Talk:A Christian Reflection on the New Age

Revert of copyediting

I recently copyedited a portion of the article, and was reverted by History2007. His edit summary claimed that the copyedit made direct quotes not correspond to their sources. History2007, I explicitly did not edit any direct quotes, with the exception of trimming the beginning or end in certain cases. Most of the changes were simple grammar corrections, attributing claims, and tagging. For instance, you reverted my refimprove tag as well, which certainly has nothing to do with properly quoting the source. I'm also confused by your edit summary since the primary section I copyedited contained no sources whatsoever (thus the refimprove tag). Perhaps you'd care to explain your objections further.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You removed the term "bearer of the water of life" which directly appears in the original document. That directly referred to the terms used therein. Moreover, per WP:BRD I had to revert it all, to keep to BRD. And I do not see how your edits improved anything from what there was. In fact they strayed from the Vatican document. And which statements in the article are not supported by the references? One can add the same references to every paragraph, but that would be an overkill. This page is intended and must be a "summary" of the Vatican directive. So it must summarize it as exactly as possible, without general user edits. History2007 (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand WP:BRD, as it indicates nothing of the sort. "Bearer of water of life" appears outside the quote in our article. If it is part of the quote, it should appear within the quotation marks. Further, it doesn't add anything to do our description to include it. You are correct that our intention is to summarize the document, not to republish it word for word. To say "the New Age began 2000 years ago with Christ" adequately sums up the intention without involving unnecessary religious rhetoric. This article includes 4 unique sources, none of which appear in the article body. It seems clear to me that is a problem if this article is to be improved. I still see no indication that I've changed any quotes to no longer match the sources, as your edit summary suggested. Can you give me an example of where I did that, and the quote no longer agrees with its source? As I said above, I also made a number of corrections to grammar and attribution problems within the article, which have been undone. I would assume you don't disagree with those edits, therefore, can you list exactly which parts of my edits you do find objectionable, so I can reinstitute the rest while we discuss? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I understand BRD. And I also know that the process is the other way, in that it is up to you to justify why your edits are an improvement, since you are performing them. And the term "bearer of water" is clearly a key element in the document, so it must remain. And the rest of your edits had problems all over, e.g. the removal of "very much an “either-or” situation" effectively waters down a key point in the document and deviates from its message. So you need to justify why each change is an improvement, given that the burden is on the editor introducing the change. So we can start one by one. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You've reverted my edit with the justification that I changed "direct quotes from the document [which] made them not correspond to source". I am asking you to give me an example of where I changed a quote from the document such that it no longer corresponds to the source. I'm trying to discuss this civilly with you - I'd appreciate it if you returned the favor.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think we have both been very civil. And I did give two examples, the removal of "bearer of water" and "either-or" which were both in the document and are key terms from the document. And there were several places where items in the document were just removed. And some of the items you removed had theological significance, e.g. "worship what you do not know', etc. I think they must remain. And as I said, the rest of the edits need to be justified, the burden being on the editor making the change. Hence, the protocol is for you to justify the changes. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The original passage in question is:

for Christians, the "New Age began 2000 years ago, with Christ", the bearer of the water of life

I removed "the bearer of the water of life", ending the sentence at the end of the quote. You are claiming that this "changed a direct quote from the document which made it not correspond to the source". I didn't change anything in the quote at all, so it should correspond perfectly. Can you explain how it no longer corresponds to the source? Further, what does "the bearer of the water of life" convey to the reader which is not already conveyed in the rest of the sentence? In other words, what about "the New Age began 2000 years ago, with Christ" is insufficient to convey the intended meaning, which is added by the removed descriptor?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what the problem is now. It is two fold:

• Problem 1: Your interpretation of "quote" is different from mine. That is a minor semantic issue and should be ignored. What I meant by quote is what is typed in the article, you seem to think it requires two " symbols around it. That was not what I meant. So with that said, let us not get lost in the minor semantics.

