Talk:Christianity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:45, 19 February 2006

Template:Talkheaderlong Template:FormerFA Template:Mainpage date Template:FAOL

Changes to the article

Does anyone have any specific changes to the article they would like to suggest? I think it would be easier to gain agreement for limited, incremental improvements. Maybe we could workshop a paragraph or two here. Is converage of the Orthodox perspective adequete? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I brought up changes that I want with my reasons, as a starter, in the section called "Giovanni33's Edits." That serves, as a start, for some changes I'm looking for. Giovanni33 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is one of my issues. With regard to the language, this article was using the Wikepeaia narrative voice to speak from the perspective of the Church, or rather a supposed one true Christianity, which I have endeavored to change in keeping with NPOV policy. For example, see a clear remnant of the old version with this POV coloring that is in the current article it says: "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism..." This is problematic because there "heresies" also contained Christians, like the Gnostic Christians. They are only heretics from the POV of some Christians, sometimes being only a matter of one vote determining who would be branded as not being "true." Wikipedia should not take sides, but report objectively. Compare with my NPOV language that gets reverted: "The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies." The fact is that there were different strains of Christians and the one version, a particularly intolerant one merged with state power and tried to extterminate its rivals. This fact describing the new orthodoxy merged with State power should be placed in this connection historical accuracy, not decontexualized under the persecutions section. Giovanni33 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The resources list is way too long. In the past, we tried to keep it relatively brief...a theology resource or two, a couple of histories, etc. There's an inordinate amount from Gio's POV. I would ask that when the article is unprotected, Gio go through and pick two or three of the best of those to keep. The mainstream side could, of course, list dozens or hundreds of resources, but that wouldn't accomplish much. If Gio can do that, it would be nice. KHM03 14:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine with me. Infact, I'd even let you pick out the best three. The only reason why I went overkill with the sources was because I was being told that my view was original research or that it was fringe, etc. So, I piled on the sources. :) Giovanni33 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much too worried about other articles to make specific suggestions right now, but I'll let you know when I have the time. I mainly stumbled around here in thinking I saw other religion articles having an informative table, finding I was wrong, but intrigued by the whole protection thing.

KV 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "table"? What examples can you suggest? KHM03 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the filioque looks fine to me (for this article). Two small changes I would make in the Nicene Creed section would be removing the quotes from the phrases "sin and death" and "General Resurrection", as the quotes seem to suggest that these exact phrases appear in the Creed, while in fact they do not. "General Resurrection" could be replaced by "resurrection of the dead" since that's the phrase used, but it's not really a big deal. Wesley 18:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My view is as previously stated.Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to succinctly summarize that view for my benefit? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add more Teachings, Summary of Christianity

There are many notable differences between this article and other articles such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which both provide much more information about the beliefs of those religions. The Christianity article, however, consists mostly of historical information.

I think that the sections on the teachings of Christianity should be expanded, with significant references made to the books of Luke, Acts, Romans, and Hebrews, which summarizes the Christian beliefs. Basic beliefs which should be discussed include:

Original Sin
The call of Abraham
The exodus from Egypt
The Ten Commandments and the Law
Fighting the indigenous people to claim the Holy Land
The birth of the Jewish nation
Priests and Judges
Prophecies concerning the Messiah
The 400 years of silence between the Old and New Testaments
The writing of the Septuagint
The birth of Jesus
Jesus defeats the devil's temptations in the desert
Jesus' public ministry
Jesus' death on the cross
Jesus' ressurection and ascension
The missionary journeys of Paul
The prophecied Second Coming

DanielMcBride 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how its organized, I'd like to see a secular thought to balance the POV balance added to the interpretation and meaning of teachings where appropriate. I'm not sure if its appropriate but it's something we can think about how to do. Giovanni33 21:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of that; the history section here should be abrief overview...4 or 5 paragraphs hitting the major points (1st century, Constantine/Nicea, Great Schism, Reformation, maybe modern ecumenism), with a link to the History of Christianity article, where there's more space for development.

I also think we should talk about beliefs, and would concur with some of your suggestions. I guess I wouldn't go too far in talking about Abraham through the 400 years of "silence"...that's better discussed elsewhere (we should explain the strong connection to Judaism, of course, but concisely). A brief overview of Jesus & Paul, then important historic doctrines (Grace, Sin, Salvation, Incarnation, Trinity, Bible, Resurrection, Eschatology, Parousia). Worship, too, and a few modern things (ecumenism, maybe Pentecostalism).

