User talk:EastTN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

It doesn't look like you ever got a proper welcome to Wikipedia, so I'm taking the liberty of posting one here, right on top. I think you already know a lot of this stuff, but I appreciated getting welcomed, so I'm passing on the welcome letter I received:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Sorry if some of that is too elementary for you by now. Btw, I really liked your proposal for the Happiness article. Be bold in editing! Also, you might want to add something (here's one possibility) to your userpage; it may give your edits more weight. (For some people, a redlinked userpage says "Newbie! Don't take his comments as seriously as you would otherwise!") -DoctorW 04:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And thanks for the advice about the user page - I'll plan on doing that as soon as I get a chance. EastTN (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

March 2008[edit]

WikiThanks

Just a note to say thank you for your many excellent contributions to health care articles, and for being the voice of reason in discussions that can be somewhat contentious. Too many people on Wikipedia only use talk pages to criticize, warn, or complain about something, so I just wanted you to know that your good work is noticed and appreciated. --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! (Really, thank you - I've taken you as something of a role model.)EastTN (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Universal health care debate section[edit]

Please have a look at the poll section in Single-payer health care. While it's great that you are adding reliable sources to the cons in the universal health care article, it appears that more recent polls (2007) may show stronger support for tax increases and for single-payer than the 2005 research you pulled from. --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. I wanted to bring in the 2005 Bodenheimer article because it was one, written by a liberal who has an unusually clear understanding of other points of view, and who talks pretty explicitly about the limitations of polling data on the issue. The polling data he quotes "76 percent agreeing that access to health care should be a right," "72 percent of U.S. adults, including 51 percent of Republicans, agreed that the government should provide universal health care even if it meant repealing most of the Bush administration’s tax cuts," and "Sixty-one percent of those who supported health care as a right viewed it as a moral as well as a political issue." I think those are reasonably comparable with the results in the poll section in Single-payer health care. He goes on to say:

"One caveat concerns the impact of taxes on public opinion. A 1994 survey found that fewer than half of respondents would pay more taxes to finance universal health insurance. A 1993 survey found that 64 percent were willing to pay more taxes for that purpose. Many respondents balked at paying even the tiny sum of $100 per year. Lawrence Jacobs and Robert Shapiro contend that when respondents were informed of the benefits the taxes would finance, support for tax increases of $40 per month reached 41 percent. If respondents were told that increased taxes reduce out-of-pocket health care payments, more than half were willing to pay an additional $1,000 a year."

That's what I was trying to characterize with the sentence "There is, however, much more limited support for tax increases to support health care reform." There may be a better way to say it, and we may need to bring in more sources. One critical point here is that most polling doesn't get at the magnitude of the taxes that would be required, and the way the question is structured and the magnitude suggested for the taxes (if any) can dramatically affect the results. Unless there's a crystal clear connection between higher taxes and a net, overall reduction in spending, people quickly change their minds when the taxes suggested get larger.
I wanted to bring in the 2001 Blendon & Benson article because it has a nice historical overview of polling data going back, in some cases, to the 1960s. Some of the things that caught my eye were:

In the twenty-two years the first question has been asked, more than 80 percent of Americans have reported that they are satisfied with their last visit to a physician (Exhibit 7). Also, confidence in ability to pay for a major illness has improved over the years. Despite the increase in the number of uninsured Americans nationally, the proportion reporting such confidence has risen from 50 percent in 1978 to 67 percent in 2000. This improvement in financial confidence may be related to more comprehensive insurance and increased benefit coverage for the insured population, or it may reflect the effects of increased family incomes and assets that could be drawn upon in case of large medical bills.

In 1964, the year before Medicare and Medicaid were enacted, only one-fourth of Americans expressed distrust in the federal government (Exhibit 8). When the Clinton health plan ultimately failed in Congress in 1994, distrust of the federal government had risen fifty-four percentage points. These same years have also seen a decline in public support for government regulation of the private sector. In 1964 only 43 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that the government has gone too far in regulating business and the free enterprise system. This figure rose to 60 percent in 2000. Americans are clearly less willing today to see expanded government regulation in general than they were during the 1960s. Similarly, in 1961 only 46 percent of Americans thought that their federal taxes were too high. This figure rose to 69 percent in 1969 and stood at 63 percent in 2000.

Americans hold many beliefs that are consistent with a general view of what is right or wrong about health care in the United States. However, it is striking to see how many conflicting views the public holds on health policy issues. On the one hand, Americans report substantial dissatisfaction with our mixed private/public health care system and with the private health insurance and managed care industries. A majority of Americans indicate general support for a national health plan financed by taxpayers, as well as increased national health spending. On the other hand, these surveys portray a public that is satisfied with their current medical arrangements, in many years does not see health care as a top priority for government action, does not trust the federal government to do what is right, sees their federal taxes as already too high, and does not favor a single-payer (government) type of national health plan.

Because Americans do hold many conflicting values and beliefs that affect their views on health care policy, it is important to be cautious in interpreting the public mood based on single, isolated public opinion questions. To be a useful guidepost for policymakers, opinion surveys require enough depth in their question wordings so that respondents can work their way through their conflicting values and beliefs to come to judgment on the issue.

I may have done a terrible job of summarizing all this (and may have tried to over-condense it), but I think there are some important insights here. It's easy to be baffled by the apparent disconnect between high poll numbers supporting some form of health care reform, and the lack of any political momentum towards the kind of national health system we see in other countries. I don't 'think' any of this is inconsistent with the other polling data we have in these articles, and if we can get it described right, it may help people understand what those poll results mean a bit better.
I really don't want to mis-characterize the polling data. Do you see a better way to handle this? I just think it's misleading to have polling data that suggests the vast majority of Americans want a national health system, and leave readers wondering why that doesn't have more impact on our political system. EastTN (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of Criticism of atheism[edit]

Thanks for your delete of the merge template on Criticism of atheism. It had passed its use-by date and it just needed someone to be bold and remove it. -- Jmc (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It was my pleasure! EastTN (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Churches of Christ efforts[edit]

Christian Barnstar.png The Christianity Barnstar
For your efforts to properly source contentious doctrinal materials within Churches of Christ and related articles, braving the hornets' nest of potential criticism, and thereby improving the article substantially. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! EastTN (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I also applaud your work. I have watched your massive edits. now I need to read the entire article, again. Great Job! John Park (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! EastTN (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole principle of the Restoration Movement was to move away from "secondary sources" written by men and going back to the Bible. While I, too, commend your efforts to move the article in a more scholarly direction, I cannot respect your idea and practice of deleting accurate information simply because it's backed by the Bible and nothing else (2 Tim. 3:16-17). When it comes to church doctrine and beliefs, secondary sources are just that: secondary. Especially when compared to the only true source, the Bible. As a member who studies and knows the Bible well enough to have written material myself, and who is active in teaching others, I didn't feel an overwhelming need to cite secondary sources in order to educate inquirers on what the Lord's church believes and practices (2 Tim. 4:2-5).--Slim Jim (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevant principle here isn't that of the Restoration Movement, but WP:V. That is, Wikipedia is not a Church of Christ website, and it Wikipedia expects secondary sources for every article. Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Slim Jim, I'm sympathetic to your concern, but we do need to work within the established rules for Wikipedia. And honestly, I don't think they're inappropriate here. This article isn't trying to teach the Bible - it's trying to explain what members of the churches of Christ teach about the Bible. We have to go to secondary sources to document that. To be very blunt, you can tell us what you teach, but how do we document that what you say about a particular verse is representative of what members of other churches of Christ would say about it?
To your more direct point, I do think there's a way to bring in scripture references and stay within the bounds of Wikipedia - what we need to do is find good secondary sources that say "churches of Christ generally teach X, based on their understanding of verse Y." Of course, if we do too much of that, it may make the article too detailed for the general reader. Also, I think you'll find that if you chase down the sources we cite, they do include all of the scripture references. Look at the Baxter articles Who are the churches of Christ and what do they believe in? and Neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jew for instance. Links to on-line versions of both are provided in the footnotes. Bottom line, we're going to get an article that people take more seriously if we provide solid citations to prove that we're accurately reporting what most churches of Christ do and say. EastTN (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism and Sam Harris[edit]