• Problem 2: The document assumes a certain amount of familiarity with the Christian tradition. After all it is a Vatican document. You seem to be assuming that "water of life" has little or no significance. But to readers familiar with the Christian tradition, it is very significant and is one of the "driving forces" of the document - as manifested by its use in the title. Think of it this way, had it not been significant, it would not have been in the title of the document, and been repeated therein a few times. This may help [1]. The significance is that it refers to how Christ brought about the Holy Spirit, etc. and I could type 20 pages on that. So the message therein is that while Eastern meditation may feel it is "connecting" to some cosmic spirit, the assertion of the document, as reflected in the title is that only Christ can deliver that.

So I think you are deleting terms that you may think have no significance, but should realize that if they had not been significant they would not have been used in a document that was written by who knows how many theologians in Rome and they probably debated every sentence 30 times.

I do not really know why we have to waste all this time trying to delete items that appear in the original manifesto. History2007 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We need to delete items that appear in the original manifesto because we are not repeating the entire document word for word. We are summarizing it, and in a context which is legible to readers of a broad demographic who may have not been exposed to Christian theology before. And yes, by 'quote' I mean a passage quoted from the document within the article, not any arbitrary text from the article itself. Quite obviously, changes to the article are going to change the article text. That is not the same as "changing direct quotes from the document", as you put it in your edit summary. The "bearer of the water of life" bit is written in wikipedia's voice, which is a problem in itself. It is also religious rhetoric which is not accessible to a non-christian demographic. As such, if it serves a legitimate purpose in conveying information not contained in the prior quote, then it needs to be rewritten in order to properly convey that information. As it stands, I don't see it serving a legitimate purpose, since I don't understand how the Holy Spirit has anything to do with this article, or with the subject being discussed in that section... and unfortunately, drawing such a conclusion ourselves would probably be a violation of WP:SYN, unless it's stated explicitly in the document. If that is the case, then it needs to be deleted. Of course, please let me know if I've failed to understand what purpose that text serves.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let us do this one step at a time. The distinction of what I mean by quote and what you mean by quote should not even be discussed here. It does not help improve the article. So let us discard that as a discussion issue, before we go on. Do we have an agreement on that? History2007 (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It matters because we're trying to discuss something, and I need to understand your objections to the content in order to address them. The reverse is also true. When you say "changing direct quotes from the document so they don't match the source", that has a clear meaning to me, as I've explained above. If your meaning is somehow different than I've understood it, then we're only speaking past each other, and collaboration is going to be difficult. Nonetheless, the vast majority of my post above dealt with other issues. Could you please address what I've said in those parts? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to move past the semantic intricacies of a "one line edit summary" which has resulted in a marathon discussion in its own right. So do we have an agreement to move beyond the semantics of that and discuss the content issues one by one? History2007 (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss the issues with you, but you're not responding. I don't know what you want me to do. You indicated objections to the removal of the "water of life" wording, and I responded indicating why it was removed. Could you please respond to that? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have been far from inactive. Within the last few hours, given that you said you do not understand what Water of Life may signify here or what the Holy Spirit has to do with this, I wrote the page Water of Life (Christianity).

Now, the first issue is: "Does the article improve or degrade by the removal of the term Water of Life?" I think it is absolutely essential that the term Water of Life should appear within the article, because it is the title of the Vatican directive and appears within its text several times, and is a theologically significant term. You may have thought it was not significant when you removed it, but that is not a correct assumption. The term Water of Life is not religious rhetoric as you stated, but a theologically significant term which has been written about again, and again and again since the 5th century by Augustine of Hippo, as I noted before, as well as Thomas Aquinas and others.

It should be noted that this is a Vatican document, as a directive to Catholics, and specifically to Catholics involved in the work of the Church, as it states at the start. Hence, it assumes familiarity with the Catholic tradition. As we proceed here, I think you should ask yourself two questions that may clarify things for yourself in this context as well as other contexts:

• 1. Did I read the Vatican directive in detail before editing the page that summarizes it?
• 2. How well do I understand the topic that I am discussing? Should I study it more?