Of course, we could redirect the article to Methodism, too. ;) KHM03 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can cut much of the history section (with the exception of Beowulf), as we even have to put quite some energy into defending it from further bloating (see above). However, I always thought that the history section should be moved down to just above the persecution section.

As for the points raised by Daniel, some are already mentioned in the article but could be expanded (Jesus' death on the cross, Jesus' ressurection and ascension, The prophecied Second Coming). Some are difficult to include (Jesus' public ministry or missionary journeys of Paul). I don't know as they might be too detailed a redendition of the Biblical account (Jesus' temptations). Even more questionable are retelling of the Old Testament history (Abraham, exodus, Ten Commandments ...) - if this should be done most summarily. "Writing of the Septuagint" is completely irrelvant IMHO, and a "400 years silence" is POV.

Str1977 09:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KHM03 that the history section is too long. I wonder if it might enjoy broader support and be more bloat-resistent if it were shorter. I also think moving it further down the page is a good idea. If I could make only one change, I would make the article less retrospective. I also like Daniel's suggestions, subject to the constraints of space and neutral presentation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple Question

Giovani33, Would you mind dropping me an e-mail at trollwatcher@gmail.com and then the following day make a note below confirming the title of the e-mail so that I can be sure its from you. Thanks. Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question about the users on the Christianity page and this discussion page:

Are you a non-Christian who habitually contributes to this page ?

If you are, would you mind noting your own userID below and optionally adding "yes" or "no" to the following question: Do you feel that the Christianity page succeeds in being NPOV and that the majority of principal contributors to it genuinely try to be NPOV ?

If you do not fall into the category being addressed, or want to add anything further, please start another section so as not to complicate responses.

I'm non-Christian, and I do post on the discussion every so often.... in the past week... and I think the whole problem with POV is that Christians and non-Christians alike are in conflict over points that neither documents, so no gain towards the truth happens. The Christians keep out Giovanni33's posts, he reverts them, neither documents and so we have deadlock. So, documentation is the key to any POV.

KV 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that analysis; we all need to be better at documentation. KHM03 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for AnnH

AnnH, I have been reviewing your contributions on the question of sockpuppets. I notice references to similar IP addresses. I wonder if you could explain to us less technical types what this means and what significance it has.Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnnH, I would appreciate your observations on the fact that almost all of the main contributors to this page are accused of being either sockpuppets or trolls, and that any apparently normal people (Sophia is just the latest of many dating from well before Geovani showed up) soon give up and go away. Why do you think that is ?Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls?

User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]]], I noted your observations that any user on this page could be a sockpuppet and also the criteria you use to start an investigation into whether they are. Just wondering if you've ever checked KHM03 and DJ Clayworth ? Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KHMO3 and DJ Clayworth the same!? Nah! Have you never heard of the Documentary hypothesis?

Article talk pages

Article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the particular article.