J/w if you thought that Harris' comments about it being ethical to kill some believers would fit on his article as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. There is a Criticism and debate section on that page where it would seem to fit. The other place where it might fit would be the article on The End of Faith. The Bunting quote is already in that article in the Response section, but not the Catherine Keller quote. What do you think? EastTN (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I added the quotes to both pages. Thanks for the response.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GBN in Churches of Christ[edit]

Muaahahaha... you beat me to doing ALMOST THE EXACT SAME EDIT: move to the bottom of see also, trim verbiage. :-) Great minds think alike and whatnot. I did a double take trying to figure out the edit conflict. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That is weird! EastTN (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism#Remove the entire psychological section[edit]

You may want to comment on Talk:Conservatism#Remove the entire psychological section. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! EastTN (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that several editors wish to delete the "Psychological research" section of Conservatism without discussion. As you had been involved in this discussion I would welcome your comments at Talk:Conservatism#Psychological Research? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks For you great spirit and hard work[edit]

I just want to affirm my appreciation for all you have done to improve the Campbell / Stone family of articles. It is an honor to collaborate with you. I respect your work and your gracious spirit. You balance my partisan POV and I hope perhaps that my POV contributes to a collaboration the will give us a balanced NPOV by the time we are finished. I would love to see all 4 of the main articles become Feature Articles of about 30KB each. I really do appreciate that your energy on the CoC article ended the Edit war there. (I'd like to think my challenging some arrogant Wiki purist types help set the tone.) Perhaps it did. I wish I had more time to edit, but professional responsibilities and family responsibilities greatly limit me. John Park (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I have greatly enjoyed working with you as well. You have definitely helped strike a positive tone, and I appreciate that. It's a pleasure working with someone who combines strong opinions with a respect for other people. Iron sharpens iron; we all need each other. EastTN (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism[edit]

Some anons are rearranging the counterarguments as well as adding POV and OR. Maybe you could give it a look if they revert it again and tell me if what they are doing helps or detracts from the article? Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Churches of Christ Article -- more use of Scriptures[edit]

I had an inquiry on my talk page that might be of interest to you. I am not sure if the editor who raised it will bring it to Talk:Churches of Christ or not. He is not very experienced with wiki environments but seems to love the church. I want to encourage him to be involved. When he edited before, he entered the fray amid a big edit war. John Park (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. How would you suggest I might be best able to help? EastTN (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response to Mark. It is a good explaination. Let's see how he responds. John Park (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Single_payer health care[edit]

I did not think that you had cropped that section deliberately. I hope you didn't think that.

I grant that some sections are without reference but these days it is hard to get references for things that are as uncontroversial as taxation paying for health care, as is the case in most European countries. Decisions to use taxation (or earnings related compulsory contributions to non-profit sickness funds) were taken 50-60 years ago in most countries in Europe and though they were no doubt commonly discussed in newspapers of the time, little survives in print and there is very little on the internet these days (and none of that is of course original source material). Britain went thru the arguments that the US is going thru now in the twenties and thirties (i.e. 80-90 years ago) but did not act on the issue until after the war in the late 40s. I can recommend to you the book "In place of fear" by Aneurin Bevan which I borrowed from the library recently (as an example of how the Brits dealt with health care reform after the second world war) and the A J Cronin book about shocking medical practices in the twenties and thirties (not dissimilar to those in the US today) in England and Wales (the name of the book escapes me, but it was very influential and led to a great wave of feeling for reform).--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't think that, but I did want to explain what had happened. (But thanks for taking the time to make that clear.)
I understand the desire to add content even if we don't have the sources readily at hand. I do believe the sources are available, though. This is not the first time the U.S. has gone through a major health care reform debate - we went through the same fire drill in the mid-1990s. I spent several months studying the various European systems at that time, and there was an extensive literature discussing not only how the systems worked, but goals, advantages and disadvantages of each.
It doesn't seem obvious to me that the conclusions drawn the the U.K. 50 years ago are necessarily correct for the U.S. today, or even that all of the arguments are still applicable. There have been very significant changes in the economy, society and medical technology over that period of time, to say nothing of the different political systems involved. At the very least, the nuances of the debate are going to be very different in the U.S. in 2009 than they would have been in Europe in the late 1940s. That's one reason I believe it's critical that we source what we say - it's a way of keeping ourselves honest, so that we don't simply write what we personally believe to be true (and please understand, I'm not directing this at you personally - I'm trying to apply the same sourcing standards to what I write).
Don't get me wrong - I do believe there are lessons the U.S. can learn from Europe, Japan, Canada, etc. But at the end of the day, they may not be the same lessons a European, Japanese or Canadian might draw - and the solution ultimately adopted will of necessity be shaped by our political system and society.
I'll try to run down the sources you mention - they do sound interesting. EastTN (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to be aware of a recent article renaming[edit]

You have previously contributed to this article United States National Health Insurance Act which was renamed on Wikipedia recently as United States National Health Care Act.

Your watchlist has been automatically updated to point to the new title without your knowledge.

You may not have been aware of the article rename that took place recently because the rename was not discussed in advance.

A discussion is ongoing at the moved talk page as to whether the article should be renamed back as it was. You may wish to make your opinion known.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I'm afraid this one may be above my pay grade, though. Proposed legislation, when it's introduced, includes a formal title that usually ends in "Act". On the other hand, until it is enacted, it is a proposed act or a "bill". In the news you see the usage the "proposed . . . act" and the "Republican/Democratic . . . bill". I'm honestly not sure which usage would be better for Wikipedia. EastTN (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of this CfD[edit]

Please be aware of this CfD to rename Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement to either

Request for assistance[edit]

I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Russell's teapot[edit]

Hi,

I've noticed that you've been a contributor to the Russell's teapot page and its discussion page. I've recently added a criticism section and removed the Dawkins quote but editors keep reverting my changes, essentially giving no reasons except that I'm not credible since I only edit at one article.