I generally advise all editors to study a topic before they write about it. It really helps. Therefore, a careful study of the topic "Water of Life" (now that there is an article on it) and a very careful reading of the Vatican directive would be in order as we proceed. I joked once that I do not try to edit pages on Turkish grammar because I do not speak Turkish. But I think there is truth therein: familiarity with a topic is essential in improving articles about that topic. I specially recommend a careful reading of Section 5 of the document, and the somewhat lengthy discussion therein about the Water of Life and its connotations. I think once one understands that section, the theological significance of the term in this context will become clear. Indeed, I think there is need for an expansion of the article to address that issue further.

In any case, before such expansion takes place, for the moment, a simpler solution may be to just move the " symbol 7 words to the right and say: the "New Age began 2000 years ago, with Christ, the bearer of the water of life" exactly as the document states it. Nothing is gained by truncating the quote from the document regarding a theologically significant term around which the Vatican directive revolves. History2007 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that your suggestion for me to study the topic further was made in good faith and intended as a civil and productive suggestion. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't judge the competency of other editors with whom you've had minimal interaction. Such an attitude will often be seen as patronizing or condescending, and, I think, that is rightly so. Your suggestion to stay within "one's area" also strikes me as WP:OWN. I did not remove the phrase because I did not understand it. I removed it because it does not belong in this article (at least in its current placement). You have asserted, yet again, that "familiarity with the Catholic tradition" is necessary in order to understand the meaning of that phrase, which itself is an admission that it does not belong; As I pointed out above, this article is not written for "those familiar with the Catholic tradition". It is written for the average reader, including those not familiar with Catholic terminology. You still haven't explained what purpose the phrase serves in that sentence which is not served with it removed, except to indicate that you personally believe it should appear somewhere in our article "because it is significant". That point is irrelevant, since I am not arguing that the term should not appear in our article; I am arguing that it should not appear in its current placement and format. If you want to write a section on the term elsewhere, I would support that, but as far as this conversation is concerned, please give me a reason why the term should appear where and how it is now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no WP:OWN issue here, but I would suggest a reading of WP:Competence. In any case, I fully stand by my general recommendation to all editors to "understand first, edit later" for it leads to a better quality encyclopedia.

But I do think this discussion is getting to be laughable, arguing about 8 words. I do not need to justify to you why my preferred version needs to remain, given that it comes directly from the document. However, a better solution will be to just say "New Age began 2000 years ago, with Christ", and then expand the discussion on the significance of Water of Life elsewhere in the article. I will therefore delete this now, but reserve the right to expand the article with a discussion on it later.

Now, I think we can move on to other urgent and important discussions on the issue of your copy edits. History2007 (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While the idea of becoming familiar with a topic before editing is a good one, openly questioning my competence via WP:Competence is inappropriate, considering I haven't done anything in our short interaction to call it into question. Please stay on topic; my familiarity with theology has no place in the discussion. That all said, thank you for removing the phrase. What other objections to you have to my edits? As I pointed out above, a substantial portion of it was grammar and spelling corrections, as well as attribution of various claims. For instance, I changed all special quote characters to simple quotation marks, per MOS:PUNCT, put common words in lower case, such as "energy, soul or spirit", per MOS:CAPS, and attributed controversial claims to the document, such as "claims that it blurs the distinction between good and evil", per WP:NPOV's requirement for attribution.

You've said that you objected to "all of it", but haven't given a solid reason. What problems do you have with these changes? What other problems do you have with the copyedit as a whole? You keep saying things like "now we can move forward with the issues" without elaborating on what issues there are, which forces me to repeatedly ask you to elaborate. Things would go much quicker if you could just give me a list of the problems you have with my edits, as I asked above, so we can discuss them without this back and forth.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The next issue is the unexplained/unjustified removal of the "either-or" statement that is an essential part of the message of the directive. That goes to the very heart of correctly summarizing the directive. The message of the directive is that the two meditation styles can not be combined and that this is an "either-or" situation. The article is not improved by depriving the reader from this aspect of the directive's message. I absolutely object to depriving the reader of a key element of the directive message.

You also removed a reference to Lk 16.13 without any justification. Why should Lk 16.13 not be mentioned in the article, given that it is significant enough to be mentioned in the directive? There was and is not a reason for removing that.

The change of "states" vs "claims" is an obvious tilt towards POV, not away from it. The "document states XYZ" is totally neutral, while claims XYZ places the document in the position of a defendant and is against WP:NPOV. Look at page for Bhagavad Gita. How many times does the word claim appear therein? Three times, and none refers to the Bhagavad Gita, but to the differences among scholars usually. I think it is absolutely clear from the introduction that this is a "directive on matters of faith" and not a scientific paper. Hence "claims" is subjecting it to judgment, while "states" is totally neutral. A reading of WP:NPOV will show that it states (and not claims) that: "certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim is an expression of doubt and can imply that a statement is incorrect." There, WP:NPOV stated it, not claimed it.

I do not, however, object to your change of "recognize" to "recognise". The document alternates between them anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the "either-or" bit because it's redundant, clumsy, and simply bad English. We already say in the sentence directly preceding it that "the document criticizes the view that the Age of Aquarius will replace the Christian Age", and immediately follows it with a quote from the Bible, "No servant can be the slave of two masters", and a further restatement after that about the "effects of choosing for or against Christ". Why do we need 4 sentences immediately following one another, all saying the same thing? Frankly, that whole paragraph should be rewritten to be more compact and direct. If you can think of a better way of doing that, feel free to propose one.

For your second concern, "claim" can be used when referring to dubious assertions shared only by one individual or group. The statement "the New Age attempts to blur the distinction between good and evil" is a dubious assertion, and is unlikely to be shared by any other source. That said, I don't particularly care if we use "claim" or not, as long as it's properly attributed. Currently, we are stating that the Catholic church is criticizing them for doing something. We are not saying the Catholic church is criticizing them for allegedly doing something. The former is a breach of NPOV, as the "doing something" bit is unattributed and unsourced, and stated in wikipedia's voice. I think "the document criticizes the movement, claiming it attempts to blur..." sums it up well, but whatever. If you'd rather say "stating it attempts to blur", I don't have enough of a problem with that to object. In the long run, such claims are going to have to be worded as such, but for the time being, there are so many other problems with the article, it's really no big deal as long as we get the attribution down.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So regarding "either-or" there are no issues of substance to point to, and it is just a question of "redundant, clumsy, and simply bad English". So the remedy is simple, I will explain that more later, because I actually think it needs even more clarification, not less. Overall, this discussion has made me realize the need for further clarification, as witnessed by the creation of a new page, etc. So I will come up with a way to explain this better, via an expansion, not a deletion of the term "either-or" and the reference to Lk 16.13 which must remain there. Other expansions methods for this article, and new subarticles, have also come to my mind now.

Regarding the use of claim, and WP:NPOV, I think we seem to have the conclusion that "state" is the right verb to use. History2007 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph containing "either-or" needs to be cleaned up. Removing the sentence is one way of doing that without changing its meaning. If you want to expand the section with actual new content, that's fine, but until that happens the clumsiness of the section should be addressed. I didn't remove the reference to luke, so your objection that it must stay seems misplaced. Short of making a new proposal for the paragraph, what are your objections to my past revision (which, of course, would be replaced once you got around to making your own 'expansion' proposal)? Also, you did not address any of the other seemingly noncontroversial edits I listed in my Sept 8th, 18:35 reply. What other objections to you have, which we have not discussed, to my previous copyedit? Again, a list would be helpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, one thing at a time. I think the paragraph can a direct quote, namely:

By posing the question: Christ or Aquarius? the document states that the New Age often suggests an alternative vision of reality or an alternative way of improving one's current situation by magic. The document criticizes the view that the Age of Aquarius will replace the Christian Age or that the "New Age offers an alternative to the Judaeo-Christian heritage". Referring to the Gospel of Luke (16:13), the document states:

People who wonder if it is possible to believe in both Christ and Aquarius can only benefit from knowing that this is very much an “either-or” situation. "No servant can be the slave of two masters: he will either hate the first and love the second, or treat the first with respect and the second with scorn. (Lk 16:13)"

That makes it exact and beyond dispute. Right? History2007 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

We're basically quoting a large chunk of the document text there, sometimes inline and sometimes in block quotes, which doesn't seem necessary. That also doesn't address the redundancy issue. I'm also not sure what the second part of the Luke quote has to do with the rest of the text, either, which is why I trimmed it in my copyedit. Rather than simply move the quotes around in that section, I'd either like to see the redundant/unnecessary text removed, or the paragraph undergo a rewrite to be more direct. Mind you, by "rewrite" I mean a proper and concise summary of the text, differing from what we have now. Simply adding more quotes doesn't make our article better. We need to be summarizing the article, and only including quotes where it is appropriate to compliment our summary. If I get the time, I might be able to propose a rewrite - or you could - but until then, what's wrong with removing the redundant bits from our current wording? What do those parts add that is not included elsewhere?   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am really, really impressed by the dramatic impact we are having on the destiny of humanity via our important discussion on the sentence structure of this paragraph. Let us congratulate ourselves. Mind you, an IP can come out of nowhere in 6 months and change it. They always do. Now, why don't you try a rewrite, and I will comment. Or I can agree to trimming the last part of the Luke quote so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

These comments you keep making aren't helpful. Frankly, I don't think my copyedit was in any way controversial, but you insisted on discussion, claiming every single minor wording change was extremely problematic. If you still want to discuss every change one by one, then let's please stay on topic and not keep making little comments about how unproductive this is; I agree it's unproductive, but you seem to want to discuss this, so here we are. If you want this to go faster, please give me a list of the objections you have to my copyedit, and please answer my questions above, so I don't have to keep repeating them over and over. You seem to agree that trimming the Luke quote is acceptable, but haven't addressed the "either-or" sentence. Again, "what's wrong with removing the redundant bits from our current wording? What do those parts add that is not included elsewhere?" If you're okay with both being trimmed until one of us can do a rewrite, then let me know, and we can move on to some other objection you have to my edits.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to suggest a rewrite as I said. I don't know what the redundant bits are now. Your previous version removed the "either-or" part thus weakening the message of the directive. The either-or is the key message of the directive. And by the way, the fact that I said the last part of Luke can be trimmed does not mean that I think it does not have significance in itself. It does, but this is not the place to give a class on it. And in any case, even if these things get reduced, I intend to expand this article further, now that I have come back to focus on it. I had already pretty much forgotten about this article until this discussion made me think through it again. So any trimming here, will probably see expansion elsewhere anyway. There is no Wikipolicy that says I can not expand this article after this lovely, lovely, knowledge laden discussion has concluded. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The redundant bits are the parts I removed in my copyedit, and the ones we're discussing. History, you're still treating this discussion like a battle, which is counterproductive to collaboration. This article clearly needs expansion... I'm not opposing that... however, other parts also need to be trimmed because they are either misplaced, redundant, or improperly written. You still have not answered my questions, except to assert that "it's important". why? What does it add that is not included elsewhere?   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No and no. I am absolutely not treating this as a battle, comedy would be a more appropriate term. And I have explained again and again that "either-or" is missing from your deletion. It is not redundant. It expresses the lack of overlap between the approaches. Now, suggest a new rewrite with either-or in it so we can move on. Are you saying that I am prohibited from using the term either-or in this article although it appears in the directive? History2007 (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We already express that lack of overlap before the sentence, and after. The directly preceding sentence is "The document criticizes the view that the Age of Aquarius will replace the Christian Age, or provides an alternative.", and then after we emphasize it again. What about the previous and following sentences are insufficient about addressing the lack of overlap?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is lost by saying either-or? The edit you have is not clear enough and too brief. I asked you for a suggestion and you have failed to provide a rewrite. In any case, I will expand further with a few paragraph about either-or anyway, so there is no need for this discussion. What should be clear is that an exposition of the directive can not be suppressed in Wikipedia. This is a long and detailed directive and needs to be explained in detail. It can not be telegraphed. So let us do this, I will not object to your edits of this paragraph. I will then start expanding the document, but do not start an edit war on it. And do carefully read the document a few times before commenting on its content. It is laden with theological details. History2007 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The beginning of your response seems to disagree with its end. In any case, what I've gathered from your response is that all my edits that you reverted can be reinstituted, so long as the agreement we made above to change "claim" to "state" is also made. Is that correct? I'll do that now. If you meant something else, please clarify. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that was not the deal I offered. I made a change now, if you accept, we can move on, and I will then expand later, else back to square one. History2007 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so your objections now appear to be down to the refimprove tag, and the inline description of the "Southern Baptist Convention". I added the refimprove tag given that our article is sourced to only 3 secondary sources. I'm actually concerned about the notability of the article, given my search for other sources turning up little that was reliable and sufficiently secondary, and the refimprove tag will hopefully bring in others to solve that problem, as it is intended to do. Are you claiming the article is sufficiently sourced with only 3 sources?

