source was not from me in the more recent entry. I would suppose though that the Durant source specifically refers to Will Durant, who is noted for having written the book The Story of Philosophy. It may be another one of Durant's philosophical books however, since I checked The Story of Philosophy on page 86, where it talks about Aristotle but doesn't mention Nietzsche. ADM (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to tie the claim down with a ref, not least because FN has a history of being misrepresented. Ericoides (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this reference is correct, after double-checking the content's history. Durant, Will (1926 (2006). The Story of Philosophy. United States: Simon & Schuster, Inc., p. 86 ,ISBN 9780671739164. Additional references might deserve be added in relation to Nietzsche's view of women though, in order to expand on previous material. ADM (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations vs Criticism of the United Nations : a clear example of content forking[edit]

Please discuss at Talk:United Nations#United Nations vs Criticism of the United Nations : a clear example of content forking. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any merge or deletion, because although the United Nations is an important global institution, it does not satisfy the criteria of a State, but does get criticized by most countries as if it were a real state. See for example criticism of the Roman Catholic Church : the Catholic Church is a quasi-State institution that gets criticized in the same way that the United Nations is criticized. ADM (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is no need to split this 77Kb UN article. Your Criticism article is, in my opinion, a content fork and must be deleted, with its content reinserted in this UN article. I am not discussing the actual content of your article but the fact that, as it stands right now, the UN article conveys the impression that the critics are minor and marginal, which is totally false. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
That's your POV, that the criticism are not marginal. But like you said, we need to keep a NPOV policy. If the criticisms are not marginal, then they are probably notable in an encyclopedic sense, and should consequently be attributed their own entry, such as criticisms of Communist party rule for example. As I understand it, any time criticism becomes a major aspect rather than a minor aspect of an article, there is a legitimate possibility of cutting the article's content in order to include it in the category:criticisms.ADM (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Spousal rape[edit]

Okay, I was just checking. I think it is a good idea to. Have you already added it??? Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 19:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't added it yet, I'd like to find more detailed sources first. ADM (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 19:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion therapy[edit]

ADM thanks for your contribution to this page, sorry for the rather abrupt tone of our colleague editor Born Gay; its hard for him sometimes not to consider it his page as he has done so much work on it. Do continue to add anything you feel relevant to the discussion, as we need a much broader consensus to create a page that reflects the whole field. Hyper3 (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex in the Talmud[edit]

Apart from sex in the Bible, another topic that is arguably controversial is sex in the Talmud. There are all sorts of allegations that the Talmud promotes sexual immorality such as pedophilia and it would be good thing if we could clear up those charges. [1] [2] ADM (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned having an article about sex in the Talmud. See Arayot; this is the Hebrew term for anyone it is forbidden, by Jewish religious law (including the Talmud), to see the nakedness of (ie. have sex with). It hence includes discussion of people it is not forbidden to have sex with.
This article is currently a stub - please help expand it.
In relation to accusations of paedophilia, I'm afraid they don't stand up to scrutiny. The Talmud forbids sexual relations with anyone under the age of 12 (13 for girls), the age which it regards as the 'average' age for puberty. In mediaeval Europe, 12 was regarded as the age at which sex was permitted; in modern Portugal, the age of consent is still 14. Please refer to respected academic sources, rather than self-published websites. Newman Luke (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but please note that I don't necessarly support these strange allegations, I was just looking for reliable documentation about the subject. ADM (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Apostolic Prefecture of the United States[edit]

Updated DYK query On October 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Apostolic Prefecture of the United States, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 05:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eunuch article split[edit]

Hi, ADM, would U please look at how Newman Luke edited the Eunuch article splitting it into Spadone, like WTF is a "Spadone"?! I'm not good at editing Wikipedia or I'd do something myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.89.66.3 (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK to me. ADM (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church and ecumenism[edit]

Please discuss your removal of large sections of material from this page without prior discussion.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is against WP Policy to blank out discussion on your talk page. You may archive it, but may not blank it.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certain people have their own policies for their talk pages. By the way, I was asking you to discuss, not the opposite, so your first comment struck me as a form of insolence. ADM (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uppercase[edit]

Hi, Mariology is uppercase in most places in Wikipedia. So the Pius IX cat should be too. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just copying from category:Pope Pius XII mariology, which was created by user:Ambrosius007. The way I see it, mariology is in many ways related to christology, which doesn't require upper cases, even though the word Christ always requires upper cases. However, I think I should probably admit that you're right, since a random verification on Goggle seems to confirm that this rule extends to most publications outside of Wikipedia. [3] ADM (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think they should both change to upper case. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petrine authorship[edit]

Hi ADM, i notice you recently created the page on the authorship of the Petrine epistles. What has led up to this? I'm currently writing a paper on 2 Peter and Jude and will probably add a few references after my paper is complete. paulgear (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the article myself actually, I just assembled some relevant information that was found in two separate entries, first Epistle of Peter, and second Epistle of Peter. I think it makes sense to distinguish the question of authorship from the general topic of scriptural analysis.
Regarding petrine authorship, while I think it is quite likely that someone like Silvanus wrote the first (and/or second) epistle on behalf of Peter, I don't believe that this removes the fact that the epistles are petrine in character. I'll explain a bit : most modern encyclicals on behalf of the Pope are written by ghostwriters like Silvanus. Caritas in Veritate, Mystici Corporis Christi and Pascendi Dominici Gregis are signed by the Pope, but most of these texts were actually written by his curial assistants and theologians. But that's just how the Church writes its own documents. The same phenomenon would most likely occur for the pauline epistles, by the way.
ADM (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the right way to reply? I find the wiki format rather confusing for personal correspondence back & forward. Anyway, i agree with you on the amanuensis issue. It is interesting that J. A. T. Robinson is almost indistinguishable from John Calvin and most modern Evangelicals on this issue. paulgear (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative way of replying is to send e-mail through the system. Most people on Wikipedia like to reply on their talk pages though because it is often quicker than verifying electronic messages back and forth. ADM (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob M. Appel[edit]

Hey, I saw you posted on the talk page over there. I tried getting Appel's page deleted (twice) because I considered it not noteworthy, but that didn't go so well. I just, as you seem to, find it annoying when some random opinion is attributed, generally at the end of a paragraph in some random article, to this guy (who seems to have some burning itch to be recognized as a... well, recognized intellectual, but I digress).

Anyway, you seem to be more proficient Wikipedia-wise than me, but just to let you know I support your complaint (what can be done/will you do concerning this?). 24.200.159.33 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should leave a message to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard, these people are pretty much in charge of day-to-day maintenance activities, in a sense that I am not. If you agree with me that there is an unusual pattern of link flooding on this page, it might be a good idea to communicate with the noticeboard. ADM (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Emmerich and 2012[edit]

Centralized discussion moved to Talk:2012_(film)#Criticism_of_Emmerich_and_2012

Preliminary Note[edit]

I would be interested in reading your response to Lawrence King's contribution today to Talk:Nota Praevia. Soidi (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing in fact that it is an important part of Lumen Gentium, and while maybe not an entirely separate document, it almost is by account of its different history of literary composition, one for which philologists would normally grant for other notable crypto-documents such as the Q document or the signs Gospel. There is another important part of Lumen Gentium known as subsistit in that has a separate encyclopedic article because of the ecclesiological debates that surround it, debates that are rather similar to this one which concerns primacy and collegiality. ADM (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant his first comment, under "What does the community think?" Soidi (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I would respond the same way. I don't see the point of disambiguating it because there is no possible disambiguation, and I don't agree to merging because it's an important part of Lumen Gentium, much like subsistit in is. And I don't think that subsistit in should be disambiguated either because it is mentioned in other documents than Lumen Gentium, especially in the doctrinal commentaries of Mystici Corporis Christi. ADM (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

evangelical should not be capitalized[edit]

Please see discussion in article and Manual of Style. Ἀλήθεια 17:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commonly use the word Evangelical as a substitute for the word Protestant (which is always capitalized with a P when it is used a noun), primarily because many Protestants have been telling Catholics over the years that they no longer self-identify as Protestants and would rather be called by more specific names like Evangelical or Charismatic. Now, as I understand it, capitalization in English always occurs for nouns like Americans or Canadians, and that the rule is no different for religious groups like Jewish, Christian, Hindus, etc. It doesn't matter if Evangelicals are just a sub-group of Protestants, or if it used as a mere sociological characteristic, because the evangelical persona is a defining trait in what sociologists call the low Church variety of Christians, one that emphasizes on the scriptural aspects of the faith at the expense of its communitarian or liturgical variety. ADM (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way that the term "evangelical" is being used in reference to the Manhattan Declaration, it is not synonymous with Protestant. Very few, if any, adherents to Mainline (Protestant) Christianity would affirm this document. Note that in all three sources used in the article, "evangelical" is not capitalized, consistent with the current wording of the MOS. Ἀλήθεια 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word Protestant, at least when it is used in a historical European sense, like when speaking of Northern Irish, Swiss or German Protestants for example, is not synonymous with the concept of liberal Protestants, because Lutherans, Calvinists and Anabaptists were not really liberal in the modern sense, they were merely dissident Christians who were protesting against the Roman Catholic Church. The problem I guess is that certain mainline/liberal Protestant Churches are claiming the title Protestant all for themselves, alienating many of their Evangelical members in the process. ADM (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to suggest that mainline denominations should hijack the term "Protestant", merely that they are only one group of several that fall into the camp of Protestant. "Liberal" is also not the only defining trait of "mainline", nor does it necessarily distinguish them from "evangelical". However, can we at least agree on the correctness of not capitalizing "evangelical"? Ἀλήθεια 18:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one cannot really comprehend why you are proposing to give the Evangelicals a special status by insisting that only they should not have their peculiar doctrinal faction capitalized, like the Catholics or the Orthodox. It smacks a form of religious exclusivism, as if Evangelical was almost synonymous with Christian. But this would be inappropriate of course if it were carried out with such an intention. In the same way, there is no point in insisting that either Liberals, Socialists or Communists should not be capitalized when we are talking about three different political factions, which are sometimes comparable to religious factions. ADM (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from MOS:CAPS - "Unofficial movements and ideologies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name." Since it is not referring to any officially designated denomination, the term is a simple adjective. I'm not proposing to give anyone special status. I'm proposing to follow Wikipedia guidelines, which in turn follows standard media protocol. Ἀλήθεια 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of that guideline seems a bit misguided, and it is also possible that this particular guideline doesn't take into account the flexible grammatical norms of English, which makes no strict rules as to whether adjectives can be converted into nouns, or whether nouns can be converted into adjectives. I would recommend that you read the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together[4], which repeatedly and insistently uses the word Evangelical with a majuscule in order to point out that such norms either don't exist or are flexible to the point where the author's literary freedom has priority over the philosophical ideals of grammarians. ADM (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in the article you reference, "evangelicals" is part of the title of a document, and thus capitalized in certain uses, but when used elsewhere in the article, usage is split. Many within evangelicalism would adhere to capitalization, but since Wikipedia is NPOV, they do not. In addition, significant evangelical publishers such as Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/december8/7te034.html) choose not to capitalize. Ἀλήθεια 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what documents or guidelines you cite, to me, the grammar rule is the same as for Communists. We speak of the Communist Party, Left-Communists, Communist Manifesto when refering to nouns, but communist associations, communist state, communinist ideals when refering to adjectives. Since Evangelical, like Communist, can be both a noun and an adjective, there is the possibility that capitlization applies in the case when it is a noun. To imply anything else is to insist that nobody is ever an Evangelical, that evangelical is always an adjective and never a noun, which is obviously untrue except if it's coming from a deplorable sectarian position which insists on adjectives instead of nouns. ADM (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter, noun or adjective... see these other sources for non-capitalization of the term "evangelical" and "evangelicalism":

The preponderance of reliable sources consistently use the term without capitalization. If you disagree, let's move this discussion to a central location and take it to WP:RfC. Ἀλήθεια 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of those document proves my point, because Evangelicals is always capitalized when it is a noun, and never capitalized when it is an adjective. The existence of separate capital letters in article titles is the only exception that proves the rule. You should learn to better distinguish nouns from adjectives so that we wouldn't have to have these types of debates. ADM (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that each of these sources demonstrate exactly the opposite of what you posted above (with the exception of The Christian Science Monitor, which is oddly inconsistent between evangelicalism and Evangelicals). Please see RfC on Talk:Evangelicalism. Ἀλήθεια 20:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelicalism is always an invariable noun, so it never gets capitalized, unlike evangelical which capitalizes its nouns but not its adjectives. Only words that vary between adjectives and nouns such as Communists will capitalize their nouns in such situations. ADM (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GMO splits[edit]

Hi, I just wondered why you did this and created 2 new articles when the main article wasn't overly long. I assume you were being WP:BOLD by not templating the article first. Also I think you need to template the articles with these to say that they were split out of the main article. Smartse (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind adding templates, I just find that some of them are too boring and bureaucratic to add. I also find that demanding that the original contributor to an entry be the one who adds all the templates is somewhat counter-productive and un-Wikipedian, since it oftens de-motivates newbies and provokes people into leaving the encyclopedia project. See these recent press articles that talk about bureaucrats who tend to de-motivate bold contributors into slowing down the creation process. [5][6][7][8] ADM (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ADM/Archive_8&oldid=1084028840"