If you have time, could you weigh in on the talk page? Thanks.TylerJ71 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Saw you editing the Roland J. Green article[edit]

Are you by chance an SF fan? If so, do you go to Chattacon? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure am! No, I haven't had a chance to go to Chattacon. Do you? EastTN (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I am the only person who has attended all 34 Chattacons; this coming one (January 22-24) will mark my 35th. (Good trick, considering I live in Milwaukee.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm impressed - that is quite a trick! I was going to give the excuse that I'm no longer living in the area, but you've totally taken that one away from me now. EastTN (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Movements[edit]

I saw your edit of Restorationism. WP:MOS gives guidelines about doctrines and movements: "Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter unless the name derives from a proper noun (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper noun (lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to one of several specific political parties or ideologies, such as the US Republican Party or Irish Republicanism). Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas (as distinguished from specific events) capitalized by some religious adherents are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin, or transubstantiation." I have noticed that many article on religion use capitalization of many nouns that should be lower case, whereas this practice is discouraged in the manual. Please let me know your judgment, as a look at many articles show inconsistencies. Thanks. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue in this case that the term "Restoration Movement" has "become a proper noun," much like the "Protestant Reformation." So, lowercase "reformation" can be used to refer to any movement that tries to reform an existing church or other institution. The upper case Protestant Reformation (and often just the "Reformation") describes a particular reform movement from the 16th century. Similarly, many religious movements have had restoration of the primitive church as a goal, and can be described as "restoration movements." But the upper case "Restoration Movement" (a.k.a. the "American Restoration Movement" and the "Stone-Campbell Movement") refers to a particular movement that originated around the turn of the 19th century. Lower case "reformation" and "restoration" are both doctrinal topics rather than specific events; the "Reformation" and the "Restoration Movement" are both specific movements originating in a particular time and place. Both terms are used as proper nouns in the histories that deal with those movements. This is exactly parallel to the example of using lower case "republican" to describe a particular type of political thought, and upper case "Republican" to describe a specific party or ideology.
I believe that if you look carefully at the apparent inconsistencies that you mention in the religion articles, you'll find that many disappear when you make this distinction. There have been a great many groups, movements and ideologies that have been given proper names by church historians and others which are based on doctrinal or other characteristics that are, in other contexts, used as common nouns or adjectives. So, for example, "pilgrim" is a perfectly good common noun, but we also have the "Pilgrims" who settled Massachusetts; "congregationalist" is a perfectly good lower case noun or adjective describing someone who supports a particular form of church organization, but we also have "Congregationalists" who are members of a particular family of denominations (which also happen to be lower case "congregationalists"); "presbyterian" is an adjective that can be used to describe a particular form of church organization, but we can also have the "Presbyterian" church; and lower case "catholic" simply means "universal," but we can also ask "is the Pope Catholic?" EastTN (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Christianity article[edit]

Hi. You just reverted an edit if mine which reverted a long-established consensus to a version added, without discussion, a few days ago. Please would you undo your own revert. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

DJ, I think you'll find that the long-standing consensus may be different than what you're thinking. The structure that I reverted to is found in the version from November 1 of 2008, a similar structure was in the version from August of 2008, and a totally different structure - "mainstream" versus "ecumenism" was found in the version from December of 2007. There simply is no long-standing consensus structuring this "divisions" section of this article around the big three of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. EastTN (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
To clarify - and I made similar points on the talk page of the article - I do not believe we should have a "Restorationist" category. I do believe we need some sort of "Other" category, though, to accommodate groups that are notable but that do not fit into the buckets of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. EastTN (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care reform in the United States[edit]

Hi. Thanks for catching this, which missed my attention when dealing with the Shona Holmes issue. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem - I miss stuff all the time. EastTN (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Churches of Christ/GA1[edit]

We've finally got a GA reviewer! Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that - and they seem to be doing a very thorough job. I'm a bit busy today, but I'll jump in as I can and start trying to address the issues. I should be able to spend more time tomorrow, and with any luck some serious time over the weekend. EastTN (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many edits[edit]

Information.svgThank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Churches of Christ, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Instead of making 31 small edits, why not consolidate them down, at least by section? After each change, you could use the Preview button to see how it looks rather than spamming my watchlist full of every last one of your many miniscule changes.
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs) 01:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Garrett, I apologize if I've caused any inconvenience for you. I do try to use the preview button consistently, but I still find that I make mistakes on occasion. As for my recent edit patterns, we're trying to polish the article as part of a GA review. Perhaps if I had more experience with this I could do it a bit less incrementally. In any event, we seem to be getting towards the end of the process, so you should see the number of edits to the article dropping off. EastTN (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the peaceful and kind response. I apologize if I came across too harsh; it's just an annoyance.
I am aware that you were working toward GA, and I do appreciate your efforts – it looks like they were a success!
On a separate note, while looking through all those changes, I noticed you made some punctuation changes, moving periods to the inside of the quotation marks, and then moving them back. Moving them back was correct, and just in case you didn't already know this, I checked the style manual for something to back me up, and found this, in case you're interested. Cheers
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs) 02:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. I was trying to follow the suggestion of the reviewer here. Honestly, my preference is to place the periods within the quotation marks, but copy editing punctuation is not something I'm inclined to arm wrestle people over. EastTN (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm just curious – are you a member of the church?
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs) 02:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. EastTN (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Sweet, me too. Face-smile.svg
-Garrett W. (Talk / Contribs) 02:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Whereas I'm a Quaker refugee from Henderson, Tennessee (home of Freed-Hardeman) and the CoC powerbase there; but I've tried to do what I could in good faith to edit CoC-related articles over the years, since so many Americans have never heard of them, or confuse them with the United Church of Christ!. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I take it that you made it our of Henderson? I'm sure it's a lovely place, but I've always found west Tennessee a bit flat for my taste.EastTN (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

your article edits[edit]

I agree with your points made at Talk: Global warming. Please feel free to keep me posted. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will. EastTN (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Asking on Talk:Global warming how to summarize the sources seriously isn't smart. It's like a begging, and the editors there are annoyed at how you won't go away. I don't buy into that, but look: the article talk has too much noise, I'll help you summarize here or on my talk. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right. To be honest, I'm more than a bit annoyed myself at this point, and that may be affecting my responses. What I was hoping to get on the talk page was an agreement in principle that the issue was within the scope of the page, and start a useful discussion of what the sources had to say about it. I'm going to say something to that effect there, then back off for a bit. After that, I may take you up on your kind offer.
Thanks, EastTN (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
My recent post there:

We don't, as a matter of fact, report on scientific matters using newspapers as sources. We're never going to do that. No good encyclopedia ever has, or ever will, do so.

hmmm. ok. well, this article already uses USA Today, the Guardian, Newsweek and other similar periodicals as sources, among others. so I think this is an issue where we can all try to show some flexibility.
I think you mean that we don't report on actual SCIENCE using newspapers; if there is a legitimate news EVENT which relates to a scientific MATTER, such as a political or regulatory ruling, then we would use newspapers.
I don't think it's helpful to outline some blanket rule which eliminates a whole set of sources. There are many Wikipedia entries on science which do use newspapers as sources; this entry already does so as well. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Steve, were you perhaps thinking of TS? I didn't make that statement. EastTN (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... wrong guy. If you want to start listing the sources and what you think of each, that's a first step. All this is up to you, of course. Here's my word of advice: if you want change, change has to start with you. After the long discussion, it's only my opinion of course, but I think it'll be wise to start rethinking how you're going to address the situation. Rather than going at it and going at it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree (and I appreciate the advice). That's where I wanted to go, but every time I said that here are some reliable sources that seem to present a good analysis suggesting that the incident is already having an impact on the public debate, the responses were either a) that's outside the scope of the article; b) newspapers aren't reliable sources for a science article; or c) no, that's impossible, it's too soon. No matter what I said, I was never able to get anyone to actually engage in a discussion of the sources. That's what's been frustrating me. It's a problem I haven't encountered even with other highly contentious articles like Criticism of atheism and Criticism of religion.
At this point, I'm inclined to give up. I don't know why the editors on the global warming pages, as a group, seem to react the way they do. It may be because they assume that anyone wanting to discuss the debate is a flat-earther warming denier. They may even have histories that suggest to them that the assumption makes sense and is a useful rule of thumb. But I don't enjoy the constant implication that I am a flat-earth warming denier out to push anti-science propaganda. It also seems to make it difficult, if not impossible, to get to a useful discussion of what the sources have to say about how climate skepticism affects public opinion and the political process. Honestly, right now I'm wondering if I need the grief. There are lots of other articles on Wikipedia where I can make useful contributions.
Having said all that, I do appreciate your taking the time to provide your insights and advice, and to allow me to vent a bit. It was a very gracious thing for you to do. EastTN (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not explain this into an excuse, but understanding is a mutual endeavor. You didn't have to deal with 473 confirmed sock puppets, a standing 133 suspected, and a undetermined undetected number beyond. You placed principals over product, an encyclopedia is a product, and realize which comes first. If you can make useful contributions elsewhere, then you are expected to do so. However, I've seen a lot of editors use that as an excuse to rethinking their approach when their ego's shot. Look, if you want me to write the proposal, I'll be happy to do so; but your replacement text better be good. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a history that explains the reactions, and I might well react the same way had I had the same experiences. However that may be, those reactions can make trying to work with the page a frustrating and unpleasant experience. I do understand, and I'm not attacking anyone or accusing anyone of bad faith. If I've done either in the heat of the moment, I'll be glad to apologize. Dealing with hundreds of sock puppets would frustrate the life out of me, I'm sure. But, like most people, I work with Wikipedia not just because I think it's a useful thing to do, but also because I enjoy it.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by "[i]f you can make useful contributions elsewhere, then you are expected to do so." All I was trying to say with the statement "[t]here are lots of other articles on Wikipedia where I can make useful contributions" is that there are many other articles that I can work on that will be more enjoyable and where my efforts will be more productive, and that it might make more sense for me to spend my time on them.
Again, I appreciate your insights, and your kind offer to help. It may seem to you that I'm making making an excuse - and perhaps I am - but I think it may be best on several levels for me to leave the pages associated with Global Warming alone for now. Given what has been said (by me, as well as everyone else) and the reactions on all sides, I suspect that at this point I would not be the most effective voice for improving the article. There are also some other dynamics on the page that seem to me to get in the way of improving the article. I may change my mind - if I do, your kindness and consideration will be the reason. But for right now, my sense is that my Wikipedia time could be more profitably spent elsewhere. (And if that is a cop-out or an excuse, perhaps getting some distance from the discussion will let me see that.) EastTN (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Got a few questions for you. Please answer. ChyranandChloe (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) How well do believe the central points of your comment got through?

(2) Is the failure of the discussion due more to the circumstances of the discussion, specific editors, or yourself?

(3) How certain (accurate, true) where you when you wrote your first comment describing what you believed the other editors should do?[1] Later ones?[2]

(4) Do you believe your comments were interpreted erroneously?

(5) How well do you think you expressed yourself?

(6) How well do you believe that other editors listened to you?

ChyranandChloe, I appreciate your interest in trying to coach me, but I think you've fundamentally misunderstood me. I did not intend my comment to "[describe] what [I] believed the other editors should do." I joined into an already ongoing discussion of the notability of the incident supporting the suggestion that the incident should be mentioned [3]. That was the sum total of my position - that there were sufficient reliable sources to justify a couple of sentences mentioning the incident and linking to the main article. If you go back and look carefully at the later edit that you highlighted, that's all I did there as well [4]
"I am convinced, though, that the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident has already become a notable part of the debate . . . Beyond that, we're already seeing thoughtful analysis of how the incident is playing out in the public forum: [list of example sources] . . . How it should be summarized, and just how long that summary should be, are things we should talk about. But the idea that this particular incident is not notable is becoming less and less plausible."
I never asked any editor to do anything more than agree to talk with me about how we might be able to cover it in the article. It's clear that something I said gave you the impression that I was implicitly begging other editors to summarize the sources for me. That was not my intent, and I'm not sure what I said that gave you that impression. Whatever it was, I apologize for it. But my intent was purely to give specific reliable sources to support my assertion that the incident was worth talking about in the article.
Did my main points get through? People understood that I wanted to add something to the article about the CRU incident. Beyond that, I don't think so. You thought I was implicitly saying hey, here are some sources, why don't you guys go write something up for me. Many of the other editors seemed to assume I was trying to inject an anti-science POV. As far as I can tell, virtually no one took it seriously enough to ask whether the sources did suggest this was becoming notable, or ask what it was I thought should be said - we never could get past the "nope, there's no evidence that it's notable" stage.
I really have no axe to grind on global warming. I noticed that the new article on the CRU incident had been created, took at look at what linked to it, and thought it would be useful to spend a few minutes building the web. Here are my initial edits [5], [6], [7], and here are the responses Template_talk:Global_warming#Link_to_article_on_the_Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident, Talk:Index_of_climate_change_articles#Link to article on the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, Talk:Global_warming_controversy#emails. (If you are concerned that I may be pushing an anti-science POV, you can take a look at the third of my initial edits, which was made to the Global warming controversy page and was intended to summarize what we knew as of November 25th [8]) On the Global warming article, I joined the discussion on the side of inclusion, with the results you've seen.
Yes, I still think the incident is worth mentioning. I think there are sources that analyze its effect on public opinion and politics in a neutral way (and I've offered some up). Could I have handled this better? Sure. Are there reasons other editors on this topic might be touchy? Absolutely. But in all honesty, I've found more openness to sources with opposing points of view and less group-think among among the Christian editors on the Criticism of Christianity page and the atheist editors on the Criticism of atheism page. Is that fair? Possibly not - but it does accurately reflect my experiences as I perceive them.
Once I disengaged myself from the argument on the Global Warming talk page, it gave me a chance to step back and think about it. Rightly or wrongly, it seems to me highly unlikely that anything useful would come from my continued involvement - and if it did, it seems certain that the end result wouldn't be worth the effort. There are times in life when the best thing, all around, is to say something polite and walk away. In my judgment, this is one of those times, and that's what I have tried to do (see [9]). EastTN (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Arbitration Committee Elections[edit]

We need to contact you privately to discuss a potential issue with your vote in the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, however you do not have email enabled in your preferences. Could you please get in touch, either by email to happy-melon@live.com, or find me on IRC (I'm in #mediawiki most of the time). Many thanks.

For the election officials,

Happymelon 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

conversion disorder[edit]

he used the terms "conversion disorder" to get published but doesn't agree with the accuracy of it ie more important to get published and advance the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.116.121 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about that. But if the question is what we call the topic, as it seems to be, we should have one article that includes a section that discusses the debate over the best name to use. And, assuming your understanding of his motives is correct, it suggests that a majority of Dr. Stone's colleagues don't agree with him - if they did, he wouldn't have to use the terms "conversion disorder" to get published. EastTN (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

I misread you as endorsing the abominable claim that a group has a right to self-identification, and reacred accordingly. I still think you are mistaken, on two grounds:

  • Nobody has suggested language discouraging considering self-identification, just silence.
  • But if they had, that would be a debatable claim; it should not be equated with an appalling one.