Regarding the Southern Baptist Convention, the description we're using seems to serve no purpose but to improperly emphasize the statements of Richard Land. Considering the SBC has nothing to do with the article, except insofar as Land is associate with it, and considering we're already linking to the SBC's article in describing Land's credentials, it shouldn't be necessary. In addition, removing it trims an already cumbersome sentence (which really should be trimmed further... "Expressing general agreement, Land says he agrees"). Why is it that we need this addition?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you have not moved an inch, and there was no agreement for you to revert. Reinstating. And the document is absolutely notable. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're doing, but this battleground behavior is getting frustrating. I'm doing my best to work with you, but you keep avoiding my questions and refusing to go into detail about your objections, which makes collaboration impossible. You just reverted all the changes that we just agreed upon without stating a reason. Why? Please give me a list of the objections you have to my copyedit, so I can actually address them, and we can move on to doing something productive. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what that link is intended to show. A bunch of hits on google does not establish notability. Please read WP:N. We need actual secondary sources for this article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

First, do not accuse others of battle ground behavior at will. Watch your French Monsieur. You jumped to assume I had agreed, while I had not. You asked: Is that correct? Answer: No. I had given my list above, and it is up to you to justify why it is a crime against humanity to say the Baptist convention is teh largest thing. Why delete that? It is informative. Explain that deletion first. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no accusation. You are treating this conversation like a fight, as opposed to a collaborative effort to improve the article. I'm trying to get you to work with me, and you are not. That is frustrating, and understandably so. I provided a detailed list of reasons in my September 10, 21:59 reply justifying the removal of the description of the SBC and addition of the Refimprove tag, to which you have not responded. Prior to that, there were no outstanding objections to my edit which had not been discussed and agreed upon. Apparently, despite your Sept 10th, 21:25 comment, you still have objections, however, you have yet to give me a list that I can respond to. I am simply asking you to collaborate. To do that, you simply need to respond to my questions about the content so that we can establish a dialogue, and give me a list of other issues you have with the copyedit so that I understand the scope of the problem and can address it accordingly. This back and forth is a waste of time. I very legitimately do not understand what you find objectionable in my copyedit, and until you tell me, we can't make any progress. Please read and respond to my 21:59 reply, and give me a list of other areas of my edits you believe are problematic. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not like that accusation at all. It is absolutely not true. And your statement about SBC "... it shouldn't be necessary. In addition, removing it trims an already cumbersome sentence (which really should be trimmed further" is just your personal opinion of what you consider cumbersome, not a factual statement or error in the article. All this is based on the application of some "cumbersome meter" I have not seen calibrated. So that was no explanation. You have pointed out no factual errors whatsoever in the article. Let me say that again: You have pointed out no factual errors whatsoever in the article.

Now in view of the battleground accusation, which is untrue, I am invoking WP:CALM for a day or so, so calm can be achieved. Then we will go from there. And let me again say that: You have pointed out no factual errors whatsoever in the article. Period.History2007 (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You skipped all the rest of my multiple replies in favor of quoting just the end of one section of one issue. I'm not sure why you did that. Once again, you're not answering my questions, or providing me any solid objections to my copyedit. As I stated above, the SBC's description "serves no purpose but to improperly emphasize the statements of Richard Land". This serves to place undue emphasis on his opinion. It has other problems too. Please explain what purpose the description serves which is not already handled by a wikilink, and why we should be describing the SBC in this article at all. You may, of course, take a day break if you feel so inclined; there's no deadline getting these edits in. However, you still have yet to provide any objection to my copyedit which I can address, or even discuss the bulk of the changes you reverted. As such, it would seem appropriate for you to at least give me a reason for the revert before leaving the discussion. Come back when you have a level head about all this, and we can work on any remaining problems.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I thought about it. I do not need a day. This discussion is laughably trivial. And let me again say that: You have pointed out no factual errors whatsoever in the article. I will therefore revert to your version. Then I will expand, add 10 more secondary references, remove the refimprove flag and move on. This debate has been laughably trivial. History2007 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed to fix any factual errors. It was a copyedit; I didn't set out to change the meaning of anything in the document whatsoever. Anyway, your response above clearly indicates that you're comfortable with my version, so I'm going to revert to that. If I've somehow managed to misunderstand you, then please provide some kind of solid objection to my edits so we can have a reasonable discussion. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this has been truly edifying.... I just love deep insightful discussions... History2007 (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability of this article

Regarding the notability of this article, I would like to make it simple:

• A major newspaper, i.e. the Los Angeles Times and a major news organizations i.e. the BBC News have covered this. EWTN has also. It is notable by that alone.

• There are at least 10 books that refer to the document. That makes it notable.

This document is notable. Period. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We have only three secondary sources used in the article. Not everything the BBC or some city's newspaper cover necessarily warrants its own article. Even if the content is notable enough to be included in an article somewhere, a merger might end up being most appropriate. I'm undecided as of yet, but regardless of any of that, we still need reliable secondary sources cited in the article. If it's so easy to find reliable sources mentioning it, then including them in the article will solve the notability and refimprove discussion altogether. Right now, the article is dramatically lacking secondary coverage.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that statement is flatly incorrect. Read WP:N. Notability has nothing to do with refimprove. Read WP:N: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". So, read WP:N, then respond. Again: please, read first, type later. That will help. History2007 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What statement is incorrect? I never said that article content is the same as notability; perhaps you misunderstood me. Notability is established by reliable secondary sources, which we are currently lacking. A refimprove tag is typically added to encourage editors to add reliable secondary sources. Therefore, adding reliable secondary sources will address both the need for a refimprove tag, and any notability concerns. Adding reliable secondary sources to this article can't possibly be a bad thing... so what's the contention?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to try and read it to you again now. Read WP:N again yourself. I will just add 10 more secondary sources later and move on. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what part of my comment you disagree with (that notability is established by reliable secondary sources?), but whatever the case, adding 10 more reliable secondary sources would be fantastic. Please do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, will do. History2007 (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)