Mediation requests are filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and you can also contact the the Mediation Cabal for assistance.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==Archives==
 <div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333 ; padding: 5px; width: 800px;">'''Archived discussions [[Talk:Christianity/Archive_1|1]], [[/Archive 2|2]], [[/Archive 3|3]], [[/Archive 4|4]], [[/Archive 5|5]], [[/Archive 6|6]], [[/Archive 7|7]], [[/Archive 8|8]], [[/Archive 9|9]], [[/Archive 10|10]], [[/Archive 11|11]], [[/Archive 12|12]], [[/Archive 13|13]], [[/Archive 14|14]], [[/Archive 15|15]], [[/Archive 16|16]], [[/Archive 17|17]], [[/Archive 18|18]],[[/Archive 19|19]], [[/Archive 20|20]], [[/Archive 21|21]], [[/Archive 22|22]], [[/Archive 23|23]], [[/Archive 24|24]], [[/Archive 25|25]]'''</div>
-== CheckUser ==
-According to CheckUser [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#MikaM_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_Kecik_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_others], MikaM  and Kecik are not the same user, and neither one is Giovanni33. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-:Jus so everyone knows...all the checkuser proves is that they are different IP's. Checkuser is not needed if other evidence of sockpuppetry are apparent.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-== Giovanni33's edits ==
-I really don't see a problem with him having editted it.... it doesn't seem that anything is cited at all for either side, and he seemed to simply be more expansive and without seeing sources, it seems his text is comparatively neutral.  Before putting all these protections on the page, why not actually cite some of your information, and ask him to do the same?
-P.S. editting because I'm having some problems at the moment..... says I'm logged in but not giving the correct signiature
-[[User:King_Vegita]] 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-:Hi King_Vegita, and welcome. I'm glad to see a new user who has a longer history here, for obvious reasons. I have cited extensively for my side, but its been archived now. I don't mind doing so again. When sources where objected to, I found new sources. This article has changed a lot since I started to work on it, but it’s been a real uphill battle. Basically my POV is to seek is for a historical context for the emergence of Christianity, including the fact that there was no one Christianity, that it's in part a hybridization and development of various older religions. I wanted the influences, noted by scholars, included which all serve to contextually the religion in its time and thus give understanding to its emergence and nature in continuity and relation to other belief systems. Specifically, that means a Jewish context, ofcourse (no need to get into the various groups, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes), but also the Pagan context, which is largely marked by syncretism, but also with clear distinct threads-- prominent ones being the cults of the Roman State, the mystery religions, and the schools of Geek philosophy. For me to have this presented is important as it gives balance and accuracy reflecting the modern understandings of the development of Christianity.
-:With regard to the language, this article was using the Wikepeaia narrative voice to speak from the perspective of the Church, or rather a one true Christianity, which I have endeavored to change in keeping with NPOV policy. For example, see a clear remnant of the old version with this POV coloring that is in the current article: "''Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism..."'' This is problematic because there "heresies" also contained Christians, like the Gnostic Christians. They are only heretics from the POV of some Christians, sometimes being only a matter of one vote determining who would be branded as not being "true." Wikipedia should not take sides, but report objectively. Compare with my NPOV language: ''"The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies."'' The fact is that there were different strains of Christians and the one version, a particularly intolerant one (which should be also noted for historical accuracy in this connection--another point in disput here), merged with state power and tried to exterminate its rivals, sometimes killing thousands. I have plenty of mainstream sources to support all my claims.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-::I noticed that even though this article is locked no one wants to use the talk pages to work out these differences from the other side. Instead is used for distracting and counter productive socketpuppety allegations, which are all false, btw. You cant keep up all this smoke forever...[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-== A Simple Question ==
-Just a question about the users on this page. Is there a single atheist, agnostic, freethinker or secular academic who habitually contributes to the Christianity page ?
-If there is, would you mind answering a second question: Do you feel that you are treated well by the half dozen or so contributors who have previously been identified as the “clique”, “cabal”, “DEWCs” or “Troll Confederation” of unusually devout believers?[[User:Trollwatcher|Trollwatcher]] 10:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-::I think you question is meant to be rhetorical, but it should be obvious that the editors who don't ideologically conform are not treated well in the final analysis, despite pretense to the contrary. It's one thing for everyone to recognize their bias and work collaborately with ohters of different Pov's to produce a NPOV article, but its another when there is abuse of power, bullying, and double stanards, and accusation attacking the user instead of the substance of their arguments.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::I'm not aware of any user of any faith or lack of faith who has followed Wikipedia policy and been badly treated by the "devout believers". [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-::::Ofcourse not, since you are not on the receiving end of the bad treatment. From your Pov you don't see or think anyone is being treated badly but those who feel they are victims would feel differently, and see it from their Pov. As an example, cases of work place harassment, as policy, its usually the feelings of the victim which determin if it exists or not, not what the perpetrator thinks, or doens't see. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 23:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC
-:::::Giovanni, perhaps I should have put the words '''''who has followed Wikipedia policy''''' in italics and bold, but I thought it might seem a bit sarcastic, and that it was sufficiently obvious without the emphasis. Whether someone who breaks policy, is begged to stop for a long time before finally being reported, and is uncovered in an act of duplicity  is treated badly when he's reported and blocked may be a POV. But my post didn't comment on whether or not you, Belinda, and Freethinker (whether that's one person or two or three) had been treated badly. My post was saying that to the best of my knowledge, no '''innocent''' users had been treated badly by devout Christians. Could we move on now? This page is meant to be kept for discussing possible improvements to the article. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-::::::::Yes, I know what you meant. No clarification was needed. Repeating yourself doesn't change my response, above. Ofcourse, you don’t feel that way. But that is your Pov. I would bet that every other poster who was not a devout believer (even those who you would be generous enough to term "innocent") would also feel they were not treated fairly. Case in point is Sophia, who you admit did nothing wrong, yet, she stated she felt ganged up on, bullied, and has now left in protest over what she feels has been an unfair attack against everyone who doesn’t conform to a Christian Pov. I know you don't agree, and I don't expect you to, but that does not change the validity of how the other side feels--"innocent" or not. Although I think it's interesting that you implicitly admit that those who are found to violate a rule are not treated well or fairly.  [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 23:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::::::::I don't admit any such thing, implicitly or explicitly. For the record, I do not think that anyone who broke the rules was treated unfairly. But could you please let go and move on. You behaved badly. You knowingly broke rules. You tried to deceive other editors. You were given a great deal of tolerance with your massive 3RR violations, simply because we didn't want to [[WP:BITE|bite newcomers]]. You were blocked. You're now unblocked. You need to work on regaining our trust, instead of behaving as if you are the victim. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Ok, so you didn't mean what you said (again). The question was clearly if any user was treated badly or unfairly. Your response, tellingly, was: ''I'm not aware of any user...who has followed Wikipedia policy ''and'' been badly treated by the "devout believers"."''This logically implies that you ''are'' aware of users who have not followed policy that were treated badly or unfairly. Maybe its not what you intended to say (I don't think anyone would admit to that openly if they were the perpetrator), but it does slip which can be seen my using logical semantical analysis. As a linguist, I'm sure you can agree that what is implicitly said is there, even though you may not have meant to say that (I assume good faith). Back to the point, I don't think I have ever acted badly (except at the very beggining when I did violate the 3RR rule but never again after my first block for it), and since then I have followed policy. But, I do see myself as a victims of attacks motivated by Pov differences. And, so do others, who did not break any rules. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-::::::::::::Giovanni, I meant exactly what I said. I intended to make a statement about innocent users. I intended to say nothing about those guilty of wrongdoing, such as yourself, simply because I didn't want to get into a long discussion. However, since you seem to want further clarifications, I'll state that I think your blocks have been absolutely justified. You violated 3RR long past the "very beginning", but weren't reported for it. (Have you ever wondered why?) You were aware of the policy on meatpuppetry, as it was often discussed here, and as it's in [[WP:SOCK]], which you were asked to read. You even suggested that I was a meatpuppet, while all the time the Belinda account was reverting to your version. And that doesn't even take into account the Freethinker story. Even if your account is true, it means that while you were blocked from editing, you were showing a friend how to edit Wikipedia, and he reverted (or partially reverted) three times to something you favoured. So I don't think you have been treated badly or unfairly, but I do think your behaviour has led to quite a lot of unpleasantness for you and for others. The three people who have opposed you the most have a long history of collaborating well with people with different POVs &mdash; people who follow the rules and behave with integrity.  Now, could we move on, please? [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-:Another simple question: Do you really think that this rain shower of personal attacks is in any way helpful to the article?
-:Re your first question: I don't think we segregate according to ideology and I have no problem with atheists, agnostics or freethinkers (whether academic or not) constructively contributing to this article. There's no point in asking about "Secular" as they either don't exist (unless you are talking about a the kind of Catholic clergy that goes by that name) or all are secular. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 11:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-::I consider myself secular, a secular humanist. I guess I don't exist. Most of academia, by its very nature adhering to the principals of the scientific method (even with social sciences such as history) is likewise secular in its presuppositions and its methodology (hence stories of miracles are not interpreted as true when more logical explainations in keeping with material explanations are readily available).[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-::By secular academic, I'm pretty sure that he means objective and believing that religion should be taken objectively in describing it, so that they would write NPOV, not from a Christian POV.  And they do exist, btw.