But I apologize for attacking you on the basis of a position you did not assert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem - it's easy to misread people in this context. I think we may still disagree - the tenor of the discussion seems to me to be pushing silence on the issue for the purpose of making it more difficult for editors to consider self-identification as one factor. I'd be much more comfortable saying that it's just one more potential factor among many, and then fighting any neutrality battles as they may arise. But be that as it may - thank you. I appreciate your getting back to me on this. EastTN (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lawrence Solomon[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Lawrence Solomon, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 01:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Migration period doubt[edit]

I made the spurious edit yesterday, switching 'barbarian' to 'tribal' . That was an edit on impulse, but I find the usage not bad at all . In other words, even though I agree in principle on your reverting the edit, I am willing to, and feel somewhat tempted, to take a closer look at the section, to see if this 'barbarian'-to-'tribal' switch can be applied there too . Do you have a take on that ? Sechinsic (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My sense is that we should follow the most common usage in the sources cited. Most seem to use the term "barbarian" - perhaps because that's the one used by most of the contemporaneous sources of the period. If you'd like to move to the term "tribal", I guess I'd suggest finding several good sources that describe things in that way. I don't have strong feelings either way, other than a preference for sticking to the terminology used by reliable sources whenever possible. EastTN (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right - again . As mentioned it was on impulse, spurred on by some remark in the talk page . But you are not quite right on the sources, or imprecise . On a loose count, modern anglo-saxon (sic) litterature tend to like 'barbarian', but the school of Vienna tend to use 'barbarian' in a more strict sense, in the sense exactly like what you have mentioned : that contemporaneous sources to some extent, and - I guess - generally before Gregor, not invariably, but typically, and even contextually, do use 'barbarian' . The point you are definitely right about is that the editor who will adjust the wording should do this with certainty . I no longer feel tempted, except for a slight nagging feeling, to go at it again . Sechinsic (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
To be even clearer, when picking section titles it seems best to follow the sources that discuss the specific topic and are used in that particular section. Of course, we could get into a situation where the best sources aren't the ones used in the section - in which case it would seem best to rewrite the section using better sources, and then rename it. I really don't have a problem with reworking this - I'd just suggest rewriting the section with better sources first. EastTN (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am glad that you accepted the switch from postmodernity to modernity . I would not have thought about going into a discussion about that, since I am not very certain what postmodernity signify . But this has also been noted on the talk page since from a year ago . Sechinsic (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Corporate Election article edits[edit]

Hey EastTN,

Thanks for the helpful edits to the Corporate election article. It was my hope that someone would come along with experience and polish up the article.
I put together an article on Apostasy in Christianity that I wonder if you would have any interest in looking at. March 9 it had a POV tag placed on it and I believe that I addressed the concerns that were raised (see the discussion section), but maybe you might want to take a look at it. If not, that's OK, just thought that I would ask. Again, thanks for the help.ClassArm (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure, ClassArm. I'll take a look at the other article as soon as I have the free time to focus. EastTN (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas B. Warren review request[edit]

I am not the creator of Thomas B. Warren, but I did some extensive wiki work and clean-up back in March 2011. Are you able/willing to review the article (unreviewed template) to include a review of the assessment for WP:TN and WP:Christianity? Given the extent of my edits, I refrained from removing the unreviewed template. Thanks, SBaker43 (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at it in the next day or two. EastTN (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

ELTO Eradication[edit]

why did you remove the ELTO picture? It was quite harmless and added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Organizational Structure of Christian churches and churches of Christ[edit]

Dear EastTN,

I saw that you changed the restoration movement article back to include reference to the organizational differences between non-instrumental churches of Christ and instrumental churches of Christ (also known as Christian churches). Could you please let me know what these differences are and what sources you are basing this on besides the Encyclopedia of Religion in the South? I agree completely that there are major hermeneutic differences, but I do not understand how there are any organizational differences. They are both brotherhoods of completely autonomous congregations governed by local elders. The Encyclopedia of Religion in the South is simply incorrect. I can provide you with a number of references that contradict it, including the reference that I used as a source, the Directory of the Ministry: A Yearbook of Christian churches and churches of Christ. Saying that the North American Christian Convention is a "loosely organized convention" is misleading as it has never had anything to do with church government. It's just the largest of many non-delegate conferences with lectureships, worship sessions and fellowship and has absolutely nothing to do with church organization. It has no more influence on individual churches then the Pepperdine lectureships or the Freed Hardeman lectures. According to the NACC's own website only about 3% of congregations choosing to be identified with it's branch of the RM even supported their convention last year. Yes, the NACC does have influence, but so do the Southeast Leadership Conference, the Eastern Christian Convention, and the Missionary Convention among others. None of these have anything to do with governing, but are meant simply to encourage and lift up Christians. But don't take my word for it... this is part of what the NACC says about itself. You can read it in its entirety on their website at://2011.gotonacc.org/about-us/...

The NACC office is not a denominational headquarters office. Each of the churches in North America that identify themselves as part of the fellowship of "Christian churches and churches of Christ" is independent and autonomously governed. We have no official denominational organizational structure or polity. The only statement of faith of our 1.6 million members is the New Testament Scripture, and our only creed is Christ.

I will be happy to provide you with a number of other sources that confirm this and can even arrange to have the elders of as many as 25 independent, autonomous congregations contact you to confirm that they answer to no one but Christ and to no book but the Bible.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Ryankasler (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ryankasler, we're talking about an admittedly subtle distinction here, but it is a real difference. While the NACC does not constitute a denominational "superstructure" (as with the Disciples of Christ), it is a single conference that multiple references (such as both the Encyclopedia of the South and the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement) describe as having a central role in the development and identity of the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. In this context, it's important to understand that not all "instrumental churches of Christ" are historically associated with the movement known as the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. That later group of congregations was historically associated with the Disciples of Christ when the Restoration Movement divided in 1906. They then gradually separated from the Disciples, and the NACC played an important role as they developed a separate identity. While the churches of Christ that are historically associated with the other side of the 1906 split do have a number of lectureships, no single lectureship plays a similar role in defining the common identity of that movement (which may be one reason for their relative lack of unity - such as some adopting the use of musical instruments in worship). I'll recheck the sources and see if there's a more nuanced way of describing this. EastTN (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


Thank you EastTN for your response, however, I'm still having a hard time comprehending how having a successful conference constitutes an "organizational difference." The bottom line is that these churches are all independent and overseen by local elders, just like their a cappella brothers. Some of the churches choose to support the North American, but most choose not to have anything to do with it. To suggest that the North American is the "single" conference is incorrect... as I mentioned there are a number of them that thousands attend every year. The North American is still the largest, although it has declined significantly in the past twenty years, now having crowds of less then 10,000. I grant that it does have influence over many people among these churches, but so do the Southeast Leadership Conference and the National Missionary Convention among others. Are you suggesting that the various lectureships held by "non-instrumental" churches of Christ do not have any influence over those who attend them? If that is the case, why bother to have them in the first place? If the Pepperdine lectureships were to grow in size and have more influence on churches of Christ because of their increased attendance would that constitute a change in the "organization" of churches of Christ? I realize that the North American had some influence on the early development of "instrumental" churches of Christ and independent Christian churches, but that was because it was created as an alternative to the liberal leaning International Convention of Christian Churches. It encouraged churches to pull away from the more liberal leaning mainstream of the Disciples, as did others (such as the publishers of the "Christian Standard"). The reality is that, according to the North American's own website, only about 200 churches chose to support their convention last year out of over 6000 congregations. How can the NACC be such a centralized hub of influence when 97% of these churches don't even support it? There is no central organization that has influence over all of these churches. There have been many sources that have misunderstood the nature of the NACC, and their misunderstanding has been copied many times, but an error is still an error regardless of how many times it has been copied. I'd appreciate it if you would also consider the sources that contradict the ones you mentioned, or at the very least could we just drop the organizational mention in the text?
I understand that not all "instrumental churches of Christ" are associated with this branch of the movement, however the vast majority of them are. It is hard to find a proper name for a group of churches whose individual congregations choose different names for themselves. Most are called "Church of Christ" or "Christian Church", but some go by "Christ's Church" and others by more generic names like "The Way" or "Shepherd of the Hills." I refer to them as independent Christian churches and instrumental churches of Christ simply to differentiate them from the Christian Church (DoC) denomination and the non-instrumental churches of Christ. With each church being autonomous it is natural for them to choose different names for themselves. This name is not to imply that all instrumental churches choose to fellowship with this bunch, or even that all "instrumental" churches of Christ use instruments. There are a number of "instrumental" churches of Christ that have never used mechanical instruments in worship. However, they find no scriptural basis to forbid others from using them. Because of this hermeneutical difference with other a cappella churches, they consider themselves a part of the instrumental fellowship. It is sometimes hard to differentiate between these two different branches of the Restoration Movement as they have no central organization and membership in either side is based on which of the two fellowships an individual congregation chooses to be a part of. Autonomous congregations also vary widely in their beliefs in both fellowships.
I thank you again for your time and consideration of this matter. Ryankasler (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ryanskasler, thanks for your thoughtful response. I apologize for not getting back to you more quickly - some life issues have taken up almost all of my time for the last couple of months (I should be able to turn back to Wikipedia in the next two weeks). I will go back and re-read the printed sources, and see look for some more sources to help flesh out a more nuanced and complete picture. I do agree that we're talking about a very subtle difference, and that there are wide differences between individuals congregations in both the historical branches. Having said that, I do believe that there's a demonstrable historic pattern of greater comfort (or perhaps less strenuous discomfort) with formal structures for multi-congregational cooperation in the independent/instrumental branch. Historically, NACC had a unique role because it developed as a counterbalance to the developing denominational structures of the DoC, was supported by congregations, and helped define that particular branch of the movement. Having said all that, I'll do as you suggest, and go back to the sources. If nothing else, it's clear that the text we're discussing is communicating as clearly and precisely as it should, and there are some important nuances that are being lost. EastTN (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed! EastTN (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of the Quran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Berger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! EastTN (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syed Ahmad Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaffir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! EastTN (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! EastTN (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Restoration Movement may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Restoration Movement and churches that have a historical and/or theological connection to it (e.g., [[Churches of Christ]], [[Christian churches and churches of Christ]], and the [[Christian
  • of Christ | edition = 2nd | publisher = Greenwood | year = 2001 | ISBN = 978-0-313-23312-8}}, 345 p}}.</ref>{{rp|4}} One source estimates total US membership at 433,714 in 1926, 558,000 in 1936, 682,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Restoration Movement articles[edit]

Point taken -I apologize for creating problems. Apparently I did not go far enough in checking out the disambiguation, as it was certainly not my intention to introduce factual errors, and I thought I was dealing more with style/organization than any substantive changes. Parkwells (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem! If I had a penny for every inadvertant mistake I've made, I'd be waaaay to rich to have to entertain myself editing an on-line encyclopedia. EastTN (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Churches of Christ in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Campbell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed!

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Churches of Christ may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • contributed to the division.<ref name="Dictionary of Christianity in America: Churches of Christ (Non-Instrumental"/>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it (I think).

Unclear doubts[edit]

I just reviewed your edits on Criticism of Islam, I got a few questions right here..

  • You think "nineteenth century" is applicable term? Since it has pretty much mixed both(christians, hindus) together.
  • " James L. Barton " is a source? Even in talk page he has been assumed as a no namer.
  • "the West" was changed to "parts of the world" because muslims also migrate to India, Angola, Japan etc and have created some issue/news which is critical in form, so this is not only happening in western world, but whole world.

Hope if you have some same thoughts, you will let me know in this regard. :) Bladesmulti (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmith, thanks for raising your concerns. I'm replying on your talk page. EastTN (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Immigration from Bangladesh(a muslim country) to India(non-muslim) has been a serious issue among many, some sources.[10], [11] Bladesmulti (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
If you have a couple of good sources on assimilation in Bangladesh, why don't you add that in? It sounds like it would help flesh out the discussion. I'd suggest a sentence next to the one on assimilation in the West. EastTN (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes i just given a try, not only bangladeshi illegal immigration to India has been notable problem, but also from Pakistan, Afghanistan and others to be honest.[12] Bladesmulti (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
That sounds good. My issue was just that we stick to what we have sources for, and not say anything we can't document. EastTN (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Jawaharlal Nehru criticized islam and muslims.. He described that Muslims who came to India brought nothing new, by saying "The Muslims who came to India from outside brought no new technique or political or economic structure. Inspite of religious belief in the brotherhood of Islam, they were class bound and feudal in outlook." And that there was no culture of revival of Arab rationalism and interest in science, so Islam being a faith for military conquests, he said " Islam had become a more rigid faith suited more to military conquests rather than the conquests of the mind."
How it would be added? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Baptism/International Church of Christ[edit]

This sentence is not true in my experience: "More recently, the rise of the International Churches of Christ (who based on the need to fully understand the role baptism plays in salvation, required many to be "re-baptized" " Their objection whenever I encountered them was that they did not "count the cost" (for total commitment and bearing fruit [converts])before their baptism, so they had to be re-baptized. Markewilliams (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. My only issue here is that we not get ahead of our sources. If you can find a published source that makes this additional point about re-baptism being required if there's a perceived lack of full commitment in the past, then I would support adding that point in. EastTN (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
"About that time, McKean also began to teach that only those who were baptized by immersion and were submitting to his concept of discipleship were actually saved. Thus, he required all new members of his movement, even those coming from other Churches of Christ, to be rebaptized." (http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbnew.aspx?pageid=8589952668) Southern Baptist Convention.
"Members believe that one must be a disciple first for baptism to be valid. A person baptized in any other religious group is almost always rebaptized upon joining the movement. Often a member who has been previously baptized in the International Church of Christ will decide he or she did not have a proper understanding of baptism at the time of his baptism or that he was not a true disciple at the time of the earlier baptism and will be baptized a second time. Discipleship is very important to the movement. In the movement, a disciple is one is faithfully following Christ and has taken on the lifestyle and purpose of making disciples of all nations. Every single member of every congregation is supposed to be committed to making disciples. Any who are not so committed are not disciples themselves and will not go to heaven." The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions, 2nd Ed. by James R. Lewis (p 426) Prometheus Books, 2002 Markewilliams (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at your talk page - I've gone back to the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement and pulled a direct quote that I think will address this issue. What I'd like to do is drop your quote from the Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions and drop it into the article on the ICoC. EastTN (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

What to do about the ICOC page[edit]

Hi, EastTN. Editing on the ICOC page has been rather frustrating as of late. It seems that a number of editors are disregarding our arguments that WP policy suggests that criticisms should either 1) be laced throughout the article in their appropriate sections or 2) have a dedicated criticism section. WP policy seems to suggest that while option (1) is in general preferable (2), (2) is permissible for particularly controversial groups, like the ICOC. I'm wondering what you think should be done. A number of editors seem intent on whitewashing the page from verifiable criticisms that are from reliable sources. I've been making a number of edits and justify them on the talk page. But other users just revert my edits without addressing why they're doing so on the talk page. I'm even fine with moving the criticisms to a history section if reliable sources can be found to suggest that the move is appropriate; but simply removing criticism isn't responsible in my mind. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 , I don't know - this is a tough one. It seems incontrovertable that the ICoC has been the object of a great deal of criticism, some of it quite harsh. We shouldn't ignore that, because it's both well-documented and notable. On the other hand, I know the group has gone through some significant leadership changes in the wake of Kip McKean's resignation in 2002 and eventual departure in 2006. My understanding is that the current leadership has tried to rebuild some bridges with the Churches of Christ. I suspect that there have been other changes, at least in tone and culture. Given the debate that occured around the time of McKean's departure (see the [http://www.reveal.org/library/stories/people/hkriete.htm Kriete letter), those changes may well have been significant. In that case we would have a controversial movement that has matured and moderated over time.
I think the most likely way forward is to document those changes. Of course, if what we find instead is ongoing criticism, we have a different problem. EastTN (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for your assistance on the ICoC page. I thought I'd ask you a question that I've been struggling to find reliably sourced. Any idea how to get an estimate for the total membership size of the restoration movement? I am aware of the problems in getting such an estimate but do you know if any recognized CoC scholars have taken a stab at it?JamesLappeman (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, JamesLappeman, good to hear from you! Membership numbers for the Restoration Movement churches are notoriously difficult to find, because many of them lack any formal organizational structure above the local congregation. Within the churches of Christ, Flavil Yeakley was the leading demographer for many years. The most recent study I've seen from him is from 2008 (Good News and Bad News: A Realistic Assessment of Churches of Christ in the United States: 2008); at the time, at least, it was available from the Freed-Hardiman University bookstore. It only covers the churchs of Christ, and only in the U.S. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2008) is another source for the U.S. It lists the churches of Christ separately, but I believe it lumps the Disciples in under "Mainline Protestant." The "The Religious Composition of the United States," from the Pew Research Center has some more detailed breakdowns. Interestingly, it distinguishes between groups that are "Restorationist in the Evangelical Tradition" and those that are "Restorationist in the Mainline Tradition" (I've not seen that taxonomy anywhere else).
In the Restoration Movement article we have a table based on data from the Association of Religion Data Archives for the year 2000. The data can be found here. The ARDA data were useful because they had counts of both congregations and members for all of the main groups associated with the Restoration Movement. And, if you want to drill down on the U.S., they have a lot of data.
-
Congregations Members
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 3,625 785,776
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ 5,293 1,453,160
Churches of Christ 12,584 1,584,162
International Churches of Christ 126 42,106
I don't know of any equally authoritative global counts. The church of Christ page currently uses ChurchZIP.com for a worldwide total. I've become somewhat concerned about the quality of that data, though, because the number has bounced around over time in a way that strikes me as implausible. I hope this helps. EastTN (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding {{Restoration Movement Timeline graphical timeline}}[edit]

You have reverted my edits in {{Restoration Movement Timeline graphical timeline}} stating that forcing it to always collapse, whether or not that makes sense for a particular article and you stated that you added option to Allow template to be collapsed where appropriate. But sadly this option is not available in {{Horizontal timeline}} too. That is adding |collapsible=yes to that template does not automatically collapse the template {{Horizontal timeline}} because it is not coded that way. I have now modified the template to include a {{{expand}}} paramter to specify whether to collapse or not. I have modified to add the standard {{navbox}} template, it should work just like other templates now. If you need anymore changes, please do let me know. Thanks. --Jayarathina (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing the issues with collapsing/not-collapsing. EastTN (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Jayarathina, could you take another look at this? I'm seeing some really weird things, and I think the reason is that putting the Simple Horizontal timeline into the "list" parameter of the Navbox is creating problems. What I'm seeing, at least, is that all of the notes in the first three rows are collapsing to the left, and some of the bars in the timeline proper aren't lining up. This shows up for me on the Template:Restoration Movement Timeline graphical timeline page and the Restoration Movement page. Buuuut, when I tried including the template code here to illustrate what I mean, it worked fine when I hit the "Show preview" button. That suggests the problem may be intermittent or context related, but I'm completely baffled as to why it would fail on the other pages but work on a talk page. so you can see what I mean. I do wonder if the "list" parameter for Navbox is making some assumptions that don't apply here. I'm not familiar enough with how they work to speak intelligently to it, though. In case this is relevant, I'm using a laptop that's running Windows 7 and IE 8.
If we have to pick, for this timeline I believe the default for this timeline should be "expanded" given the way it's used on a couple of the key pages.
I apologize for the trouble. Is there a downside to going back to the old template Horizontal Timeline template? Anyway, thanks again for your help. EastTN (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
@EastTN: Since this template uses Lua module it updates only when the page is edited or cache is cleared. The problem you are describing seems to be a cache issue. You can try Purge (<- This link will purge the template page). Please confirm whether you still have the issue after purging. If so, please share a screenshot if possible, so that I can try to debug it.
The old template is a very complicated one and all major templates using it are transferred to the new one. After transferring the remaining few. The old template will be deleted. The reason is that it is unnecessarily complicated and too hard to make even minor changes.
I have modified the template to expand by default. You can also use {{Restoration Movement Timeline graphical timeline|state=expanded}} to expand the template when necessary. --Jayarathina (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jayarathina:, that fixed it! Thank you again for all of your help. EastTN (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian denomination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godhead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

Sorry about that edit. It was a technical error on my part. —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, This lousy T-shirt, not a problem. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was missing. EastTN (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Rubel Shelly edits[edit]

Hey, man, thanks for your efforts over at Rubel Shelly, which is an article I started (I think) and promptly turned into a great big mess. Anyway, I appreciate your help. Josh a brewer (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It was my pleasure! EastTN (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about user JamieBrown2011 and JamieBrown2011's picture and JamieBrown11's Neutrality[edit]

JamieBrown2011 posted the following photo in the ICOC main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_Campus_Conference.JPG The photo is listed as JamieBrown2011's own work: Description English: Chicago Campus Conference Date 30 July 2010 Source Own work Author JamieBrown2011

JamieBrown2011 is listed as the owner of this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Singapore_Church.JPG

JamieBrown2011 is also listed as the person who inserted this picture into the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Garden_church_service.jpg

JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jakarta_Church.JPG

JamieBrown2011 is also listed s the owner of this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johannesburg_Church_choir.JPG

Now, if these pictures are taken by JamieBrown2011, then it would appear that JamieBrown2011 is a member of the International Churches of Christ as, usually, only members attend ICOC meetings and conferences. If JamieBrown2011 is a member of the ICOC, then JameBrown2011 is not a neutral editor. In fact, JamieBrown2011 might be trying to skew the article to paint a false and rosy picture of the ICOC.

JamieBrown2011 has criticized me for not having a neutral point of view on many occasions. But these pictures and the fact that JamieBrown2011 took them seems to hint that JamieBrown2011 does not have a neutral point of view. JamieBrown2011 may be a current ICOC member. If JamieBrown2011 is a current ICOC member, then this would explain the fact that JamieBrown2011 tries to delete anything at all negative about the ICOC from the main ICOC article.

In the same way that TransylvanianKarl seemed to be an ICOC member without a neutral view of the ICOC; JamieBrown2011 seems to be the same.

Qewr4231 (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Qewr4231, I appreciate your concern. Editing articles on religious groups can often be very challenging because of the strong feelngs involved. However, membership in a religious group does not in and of itself create a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's guidelines. Specifically, this section of the guidelines says "[b]eliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest." They can, as the section goes on to say, result in biased editing - but there are many other sources of potential bias, and many editors with religious affiliations work productively with the rest of the Wikipedia community and make important contributions to the articles on religion. My personal preference is to try and work disagreements out on the talk page rather than see them go to arbitration, as was the case with TransylvanianKarl. Arbitration not only takes a tremendous amount of time and effort but it also seems to almost inevitably engender ill-will.
So, my advice would be to focus on specific edits rather than JamieBrown2011's religious affiliation. Assume good faith even if it feels more like a leap of faith. My experience has been that if you stick with the process, superior sourcing will carry the day 95% of the time. If things do eventually end up in arbitration the focus on specific edits and sources will result in a much more productive discussion (WP:PROVEIT is perhaps the most powerful rule Wikipedia has). EastTN (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I can not find the specific post; however, I do remember asking JamieBrown2011 who is a credible source on the ICOC and he did say that he himself is a credible source on the ICOC. Going further he has said that I should not be allowed to edit the ICOC article because my point of view on the ICOC is negative. Well, by that own standard, JamieBrown2011 should not be allowed to edit the ICOC article because he is no neutral. His view of the ICOC is positive and he wants to get rid of all negative facts from the ICOC article. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has specific guidelines for what qualifies as a "reliable source" for verifying statements in articles. Avoid getting sucked into a debate over which of us is most knowledgable about the ICoC. Because of Wikipedia's no original research policy what I happen to know from personal experience about the ICoC is irrelevant if I can't find a source to verify it. Discussions tend to be much more productive, and much less personal, when they focus on "do we have a source for that . . . is it reliable . . . how can we cover the material in a neutral fashion". EastTN (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Fizz.snow[edit]

Hi EastTN

Sorry but I really would like to keep my edit of stunning up. I will take it down by the ends of the day but it is compulsory in helping my friend. Is there any chance it could stay up for 12 hours?

PS I tried to do User Talk- I am unsure as to whether this is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizz.snow (talkcontribs) 17:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fizz, I've responded on your talk page. EastTN (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Epistle of Peter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epistles of Clement. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That was intentional - the text referred to "the letters of Clement" without specifying which one. I couldn't find a page that covers the letters of Clement as a group, so the disambiguation page Epistles of Clement seemed like the best solution for now. EastTN (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIS[edit]

Thank you for your edits in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. You have put in many bare URL footnotes to support them. Would you please convert these to the standard Wikipedia format using the cite templates?. You will find instructions on how to do this at the top of the ISIS Talk page, but you may find it easier to work from them here. They are easy to follow.

Composing footnotes using the WP cite templates
(Summary of WP:FOOTNOTES section 3.1.)
Please note that bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot, which means that if the website moves to a new domain with a new URL, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation.
  1. First put the cursor at the point in the edit text where you want the footnote to go, then click "Cite" in the edit strip at the top of the Edit Page, then click "Templates" on the left, and a drop-down menu appears.
  2. Choose "cite web" or "cite news" (for articles and websites), "cite book" or "cite journal", click and a box comes up.
  3. Fill in the all details of the citation, then click "Preview" and "Show parsed preview" to see it looks right. (To correct anything, correct the box entries, then click the two "Previews" again.) In "cite book" remember to add the page number(s) of the book.
  4. Click "Insert" and the citation automatically goes into the edit text. (It may not go in at the exact point where the cursor is if you use Firefox or Chrome.)

Thanks. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123, I'll see what I can do when I get a chance (this has been a busy week; I'm hoping it will get better in a day or two). Full confession - I have tendency not to use the citation templates a lot, because they seem awkward to me and I haven't personally found them all that useful. Have you found them to help you? EastTN (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article started off with citation template footnotes, so all the later ones have to be in the same format. The WP instructions on how to use the cite templates are not easy to follow, to put it very mildly - I am sure this is why editors do not use them - which is why I made the above template which greatly simplifies the WP instructions and adds in the crucial steps they miss out. The above instructions should be very easy to follow. There are problems with bare URL footnotes as described there. There is no great urgency, just deal with them when you can, please. P-123 (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Got it. As an aside, while I'm not overly fond of the templates, I agree with you completely on truly bare URLs. Please feel free to mock me relentlessly if you see me putting a URL into a footnote without the appropriate citation information. EastTN (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, User:EastTN. :) A contributor noted that some of the content you added to Ma malakat aymanukum (such as this) had been previously published elsewhere, and I just wanted to stop by to explain Wikipedia's copyright situation and make sure that you were aware of what the requirements are for copying or closely paraphrasing text from other articles.

Content on Wikipedia is not public domain; it is liberally licensed to allow us to use it elsewhere, including certainly in other Wikipedia articles. However, there are legal requirements to use that text, including that we must acknowledge the authors and we must use it under the same or compatible license. When copying from one Wikipedia page to another (or translating from one Wikipedia project to another), we don't have much concern with compatible licensing - for the most part, our projects have compatible licenses. (Wikinews is the one exception; their license is more liberal than the other projects. We can copy content from Wikinews but not to it.) The only thing we need to worry about is properly attributing the source.

In Wikipedia, we manage this by placing a link to the original article in the subject line and putting a note on the talk page of at least the destination article explaining that the content is copied. Unless this is done, the content is a violation of our copyright policies and quite possibly an infringement on the copyright of the contributors who originally added it.

Under our current policies, this can be repaired later. With this particular edit, I have done so, as demonstrated here and on the talk pages of the two articles, using the template {{copied}}. If there is remaining content in that article that you have copied or closely paraphrased from other articles - I think probably there is - please take the necessary steps to identify the source and provide the required attribution.

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia explains in a little more detail how and why this is done.

It is important, as content that violates any copyright may be deleted, and there's no good reason to lose content when the issue can be so simply repaired.

Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Honestly, though, I'm not seeing any difference here in the article. That may be because it already linked to the source article (that's something I've always done). The note on the talk page makes sense. EastTN (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
The difference is not in the article; the difference is in the "history", which is the attribution record of authorship of the article. Putting the link on the face of the article does not suffice; the link with a note of authorship needs to be in the edit summary, so that the history contains proper attribution, as required. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)