-::[[User:King Vegita|KV]] 18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::Here is a defintion: sec·u·lar·ism ( sµk“y…-l…-r¹z”…m) ''n. 1. Religious skepticism or indifference. 2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.''The definition that Star1977 accepts is another meaning, a minor one, not the main one. I think he knows that. :) [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::[[User:Trollwatcher|Trollwatcher]]: Please define "freethinker".  Also, are you implying that a person of faith cannot make objective edits?  Additionally, regarding your labelling of "the clique", "cabal", "DEWCs" or "Troll Confederation of unusually devout believers", please review [[WP:CIV]], [[WP:EQ]] and [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples|WP:NPA]] (regarding religious intolerance as well as your username).  [[User:KHM03|KHM03]] 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-::KHM03, if you get any dictionary you will see "freethinker" is defined. When I open the American Heritage Dictionary I find this, '':free·think·er ( fr¶“th¹ng“k…r) n. 1. One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. free “think“ing adj. n.'' About persons of faith and objectivity, I think the point that should be acknowleged is that (which I made before only to be called a bigot for doing so), all ideological schools of thought contain their respective bias; recognizing this fact is an important part in avoiding bias. The trick is to have multiple sources from multiple POVs that are all hightly placed, respected sources. The literature of any single professed belief system (or authors who are adherents to the same belief system), would tend to emphasis some things and de-emphasis others aspects, even in scholarly work, in accordence with their interests, with is a reflection of their POV. Sometimes is subtle other times it's not. Good scholarly work minimizes this with a variety of techniques (footnotes, using the real and best arguments of the other side, etc). This is rarely done, and a poor substitute for looking at other authors of anohter Pov who can speak for themselves. This is why all the exclusively Christian sources you provided KHM03 did not even address the issue of non-Christian influences; their absesnse of mentioning it does not negate its validity. Pointing out this fact, that referencing only writers with a Christian POV introduces a recognizable bias in what is covered and what is ignored is a valid point, and I think it not an attack on Christians. I have an POV and bias, and so do you. We should all realize that and work towards incorporating each others perspectives with NPOV language.  Christians, just everyone else, do not become immune from the colorings of their own ideological lens. Objectivity is utopian. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-Unless I have missed something, I have not heard that all sources should be limited to Christian sources.  There has been talk about have reputable sources or experts in a respective field.  This is a legitimate goal.  Yes, it can be abused and we all need to be aware of this.  No side should be the sole judge of defining the legitimacy of a source.  If you have one, propose it; if there is disagreement make the case strongly...once.  Let's than cooperatively decide these issues.  If necessary, we can vote on it.  There is also a need that minority views are kept to a minority position in the article.  They should be mentioned, but not repeated or to a degree that they outway or equal the majority opinion.  Censoring here is unacceptable.  Further, I have heard quite enough of private conversations on this page.  If the conversation does not deal specifically with the article and how to make it better, please take the conversation to your personal discussion pages.  On behalf of everyone, I collectively off apologies from everyone else.  Let this be water under the bridge and let's assume good faith of everyone else.  Lastly, if anyone is caught using a sock again, I would vote they be forever banned from WIKI.  I find it a repugnant practice.  I don't like accusations and don't want to hear more about it.  If there is an issue take it up on their private page and let admin's deal with it.  Enough said; let's move forward on making the article better.  [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-::I agree with the motion put forward by StormRider, wit the proviso that given that I can prove BelindaGong and Freethinker are separate individuals, they should not be considered my socketpuppets. Its perfectly ok to invite others here who have the same POV. Despite the fact that Ann has told me this is not allowed, I note that AnnH herself joined Wikipedia in the same way: ''"Hi, Jdavidb, I'm really here to wish you a happy Christmastide...thank you for bringing me to Wikipedia. I think it was you, wasn't it, who posted something on some blog last April, appealing for people to come to Wikipedia...and I know that to you, at least, I don't have to say "Happy Holidays". A Saviour is born for us. Alleluia! AnnH (talk)'' 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)"
-::[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jdavidb#Happy_Christmastide.21]] We should be welcoming of new users, even if they agree with a secular Pov, and even if, heaven forbid (no pun intended) they know me. [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 01:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::Giovanni, I joined Wikipedia after I saw something written by someone with whom I had no prior contact, and whose name I didn't even know. I have never met him outside of Wikipedia, and have had little interaction with him on Wikipedia, though I like what I've seen. I only discovered later, looking back, that it was he who had written that appeal. We have never really been involved with the same articles at the same time. I don't know how you can think that bears any resemblance to your wife (if she is your wife) arriving to revert to your version on every article where you met resistence, to vote for whatever you wanted, and to agree with you on the talk pages, while you both carried on a pretence of not knowing each other. Do you think Jimbo would think the two situations were similar. And please, that's a rhetorical question. I don't want an answer. You're just clogging up the talk page with your grievance. This is meant to be for discussing improvements to the article. If you want to jump to conclusions and make false accusations, do it on your own talk page (which I see you've already done), not here. Thanks. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-::::All that is besides the point. I think its ok to invite a friend with who shares a similar POV. You don't think that is correct, from what you said on my talk page. But, I note that is how you found this place. An invitation on a religious blog. Is it really worse if I personally invite someone I know is of good quality, an expert in many fields, compared to posting an open invitation to Atheist and Secular blogs and other sites? The particularities are not important, the general principal is. Its not wrong to invite someone of your own POV. It doen't interest me what connections you have with other users who share your POV as long as they are really different users. For good faith, I assume they are (even when you assume the exact pattern you noted between Belinda and myself). Also, I dont think making a pretense of knowing or not knowing someone personally is relevant in anyway. They each speak for themselves. I have not made false accusations, but you have. Belinda is not a sockepuppet, neither is Freethinker, and neither are any of the new users who have been likewise attacked. I suggest we stick to improving the article instead of all this sockepuppetry accusations. Let the userchecks speeak for themselves and lets have that kind of stuff done on other pages, not talk pages to articles I'm trying to improve (which is has happened by introducing these speculative based attacks on this page and other article pages where  I've I'm working). [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::::Giovanni, first you make a false accusation, in public, that I did something which I said was not allowed. Then, when I show that that is not the case, you say that it's beside the point. Of course, it's beside the point. This whole topic is off the point, and should never have been brought here in the first place. Reading about Wikipedia on a blog &mdash; and by the way, it wasn't a religious blog &mdash; coming here as a result, having an entirely separate editing pattern from the person who wrote on that blog, and discovering later that it was that person is not by the wildest stretch of the imagination meatpuppetry. Having your wife join, while pretending not to know her, and having her follow you around to revert to your version whenever you met with opposition is by definition meatpuppetry. For the record, in all the time I have been at Wikipedia, I have never ever reverted any page to Jdavidb's version.
-:::::I'm going to bed now. I'll be thrilled if I find tomorrow that someone has archived this  page, including Giovanni's accusations. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::::I would but I have to say this much:
-:::::Gio, you are allowed to invite a friend to WP, regardless whether he shares your POV, but you are not allowed to use him to circumvent 3RR or a block. And you certainly not allowed to lie to your fellow Wikipedians about your connection to that friend. (Assuming that you two are indeed two different people). [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::::::Its good to hear I can invite a friend here. I thought the idea that I couldn't, couldn't be right. I didn't use my friends account to revert or get around the block, only to edit on my own talk page. If he wants to rv or make changes, I think he is allowed, or should be allowed. Lastly, the the 3rd time, I did not lie about him. Infact my actions, and then words, suggest I was quite open about not even trying to hide his connection to me. Need we go over these points again? [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 12:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::::::Lying about that connection for 23 minutes and answering only after you were found out is not what I would consider "quite open". Your invitees might edit as they wish, but who tells us that you weren't at his house then also, that you didn't point him to something (and given you share one POV the result was predictable wasn't it). FT also appeared claiming to have read through all the discussions (not mentioning your "help"), but for that "he" is to blam not "you". And that's all still assuming (against my own conviction) that you are not one and the same. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 12:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-:::::::::I see you are spreading you lies against me by making the false accusations that I lied, even though you took this back on another article you spread it here, again. This shows bad faith, and that your using this to attack me. You make the lie here by spinning it in this manner. As you very well know my comment was a reference to a list of users asked of me by KH03, which did not include Freethinker. When I saw that Freethinker was later added, in a second line, I edited that to stated honesty that I did know Freethinker. The addition of freethinker in another edit was made by KH03 before I initially responded but I did not see it until after I composed my response to his initial list. I have already explained this before and for you to bring it up proves that you are also using this as bad faith attacks. Shouldn't this page should be about discussing edits to the article? [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] 22:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
-::::::::::Giovani33, Would you mind dropping me an e-mail at trollwatcher@gmail.com and then the following day make a note below confirming the title of the e-mail so that I can be sure its from you. Thanks. [[User:Trollwatcher|Trollwatcher]] 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 == Changes to the article ==
@@ Line 124: / Line 63: @@
 == A Simple Question ==
+Giovani33, Would you mind dropping me an e-mail at trollwatcher@gmail.com and then the following day make a note below confirming the title of the e-mail so that I can be sure its from you. Thanks. [[User:Trollwatcher|Trollwatcher]] 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 Just a question about the users on the Christianity page and this discussion page: