Talk:Christianity

Archives

Archived discussions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20,

recent changes

I want to go over some of the changes I made to try to accurately characterize the positions fairly, and some change to improve the NPOV language. Finally, removal of some sections which could be combined, removing redundancies.

It orginally said "scholarship suggests that Christianity may have also emerged, in part and out of the various mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East in antiquity, such as Gnosticism and various mystery cults. Among those that may have had an influence on the form, language and doctrines of Christianity include the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and there is much speculation..."

I changed this by introducing a brief statment that this is a minority view in Christian scholarship, but common in secular sholarship that "Chistianity was also strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed. Among those that may have had an influence on the form, language and doctrines of Christianity include Gnosticism, the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Dionysus, and various mystery cults."

Notice how above it states mystery teaching twice needlessly, and does not characterize the fact that this is just a view among secular scholars. My changes characterize the positions and removes redunancies.

I also changed, Professor Barry Powell, and others, argue that many elements of Christianity were also influenced by the cult of Dionysus.

To the more accurately worded,

Many scholars, such as Professor Barry Powell, argue that the cult of Dionysus played a signifiant influuencing role in the development of Christianity.

I also noted that when I quote scholars points of view, as long as it says , "According to -x---, such and such influenced.." it can be stated as a fact. Even if its their opinion, its factual. since we are only stating what so and so scholars said. There is no need to add words such as "alleged" in their statments unless we get rid of "According to...." Then its needed. Ofcourse, we can quote scholars from the other point of view, too, if they refute these the view points. Giovanni33 10:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Giovanni. There is no such thing as "secular" scholarship - don't try to paint those scholars who don't subscribe to the views quoted by you as "religious"/"Christian" and therefore dubious.

Although a minority view among mainstream Christan scholarship, its is commonly accepted in secular academic circles that ..

It isn't possible to seperate this into two fields. And while theories about the influence of MCs are common to scholarship no one theory or all of the together are "commonly accepted", nor is a "Christianity started out as a MC" common - the common theories consider MCs an influence and not a starting point.

I agree with you quoting scholars in principle and would advise against weasel words such as alleged unless it is absolutely necessary. But keep in mind the overview character of this section here - but at the moment I am a bit liberal on this, as Early Christianity might benefit from this. Str1977 10:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Str, I dont think Christian scholarship is a bad thing, and doing scholarhip from a Christian view doesn't imply its therefore dubious, any more so than an Atheist doing scholarship for his view. It might produce different emphasis in their final works but none are dubious alone for this reason. It only refects the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) most Christian scholarship by Christians in Biblical Studies who are in the mainstream dispute these links to mystery religions, etc. Am I wrong? I think that is what the argument claimed. Whereas it is common in secular scholarship circles to argue for such links, but they are in the minority of biblical experts. Am I mischaracterizing the disputes of the parties visavis these positions accurately and fairly? Giovanni33 11:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you don't thinkg Christian scholarship a bad thing, but I was worried that your version suggested that, putting it into opposition with the phantomg "secular scholars". Also, adherence to the "traditional account" is not bound up with being a Christian - and there are probably also Christians that agree with the "MC account", so I don't understand them. Str1977 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I agree that common theories consider MC and influence, not a starting point. I don't believe anyone has ever made the argument that MC would a starting place, only one out of many possible influences in its development. I try to adopt the same language and reflect the arguments made by these secular scholars. I know you object to the use secular scholars but I think its important to state since it does seem to be a point of division, and therefore relevant. Giovanni33 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In past versions this was at least suggested ("C. existed as a variety of mystery cults" etc.), but I am glad that that appearently wasn't intentional. Str1977 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Str, lets try to review changes here, esp. any drastic changes before making them in the main page, because it looks like we are both working at the same time. Giovanni33 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

All right. Str1977 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Str, I took to heart your suggestion and removed the mention of any division of secular and christian scholars, with this new text: "Although some of the attributed influences are a minority view among mainstream scholarship, its is commonly accepted in academic circles that Chistianity was also strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed."

What do you think? Giovanni33 11:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a feasible starting point and I will include it for the moment, as I have to leave shortly. But I will get back to you soon. Str1977 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I already did include it. I'll make suggestions for changes, and I notice you have your own version for several sections. Maybe place them here so I can tell you what objections I have with them and why I think my version is more appropriate. I think we can come to a compromise. Deal? I really want to get passed the silly edit wars. Giovanni33 11:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Giovanni, Str1977. Lets all work together on this...this time. :) BelindaGong 11:49, 26 January 2006 (

I am at a loss to understand what seems to be a new proposed policy by Giovanni and Belinda that new, controversial stuff which is disputed by many on the talk page should stay up in the article while we discuss it, and that those who remove it are starting edit wars but that it's perfectly okay to keep inserting it despite objections. Belinda, you're close to violating the revert rule, because, like Giovanni, you're splitting reverts between your user name and your IP address AnnH ^(talk) 12:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ann, maybe you are a loss to understand because you have not been following the talk page. For most of the evening editors have been working on the new content. We are making significant progress. All of a suddent its all removed and are again back to square one--if this is left up. This is not a new proposed policy by anyone its what was working and apparently consensus among editors since they did not revert but choose to contribute with their edits. In just one day of doing this its markedly improved. Now you would have us go back to this old version which a matter of contention because you claims we dont have consensus yet? Are you the defender of the old order until we reach some undefined consensus (we have to take a vote before making changes?). Removing material that several editors are working on based on compromises taking place here on the talk page is counter productive. And, on I did not make any reverts using my IP address within the last 24 hours as you claim. BelindaGong 12:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You have certainly reached your 3RR threshold now. I didn't see any consensus...just a starting point paragraph (which I retained but reworded for spelling & clarity). Please review WP:3RR before reverting again...thanks...KHM03 12:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Belinda, I have been following the talk page. The new material in the article, added by Giovanni and supported by you and a few new editors with no prior history, who may or may not be sockpuppets, is controversial. Several editors have problems with it. I and others think that when something is disputed it should not go in the article until an agreement has been reached. That seems far more logical than the idea of leaving it until we can get you, Giovanni, and the others to agree that there are problems.

Well, the editors who were all working together by making edits within the context of the new sections intorduced by Giovanni after there he reached a new consensus on here for doing so include: Mikereichold, MikaM, Fubar Obfusco, Storm Rider, Wesley, Giovanni, Belinda(myself)and even Str1977 (until he reverted back at the end for some reason, and then you and KH03 came to enforce that old version). So you see why I am sad that after so much progress that was started by a proposal from Storm Rider, which gained a lot of support, we are reverted once again. Well, whatever works, but the reverting to the old version that is also hotly diputed, didnt' yield much progress since it was defended by a couple old editors who were not open to change. BelindaGong 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you criticized my behaviour, I will explain. I am more than willing to work on a compromise with you, but I will not accept your constant substitung the earlier, less contentious version for the contentious version. If smaller edits got lost in the process, that was not my intention. Most of all, I will not accept the "blind faith" paragraph, which constitutes a legendary account from former times and a gross carricature of historical reality. Str1977 17:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your denial of reverting with your IP address, I have already asked you if you are User:38.114.145.148 or not, and you have not replied. It seems to be strongly indicated by your signature here and by your creation of an account with the name Belinda a few minutes later. If you are User:38.114.145.148, could you please confirm it, because it's getting really confusing with all these signatures on talk pages, and all these reverts from anons. Also, is this edit (which has nothing to do with reverting, but comes from a very similar IP, and makes your arguments) yours as well?

I dont' know what my IP address is, but if my name is there (Belinda) that its probably me. The other IP adddress you list is not mine because I didn't write that. And, no that other person doesnt make my arguments. I have never been a Christian. I am a Buddhist. I think you should do a puppet check it is much better that you do that and confrim the truth and simply keep speculating and insinuating. Its better for us that we are given more legitimacy too and I don't think its fair for Giovanni either, so I hope you do a check so that issue is settled. BelindaGong 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are User:38.114.145.148 your revert rule violation is here.

12:26, 25 January 2006

12:59, 25 January 2006

11:44, 26 January 2006

12:00, 26 January 2006

12:31, 26 January 2006

Even if you're not, it's still a violation, because only the first one came from the anon.

Could you please confirm. And in any case, please stop reverting to controversial stuff that was added recently, has not been accepted, and is still under discussion. Thanks AnnH ^(talk) 12:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain to me what appears to be a double standard in effect here with the use of "needing to get consensus before making changes." Is this standard supposed to apply to everyone equally because it certainly is not in practice? Perhaps there is some rule I'm not aware about. In practice KH03 and STR1977 can introduce changes, new paragraphs, sentences, make deletions, etc, and will revert to their version to enforce it. And then you enforce this if too many other editors contest and rv back. But, you will not revert back their new work under the claim of "no consensus was reached." However, this is exactly what you do whenever I and/or other editors make our own changes-- even small ones, and even when we do make the case on the talk page for the changes first and get some agreement. These changes, however, are not allowed to stand, if KH03 or Str19977 disagree--but not the other way around! And, they don't need to make the case on the talk page, or get consensus—or even try to--either!

There's no double standard. The version I and KHM base our edits on happens to be the version preceding yours (apart from my stylistic changes) and it would be a great help if you used it as a basis too - your (small) changes wouldn't get lost. Also, neither I nor KHM changed this version all that much and when we did it was to reach consensus with you guys and your legitimate requests. KHM did a great overhaul to try reach compromise (to no avail) and I yesterday and today have made compromises with you, Giovanni, e.g. on Beowulf, on the "scholars" passage. If your are unhappy with any of our smaller changes than please speak up and point out your grievances and we will address them (I think I can speak for KHM on this too). Str1977

So, I have to wonder what is the rationale behind this seeming double standard? It is just discrimination based on editors being new, and if so how long do we have to be here before we get equal rights? Or can we ever have equal rights since we will always have less seniority? Or is it due to having a different perspective from the church elders? Does one have to be a Christian first to have equal rights (or maybe special privleges?) Or maybe its just because they are your friends? I don't know but the fact is that they can revert and make changes, without needing to get a consensus first. However when I or others try this, it's a matter of "needing to get consensus first!, and you enforce the revert to whatever version (new or old) that the aformentioned church elders introduce.

There has been discrimination on editors being new, as I think both I and KHM (he more than I) have been quite patient with you. Ann also has not used her powers as an administratrix despite your violation of the 3RR. Str1977

Lastly, I wonder what getting a consensus really means, in practical terms. Does it mean everyone must agree, or just a majority? Or at least 50%? And, what if no one responds? Does that mean no change can be introduced, or that its not challenged and can be introduced? And if so, after how long of a wait? When others dont agree, even though references are produced to support the proposed change and all their objections are refuted, and then there no response, but they still dont agree anyway out of, say, dogmatism--does this in effect mean that just one or two people can block it the change? Would such a senario be a case here you'd say there's still no consensus? I’d like to know the rules about how this works because right now it seems very unfair to say the least. 64.121.40.153 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus, in Wiki standards, doesn't mean everyone agrees and it doesn't mean a majority of 50%, but an overwhelming majority. If no one responds then there is no objection, but there has been response both here and on Early Christianity, since you are obviously referring to this page too. Str1977 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The reverts need to stop as everytime I come back to my computer I'm about 6 changes behind! Even though I'm really interested in the stuff Giovanni (& socks?) are saying it really doesn't fit here. This should be sorted out in the Early Christianity page where there is room to structure all the ideas that have relevant scholarly backing (Christian or otherwise) and section these ideas to give some indication of their general acceptance. Part of the problems here are that lots of information that raises loads of questions is having to be squeezed in a way that distorts it to no ones satisfaction. At the moment the changes on either side are not staying long enough for anyone not involved in the edit war to read them and make sensible comments.

In 50 years time what Giovanni is saying may be mainstream but whatever my POV I agree that it has no place in the top level Christianity page other than to mention the scholarly discussions and provide links.

Maybe, maybe not. These theories were fashionable about a century ago. Str1977

Am I wrong in saying that there was a general consensus to add a reference to Elaine Pagels and Gnosticism to provide further reading for those interested. Also a link to Early Christianity should be added somewhere to the history section (if it's not already there)at this term is used on the history graph (if it hasn't disappeared again) and this will allow interested users to follow up.

You are right in what you say about Mrs Pagels - but it should be concise. A link to EC is certainly valid and will be included. Str1977

Bear in mind Giovanni that some poor kid out there is trying to do his Religious Education homework from this site and he's going to get really confused if we go into huge (contested) detail on this page. SOPHIA 13:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my argument for a couple of days. Thanks Sophia. Str1977 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

nit picking technical note: Please, Str1977 and others, please don't interleave your comments with someone else's unless you sign each and every one. Otherwise it quickly becomes very difficult to know who said what. Doing that also separates the original person's comment from their signature... the only good "defense" against this I've seen is for the first person to sign every paragraph individually just in case someone decides to respond in the middle of their comment. Avoiding the interleaving would make that less necessary. Wesley 17:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We are the Queen's subjects and must obey. ;-) Str1977 18:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't often find much to criticize in Str1977, but I have to confess I groan as well, when I see unsigned comments indented inside other people's comments, especially if I've been away from the page for while, and lots of people have contributed. Of course, on another page where I've seen him doing this, I was able to guess who had written what because of the plenking and klemping (or absence thereof)! But I don't have that little aid here. ;-) By the way, Wesley, you need the pipeline rather than a colon in the unsigned template. I've fixed it. AnnH ^(talk) 18:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, I've now, while tidying the page in other ways, got rid of the unsigned template for Str's posts, and replaced them with a forged (!) signature, which I thought was more appropriate, since he did sign his posts. The problem was that posts got broken through having so many comments breaking other posts. If we keep doing that, maybe we should just type the name of the contributor just before breaking his/her post, and sign our own comments. AnnH ^(talk) 11:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I promise that I will avoid doing this. I agree that indenting it all at the same level does not work when discussions get long and full of different people. Maybe I spent too much time discussing with a single individual, though he changed his name once in a while.

I hope you like the allusion I made, Ann. Str1977 00:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes! :-) AnnH ^(talk) 11:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki NPOV Policy Review

I think that we can all benefit reviewing the Wiki policy on NPOV. I know we all think we know it, but in practice, I think many of us can slip back into non encylopedic mind frames. I excerted several sections and include them below so that we can review this and see how it applies to solving the ongoing conflicts here. I feel that if we did follow these guidelines from the start we would have avoided a lot of needless edit conficts. I think Storm Rider tact refects the a Wiki NPOV stance, and I hope that after reading the text below, we can all come to an agreement with him about allowing the content I've been advocating inclusion for. Giovanni33 08:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy. Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased. . What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense.

Nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly, and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense we are presenting here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia. They are not re-enacted. We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. The presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral" or "intermediate" among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

Another point bears elaboration as well. Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them.

Undue weight Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

· If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; · If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

Bias

Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view. The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. Certainly, there are bound to be borderline cases where a fact is disputed but we're not sure if we should take the dispute seriously, or where the distinction between fact and value will itself necessarily be in dispute. Nevertheless, there are many propositions that clearly express undisputed facts, and others that clearly express values or opinions. That a survey produced a certain published result is a fact.

In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation. But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can.

The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail. There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and sympathetically.

The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion).

Neutrality dictates that there can be multiple prominent interpretations to the meaning or validity of a work, but often the contents can be objectively verified, especially in the case of modern documents.

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Religion

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

Many adherents of a religion will object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which is often from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.)

Giving "equal validity" But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil. Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them qua encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. See this humorous illustration of the "equal validity" issue. Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.

There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.

Avoiding constant disputes

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues? The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that most of us are reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.

Making necessary assumptions What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

No, surely not. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also philosophy, history, physics, etc.

Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be apropos, however. E.g., in an article about the evolutionary development of horses, we might have one brief sentence to the effect that some creationists do not believe that horses (or any other animals) underwent any evolution, and point the reader to the relevant article. If there is much specific argument over some particular point, it might be placed on a special page of its own.

It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view.

Consensus edits

Gio, Balinda, etc.: Here's a suggestion which could save you from revert violations and watching your edits be reverted by myself or by others. Please note that a consensus means not a "work in progress" (which really defines all of Wikipedia), but an agreement by both/all sides regarding a change. So, before making an edit, please go over it here, on the talk page, to see what "the other side" thinks of the proposal. Perhaps we can tweak the language and come up with a version everyone can live with...then we can add it and it truly would be consensual. Many of your edits/reverts were made with an edit summary claiming "consensus" where none existed. We can avoid this in the future if you discuss things here first and gain a clear consensus before making such obviously problematic changes. This is just a suggestion. Thanks...KHM03 18:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I promose to re-include the suppressed information that several of us editors worked out per StormRiders compromised solution, but which was still suppressed. A case has not been made why all this work of many editors is to be reverted. I understand that not everyone agreed on the other side but Storm Rider was on the other side and he agreed,he proposed the comproise to include both the secular view and the Christian view. From what I see of the responses people agreed with this. Those who disagree please state the objections. I restored the sections. MikaM 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or nor Mika I really think you have some interesting stuff but this is not the place for it. There isn't the room to fully explain it so it looks inaccurate as it differs so vastly from what people thought they knew about the history of Christianity. That doesn't make the established view right or wrong but we must accept that this IS minority stuff. We should be having this debate on the Early Christianity page. When things have calmed down I will make sure the link is added to this section - I've seen agreement for that.

I've had disagreements on this page but you will not be taken seriously by anyone if you carry on like this - you'll just get banned. That's not a threat (I'm not an admin - just a new user like you) but the way things are we can't make any progress. There are other edits that need doing such as adding the Elaine Pagels link but it's pointless at the moment. You just have to accept that as you are new in you need to find the right place for your information with the right links for it to be found by those interested. This is a dynamic project - I have stuff I'd like to add but I'm not sure where it fits in best so I'm spending my time doing a lot of reading and learning. Believe me I've had STR1977, AnnH and KHM03 all at me at once so I know how you feel. No disrespect to them but because they know each other well in the Wiki world it can be quite scary for new comers when you do something they don't like. The reality of Wiki is that you have self selecting editors so anyone working on this page is bound to have strong views. Look upon this as a long term thing - you don't need to get everything you want in right now. But please stop reverting to a contentious version as we're getting nowhere. SOPHIA 23:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Sophia, if we scared you, which never was our attention. But I know how you feel and can positively state that no offense is taken (and I think I can speak for the others on this). I also appreciate your attempts of calming down tension despite our own differences. Goodnight, Str1977 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this to me Sophia and your advise. I see where you are coming from and I started to speak up here because I thought Giovanni was not being treated fairly. I read on Giovanni's talk page where they were accusing him of bigotry, being uncivil, and other nasty things all over wikipeadia. No suprise then that now he is blocked (or banned?) and so is Belinda, and probably others who disagreed too much. I thought this place was about what you could prove, about making the arguments, which I think Giovanni did. I see I was mistaken. I don't plan to revert again but I'm sure its probably already too late for me too. I'm sure I've already been target for elimination. Sadly, might still makes right. If all other places of Wikipeadia are equally governed as badly as they are here, then I'm not sure I want to be a part of it anymore. It's a loss to wikipedia to lose good contributors, and I hope they do something about the unfairness. MikaM 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mika, our two fellow editors have not been banned but blocked for a period time, as I understand, for an overdose of reverting. It takes much more to be "eliminated". The "accusations" against giovanni were directed at several specific posts he made.

Giovanni hasn't proven that his inclusions are either fact (which he did claim in he beginning) or, in the version he posted, significant minority views.

It certainly is about arguments and might doesn't make right - it is exactly such self-potrayal and, I say it again, vilification of opposing views that poisons the well.

Str1977 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, if people disagree with something and you suggest something similar but slightly modified as a compromise, wait to see if it is accepted. And, since you're both so grossly in violation of the 3RR rule, it would be better if you didn't insert your suggested compromise yourself. What you've been doing is making a case on the talk page, and then posting your version (which people disagree with) with an edit summary of "case made on talk page", or in cases where people made their objections, you posted a slightly modified version, with an edit summary saying that this was according to consensus on the talk page. If there really is consensus, if would be better if one of the original opponents posted the compromise version, or if you waited an appropriate amount of time for comments. Giovanni, I note you're still reverting at Early Christianity. Please note, as I told you on your talk page, that people known to revert a lot can end up getting blocked for "disruption" or "gaming the system" (i.e. making a fourth revert or partial revert after 24 hours and two minutes) even if they manage on a particular occasion to stay within the rules. AnnH ^(talk) 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some of the information that some have preferred to enter needs to be put on the Early Christianity page; however, a brief statment with a reference to the appropriate article should be an acceptable alternative rather then nothing at all. As far as reverts go, except for vandalism, I see too many on both sides of the issue and there are no angels. We have gotten much too liberal in what we revert; often it seems to be more out of laziness. I would prefer to see no reverts, except for vandalism, from anyone at this time. If it is something you disagree with, edit by adding a corresponding point with references. I know that this adds a lot of work for everyone, but it ensures that no editor feels like MikaM and Sophia above. Their point is well taken; when you have several editors "defending" their turf as aggressively as this page has been, newcomers can feel very unwelcome and that is unacceptable. One caveat to my advice is that controversial edits should be discussed first and other/all edits need to be referenced. Compromise is difficult and demands a lot of each participant; I am not sure we are there yet, but I like the direction we are taking. It will be much better when Gio and others return. Then we will see if real progress has been made. Storm Rider 06:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, looks like I'm back (for now). I've been a bad boy and had to be punished. hehe Thanks, Ann. :) I agree with Storm Rider and feel that most of us here do have a general consensus already that my point of view while it may be a minority one is not extreme or fringe, which would justify supression. The fact that I can easily point to prominent scholars even within the field of reglious studies departments who argue this, proves its a at the very least a significant minority view. This is all the more the case given the those who argue otherwise have only asserted it but have not backed up their claims with any references, much less purported refutations of these views. Again, I think most of us here agree that its a signifant minority view. The question now, then, is how much and in what way do we incorporate it in this article within the section on history and origins? I'm willing to compromise (as I always have), and make it short, with a link to Early Christianity where is should be allowed to have a more promient role (its being suppressed there too--even more so where it was mostly being reverted back to a stub). In anycase I'm confident that we editors all being reasonable intelligent people can come to a sensible agreement.Giovanni33 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

One comment I do want to suggest for a change, and which I've never been happy with in the orthodox version is the statment "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially the Gnostics (who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge),..." To me this sounds too POV, as if we are speaking from the point of view of the Chruch, who had to "deal with internal heresies." Well they are only heresies from the POV of the Church. Man of the groupd that came to be labled heresies was a matter of sometimes just one vote. To the Gnostic Christians, the other side was the false belief, and they were the true Christians. By calling the Gnostics heresies that had to be dealt "dealt" with by the Chruch takes one POV and makes it seem like this other branch in early Christianty were a problem to be dealth with. This POV language can be corrected to something like "which the Chruch at such and such time, declared them to be "heresies," but Gnostic Christians, like others groups in the Christian movment, also considered themselves to be the one and true Christianity." I hope my objections make sense. Other issues in general that I dont like are when things are spoken of in static terms, instead of historical, dyanamic, and other terms that connote emergence, and lack of finality. So instea of just starting out, I prefer emerge. Its more historical as it suggests coming out of what was before, insteas of just dropping from the sky in a vacuume. There are other examples in the text prefered by the other side as contrasted with my version. I just thought to explain my objections on this point. Giovanni33 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni. I'm new too and wondered about the changes I kept seeing when I was browsing this Wiki article based on a search I did. I was very happy to see the information about early Christian influences presented in the way you have argued for. The reason why I became interested in participating was because I was disappointed that at other times this information was no longer available. I see now why. I hope that my own experience and help for others to realize that it would be a good thing to include. It does not confuse people (that much), and confusion is not always a bad thing. All learning first begins with confusion. It only makes for a better education to be exposed to these forerunners to modern Christianity, which so many people are rather ignorant of. I made my first edit, a very humble one based on your suggestions above, and ones I know keep the article accurate. I hope they can restore to the version I saw before that had all the links included to the other mystery cults. I do not now how to find that version or how to restore it. I am still learning. Thank you, Richard. 198.144.207.115 06:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Another section I'd like to hash out is the one about characterizing the resulting state sponsored Christian orthodoxy, as one that emphasised "blind faith, etc." I think its important because in my view it played a prime role in bringing about the Dark Ages, one of the worst periods of human history from an intellectual point of view. I knew this would be probably incite provocation so I included it not as a fact per se but used the voice of three scholars who said this to represent this point of view, the view itself a statment of fact. I know Str1977 dismissed this as false, a legend from the Enlightenment (a saner period in history), and said it can never stand, etc. Well, to supress it I'd like to see support for your claim that refutes this from other scholars, and show that this view is fringe and discredited. I happen to think its a signifiant point of view, which therefore should be fairly chracterized and represented, along with the other point of view, that disagrees. This would make it NPOV. What say all ye fellow editors on both isles of the fence? Thanks. Giovanni33 03:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I concur with you to a degree on appearing as if WIKI is taking the point of view of orthodox Christianity. My counsel would be to refer not to the "church", but to the historic Chrisitian church or orthodox church. In doing so we are not taking sides, but rather we are identifying the source of the belief. Please remember to continue to discuss those edits that you know will be most controversial here first. Always reference your edits in the article when you feel it might be raise some eyebrows. I have encourged all simply to stop reverting edits unless the edit is vandalism. We still have too many reverts going on. The objective is edit other edits rather than do wholesale reverts. It does create a lot of work for each editor, but right now I think we need to demonstrate that everyone with expertise is welcome.

The blind faith conversation is interesting...I am not aware of another type of faith; it is always blind. Couching it as blind faith is POV because of its negative connotation. A definition of faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; if you have faith you hope for things which are not seen, which are true. The attack on science led by the historic church was motivated by a number of things, not simply faith. Storm Rider 08:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Strom Rider, I agree to abide by your suggestion and agree with you that it would make things better. So, I will not revert, again, unless it obvious vandalism.

I look at the contested passage again, and it doesnt say blind faith at all. I'm not sure why I thought it did, but I think it was Str who used that term. Anyway, here it the text on the idea to review:

According to American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler, the resulting orthodoxy "emphasised faith, produced a thinking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology"), a reliance on the miraculous and supernatural, under the old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed."

This is clearly a POV but that’s ok because it’s stated as a fact according to these authorities, scholars in the field--their point of view is being reported. The question is if it represents a significant pov in how it characterizes 4th century orthodox Christianity. I'll do some research in the question just to make sure but I believe it is a very common view. The other thing is that these authors make statments of fact. Are the alleged statments of fact here as reported accurate,i.e. not that they are diputed by widley debunked and discredited by all current POV's? Again, I'll research it just to make sure. Maybe there is a better scholar(s) that can be chosesn if it is a legitimate pov, anyway.

Now, if this is a real, legitimate POV, and its presented, we need to find out if its refuted by the orthodox Christian point of view; then we need to find the mainstream Christian orthodox point, a good spokes person to quote in this regard, i.e, of view regarding how they characterize themselves about their attitude towards and what they say about this critical view as espoused above.Giovanni33 08:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the "blind faith" quote was way over the line in terms of POV; can another quote be found (by a reputable authority on Christian history, of course) which communicates that thought in a less POV manner? Also: does the mystery religion article, which we should provide a link to, provide links to the various mystery religions you had wanted to list? KHM03 12:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the following are missing, from the article on mystery cults. Im not sure why Dionysus is missing and probably can be added there but other early Christan forerunners are not mystery cults so they are not listed there. Gnosticism, the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Dionysus, various mystery cults, Mithraism and Osiris.

I always thought that the Dionysian rites were the mystery cult "par excellence". KHM03 19:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the Mystery Cults article could use some work.69.106.226.3 21:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

About the proposed section above, even though its a POV, I think its an accurate one. If someone disagrees with me please cite a reference that argues such. Otherwise, I agree that we should include this critism in its most powerful, direct way (pov), and also characterize the mainstream view/response to the critics, even if its only their rationale. I think its important that this criticism be included becaues the intolerant dogmatic nature of the resulting orthoxy of the Church had profound effect on the vigor of the persecution against intellectual freedom advocated by the Church and carried out with the backing of the State. I disagree earlier that it was simply done in the name of the Church--their intolerant outlook sanctioned it and pushed it. Just take a look at some of the mainstream Church fathers, such as Thomas Aquinas, for example. He he held that heretics "deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death", and thus that heresy should be punished by death (ST II:II 11:3), He also maintained the intellectual inferiority of women and their subjection to men on that account (ST I:92:1), which is one reason why he opposed the ordination of women (ST Supp. 39:1); He also held that "a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction". (ST II:II 65:2) What we see is a very reactionary institution that was intolerant of anyone who deviated from their dogma and advocated such such people be murdered, not to mention justification for other brutal and opppressive practices like slavery.MikaM 03:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What do people think of this book as a reference, A World History of Christianity

by Adrian Hastings (Editor) [1] Here one can find a through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[2] Even though this book is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history, I note they also make the point: "Hastings notes that after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues."

About the above passage , Prof. A.D. White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology" (3 vols.), as well as prof. Draper, and Kohler, are all authoritative in their subject matters and I say we should use them as perfect representatives for the the view, characterization of the orthox Christian stance against intellectual freedoms. MikaM 05:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mika, it is one thing to state what happened in history, but it is another to interpret that history. For example, above you state what Thomas may have taught, but then you go on to state that it was a "very reactionary institution that was intolerant of anyone who deviated from their dogma and advocated such people be murdered, not to mention justification for other brutal and opppressive practices like slavery." I would call this type of history reconstructionist...it is looking at history through the perspective of today's social morays. You open a can of worms that you don't address: what was happening in other societies? Was slavery practiced elsewhere? How did other people raise their children? How were minority religions treated elsewhere in the world? It is so POV that it is unjustified and really seems more like grinding your axe, rather than improving the article. I suggest if you want to cite the thoughts of early historic church fathers (it would be best to handle in their respective articles), but don't attempt to interpret them or spin them to meet your POV; just simply state what happened in history. Does this make sense? Storm Rider 08:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. Aside from that, this section is meant to give a brief overview in an article which discusses many aspects of Christianity, not just history. There are articles such as Early Christianity, History of Christianity, and Criticisms of Christianity which deal with these problems more precisely. KHM03 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. Aside from that, this section is meant to give a brief overview in an article which discusses many aspects of Christianity, not just history. There are articles such as Early Christianity, History of Christianity, and Criticisms of Christianity which deal with these problems more precisely. KHM03 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont think Mika was suggesting to include her views and her text as part of the article, only to support inclusion of my brief passage about the fact that the brand of Christian orthodoxy was distinguisable for certain attributes; these attributes were widely noted and had signifiant ramifications. I agree with others that should anything else specifically be introduced such as the morals views of the Church fathers that is has to be 1. historically contextualized, not contrasted with todays moral compass, and 2. that in anycase this all goes beyond the summary of this article and is best left for the other articles mentioned by KHMO3. Still, my passage or some passage like the one quoted above, is appropriate for this article. That passage, was: "... after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues." However, I like my passage because its states the case in better, clearer terms with some specifics, and uses three well known scholars and cites their work in doing so. Giovanni33 11:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I added that passage as a comproise, instead of the White passage. BelindaGong 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Belinda, if you are refering to this edit, I can only say that the substance of this passage is already covered a few lines beneath and in the persecution section. Also, it is unclear where the quote "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older Pagan religions." is quoted from - the context suggests it is a quote from the decrees but that's incorrect. The wording is also very fuzzy (what is "upon any who cling" supposed to mean? - the decrees supressed the pagan cults - nothing less and nothing more) or down-right wrong ("all rival religions" would include Judaism, which wasn't affected at all). Str1977 09:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up, the quote comes from this source: Joseph McCabe, "A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science," Gryphon Books (1971). Excerpts appear at: http://www.christianism.com/articles/18.html

I think it belongs in the history section for context since it characterizes the nature of the established state Christian orthodoxy. I think this is a compromise over bring the other quote by the Jewish scholar and White. 64.121.40.153 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I believe you have already violated the 3RR rule regarding the above version. Correct me if I'm wrong. Just wanted to point it out. I suggest you work out the differences on the talk page. Otherwise all we have is an edit war which is not productive. Thanks. Giovanni33 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann. I just wanted put you on notice with this warning incase you are not aware it. You blocked me for the violation and claimed you seldom revert yourself, which I disputed. Here I present evidence where, as is usual, you revert back to Str1977's version. I also note that there is no case made for this version while the other side has made a case and has asked that the disagreements be worked outinstead of edit warring. There is no response yet on the talk page for days about this dispute from your side that wants this version. I suggest you stop edit warring, and ask that those who support your side (seems to be only Str1977),at least make their case instead of blindly reverting, along with you following him, which suggests a possible meat puppet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38385983&oldid=38384074

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38403075&oldid=38400630

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38507904&oldid=38507249

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38510080&oldid=38510031

Thanks. Giovanni33 21:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have now self reverted. I did actually look through the history before I made that last revert, but somehow missed my name, among so many other edits. Could I remind you again that I did not block you. I would never block someone with whom I was in an editing dispute. I reported you after giving you numerous chances to avoid the block. You were the first person I had ever reported. I also disagree that Str1977 is the only one who supports my side. There has been a lot of opposition to your attempts to insert into articles anti-Christian bias, based sometimes on very minority, or even fringe scholarship, or simply on error (note for example your attempt to have an article say that Galileo was tortured). No, Str1977 and I are not meatpuppets. We each have a longish and independent history on Wikipedia. We come from different countries, have never met, and were quite unaware of each other for some time when we joined. I suggest you read the definition of meatpuppets, especially the bit which asks you to "be civil".

I notice that you've now added something to your own talk page about my "hypocrisy".[3] I admit that my proportion of reverting has gone up since you arrived, just as it would have if I had been editing lots of Shakespeare articles, and a new editor had insisted on inserting as mainstream scholarship a fringe theory (which does actually exist) that Othello murdered Desdemona out of frustration because of his own sexual impotence and inability to consummate his marriage, and not because he believed her to be unfaithful. Before you came, I would say that my average was one a day, or even less (not counting vandalism, of course). However, I remind you that you had eleven reverts, plus six, plus five, plus four, and were warned repeatedly while you were still reverting (rather than after). This is my first ever violation, and happened through an accident. There is no hypocrisy there. Please try to assume good faith. AnnH ^(talk) 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for undoing your 4th revert, back to the other version, which is widely accepted, is not inaccurate, and is not fringe. I don't know anyone who even claims that anymore and I think you are following the argument about another issue. And, ofcourse if no one challenges an established bias and POV, there is no need to enforce that one sided POV. That goes without saying.

This particular dispute pertains to a compromised version of my original White quote about the nature of the new Orhodox version of Christinaity after it assumed that status as the state religion. Specifically, the point is that it was particularly intolerant. Str1977 only objected to this final version on the grounds that the point is already made in the Persecutions section and that the quote was not attributed. This was fixed by Belinda, and this compromised version which was introduced by Mika was restored, and I note that most of what I wanted was not included. So it was added by Belinda after addressing the point raised by Str. This was after the original version that I wanted by White, was objected to as too POV by KH03, but who agreed that the idea could still be represented, just with another source. After the latest objection was addressed and (attribution and redundancy) it was included. There was no more responses from Str1977 or anyone. However he kept reverting, with you helping him. This is how this latest edit warring started again, and the communication breakdown is clearly on one side's fault.

Your analogy about Shakespear does not apply to this situation at all. If it does, please make the case. The original claims about my original contributions also have never been supported with references to back up that charge. But its moot now since I think it better fits in Early Christianity. Your exmample of my supposed claim that Galileo was tortured (from another article) is not valid since I corrected myself saying that what I meant was that he was under the threat of torture, and that was was done to him is considered by some to be tantamount to tortue. But, that is not an issue, here, either. About the meatpuppet, I did not know. I thought simply blinding reverting based on what someone else does without any arguments being made, just to support them, is what was meant by a meatpuppet. So I'm sorry if I was wrong about the use of that term, which you used to describe Belinda. Giovanni33 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I naively assumed that since you had informed me of my fourth revert (which was an accident), you intended to be as generous as the Christian editors were towards you when you did eleven, six, and five reverts. None of the people opposing your edits has a history of reporting 3RR violations without warning. I was mistaken — I see you have reported me.

I disagree that your version is widely accepted and is not fringe. I also disagree that the example of Galileo is not valid. You put into the article that he was tortured. And I don't think you corrected yourself. Someone else reverted you, and at least two people told you on the talk page that he wasn't tortured. You then modified the wording, and argued that showing him the instruments of torture was more or less the same thing as torturing him. Not very reliable arguments or editing, in my view.

I never used the word meatpuppet to describe Belinda. I said that it was possible that she was one. To be fair, you didn't use it to describe me either. You said my reverting to Str's version suggested a possible meatpuppet. Your main support comes from newly-registered users, who turn up at the articles that you edit to revert to your version and to vote to support it on talk pages. I would remind you of the policy that "neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." And "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." While Str1977 and I certainly share the same views on Christianity, I don't think anyone would argue that we have the same editing habits. He edits articles that I know nothing about; I edit articles that he never comes near. You also, at an earlier stage, suggested sockpuppetry on the part of Str1977 and KHM03.

As far as blindly reverting without any arguments, I have given arguments on several occasions. But on occasions where I haven't, I was fully in agreement with Str1977 or KHM03, or Wesley, or some of the others. I don't always have time to make the kind of long posts that you do. That does not mean that an edit with inaccuarcies and POV has to stay up until I can prove to your satisfaction that it's badly flawed. Even votes, on Wikipedia, don't have to have a paragraphe in the editor's own words. "Oppose, per Mindspillage", is quite sufficient. Those who support you do not always provide a reasoned, in depth analysis of their reverts. AnnH ^(talk) 03:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ann, simply repeating over and over that my inclusions are not widely accepted and fringe does not make it any more true. Just saying that is not making an argument. I assume good faith so I think you must really believe that but don't expect that this belief should stand unless you provide referenced support to support your claim, as I have always done to support my claims. Regarding the original Prof. White passage, which I generously agreed to replace with another source that expressing the same idea, per KH03's suggestion. Still, I supported my claim that the White passage is widely accepted thusly:

Prof. A.D. White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology" (3 vols.), as well as prof. Draper, and Kohler, are all authoritative in their subject matters and I say we should use them as perfect representatives for the the view, characterization of the orthox Christian stance against intellectual freedoms. To support my source as one that is widely accepted I provided a further source: "historian Bruce Mazlish certified White's thesis to have been established "beyond reasonable doubt," and the late George Sarton, a distinguished historian of science at Harvard found White's argument so compelling that he urged its extension to non-Christian cultures. See Mazlish, Preface, P. is; George Sarton, "Introductory Essay," in Science, Religion and Reality, ed. Joseph Needham (New York, 1955), p. 14."

But, this is now moot since it was replaced by another quote that states the same idea. This source was suggested by Mika. She said:

"What do people think of this book as a reference, A World History of Christianity

by Adrian Hastings (Editor) [4] Here one can find a through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[5] Even though this book is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history, I note they also make the point: "Hastings notes that after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues."

I agreed, so I used this quote instead. I note that no one disputed this source or this information from Hastings as presented by Mika. No one, that is, until right now by yourself with these sweeping accusations of fringe and not accepted. I am assuming that you were not follwing the specifics but are just making generalizations (hence your reliance on the Galileo argument to inform your views about this--which is a flawed and lazy method). If you want to make claims about this specific issue, please support your claims as I find them false. After I added this quote, it was later revmoved by Str1977 about a week later, along with other sections and he revereted to a very old version that had been objected to as POV. Specifically the language about heresies. But his objection was that one quote did not have attribution and the point about intolerance was already made in the Perecustoins section. I responded with an argument why its not the same thing, and I provided the attribution for the other quote:

"Joseph McCabe, "A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science," Gryphon Books (1971). Excerpts appear at: http://www.christianism.com/articles/18.html"

"About the Galileo issue on on another article an entire section was removed instead of fixing a small word missing, which I gladly fixed after I found out about it, but I disputed your chracterization of my stance even then. I wrote: "I did not re-insert it--I changed it to address the points in disput, which were easy to fix and did not justify removing the entire section. I think that editors should not revert others work without reaching consensus on the talk page. Adding, editing, is fine, but not undoing others work, and esp. not after it points of contention have been addressed.

Also, it's not true that there is a general accusation that the Church tortured Galileo. The claim is that he was under the threat of tourture. I note that White says that what they put him through was the equivalent of tourture. I bypassed the point by simply stating he was under the threat of tourture, instead of tortured. I don't think anyone, Catholic writer or otherwise, that disputes this claim. Giovanni33 22:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC) "

I suggest we stick to the argument relevant to this page instead of trying to find things from other articles to make general points that can not be used to justify arguments relating to specific text on this page.

Also, even though I reported you I stated that I did not want you to be blocked since you claimed that your 3RR violation was an accident. I think newbies deserve more generosity but well established users, esp. admins. such as yourself should know better. I just want you to use the talk page more to make your arguments yourself instead of only reverting work that doesnt push your POV. I see my contributions as an attempt to balance the coverage of the topic in keeping with the NPOV policy.Giovanni33 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that newbies deserve more generosity, which is why I, and Str1977, and KHM03, and Wesley did not report any of your many original violations, or Belinda's. You were never reported when there was the slightest possibility of an accident. You reported my first ever violation, after I had self reverted, and only said that you didn't want me to be blocked the next day, after discovering that I had responded on the page where you reported me. You were perfectly within your rights to report me, of course, but, bearing in mind that you were not reported the time that you reverted eleven times in eighteen and a half hours, ignoring many requests and warnings, or on some of your other violations, I leave it for you to judge whether the generosity shown towards you or the generosity shown by you is greater. AnnH ^(talk) 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is beating a dead horse, so to speak. I think I already admitted that the level of "generosity" is not the same, but you agree that it should not be the same, right? You say "I fully agree that newbies deserve more generosity," so there is no argument here. I think we should all not undo any other editors work, without first coming to the talk page and making a case--unless its vandalism. And this goes all the more for work where there has been a case made for its inclusion already. If there are objections, instead of just reverting and instigating an edit war, address those at the talk page. I and other editors have always been more than happy to address any objections, make needed corrections, or even remove our own work if its shown not to be approrpriate for any reason. This is a far more productive way. For the record, I did not report you on the reporting page so that you could get blocked. I responded to the guy who blocked me to prove an argument I had made that both sides were reverting a lot. It was to his personal page, not the the "reporting page" where these reports are made. Secondly, your response had nothing to do with my stating I didn't want you blocked. Clearly I stated that since you said it was an accident I assume good faith and accordingly I do not wish that you be blocked. I assume you will give me equal good faith. Lets all try to work together and not undo each others work so quickly. I think I have proven myself more than reasonable. 64.121.40.153 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't neutral?

How is this article not neutral? All I see is a fair and balanced opinion of Christianity. Was one of your retarded sysops molested by a priest or something? Even if they were, that guy in no way represents the core beliefs or values of the religion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexican Pirate (talk • contribs)

Well, most of the information presented under the article: Christianity has no basis. So why bother correcting it when it's all untrue and deceptive?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.128.11 (talk • contribs)

The claim of Christianity being monotheistic is debatable. Existence of only one God in the pantheon qualifies for montheism, and it works for Christianity (or Islam, for that matter) that the definition of 'God' is a convenient one.

Christians may call only one entity as God, but there is no denying the existence of other super-human entities, viz., Satan, Holy Ghost, angels, archangels, seraphs, cherubs and the like. While Christians tend to superimpose the title God to any such superhuman entity in other faiths, say, Hinduism or Shintoism, there is a marked reluctance to refer to the above-mentioned super-human entities as gods, or subordinate gods.

The Christian/Muslim definition of 'God' is more a convenient one to project monotheism that a truthful one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudar (talk • contribs)

Wait a minute. That's what it's all about? The fact that Christians worship one God, but believe in many superior beings? That qualifies for marking the article as not having a neutral POV? Well, I can answer that for you. There are other superior beings, but only one almighty God. God created the angels and such, as well as Satan (who, like all demons, started off as an angel). As for the Holy Ghost, that's another name for God. The Holy Trinity comes from God's ability to be omnipresent. God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same God coming to you in different forms. -Mexican Pirate 04:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC) ř

Why would God come to us in different forms?? This whole idea is obselete.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.128.11 (talk • contribs)

The Trinity concept is generally hard to comprehend at first. I don't know if "coming in different forms" is how I would explain it, but there is this: when speaking with the Irish on the subject St. Patrick (according to legend) spotted a three-leaf clover between his toes, plucked it, and used the analogy that the Trinity is like the three leaves of the clover. Each leaf is different and unique, but it's all one clover.

Identical triplets that are in "continuous thought communication" may be an appropriate analogy. ^rossnixon 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Trinity concept is rather too obsolete, let alone hard to "comprehend". So a man, spots a "three-leaf" clover between his toes, and uses its analogy to represent the so-called Trinity. Now think: Could this get any more arbitrary? I do not think so. Suppose the man came across a "X-leaf" clover, where X is any positive integer. So would that have made it the "X-inity"??... In conclusion, there is no doubt that this concept is nothing but a made up nonsense from someone's imagination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.128.11 (talk • contribs)

Your brain has been mutated. Maybe it needs surgery. Scorpionman 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing 'obsolete' about the idea. See the Trinity article for a more complete discussion of this topic. Wesley 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to hold whatever opinion you have about Christianity, but Wikipedia is not the place to express it. The belief in God "coming to us in different forms", whether you subscribe to it or not, is core to Christianity, and therefore should stay in the article. There's nothing biassed about including that element of Christianity. Waggers 17:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. The discussed comment didn't seem to be really progressive or helpful. - ElAmericano | talk 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

What do we need to do at this point to get the warning removed? KHM03 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we set a time limit. We who has any objections may speak now, or very well hold his peace. Str1977 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Helpful archiving?

It seems to me that someone (who has been involved in this talk page for a while) might archive the 'closed' discussions and summarize them so that those of us new to the article know what's already been discussed. I suppose it's easier said than done. - ElAmericano | talk 18:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do not have neither the time nor the energy to archive this nonsense [[130.113.128.11]]

Now you look here. If you don't have either the "time nor the energy to archive this nonsense" then perhaps you'd better not even visit this discussion page. If you hate Christianity that much, then heck, don't even go to the article! But I don't want to read any more of your rantings or angry, unbacked comments. This page is for discussing changes to the article, not to give your silly opinions about "this nonsense". Unless you have something useful to say, and I do mean useful, then quit coming to this page. Scorpionman 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not feed the trolls. SOPHIA 08:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we archive the discussion from | upwards? The articles above that section, which seemed to have been very active around Jan 23-24, seems to have wrapped up around end-January. In contrast, the subsequent section | has some comments in Feb, so we can probably leave that for further discussions. --Joseph Gan 08:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Subtle Vandalism

Has anyone else noticed a small number of contributers indulging in behaviour that at best reflects an extreme devotion to a particular system of belief and at worst a bizarre form of vandalism.

For example no one prepared to edit a sentence on the Nicene creed can really be ignorant of the filioque, yet a certain editor who, as anyone can see from his earlier edits clearly has an agenda, has reinserted text which states falsely that the Western Churches use a version of the Nicene Creed dating from 431. I notice this particular editor who removed it claims some expertise in the field!

I will restore the earlier factuallly correct version, and perhaps the editor in question would be kind enough to provide a citation that he regards as acceptable - he can choose pretty mucgh any authority on the subject he likes. 81.251.45.151 11:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Vandalwatcher

If you're referring to my interest in exactitude and veracity, then thank you. If you refer to something else, please review WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Your edit didn't mention the filioque clause and was extremely misleading, implying something about the Church in the West that is inaccurate. If you are going to make the claim that the "Western version" of the Creed dates from the ninth century, you're going to have to give some context. Otherwise, it's unsourced and misleading and won't last long. Thanks...KHM03 12:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I've learned something today. From the little reading I have just done it does seem like this is a very important distiction as the filioque is still a distinction between eastern and western christianity to this day. It does need referencing however as it does raise questions that the interested reader will want to follow up. Since it is such a decisive split it doesn't seem a bit POV to assume the western view takes precedence and only deserves a mention. SOPHIA 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The filioque is a distinction between East and West, between RC and Eastern Orthodox. And this merits inclusion into the article.

However, it should be done accurately. The filioque first appears in Spain, based on Latin translations of the Nicene creed or of patristic texts. It was adopted by the Frankish Church under Charlemagne and it was adopted by the Roman Church after the year 1000, under pressure from Emperor Henry II the Saint. Str1977 12:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded it so as to include a link to the Filioque.

Another thing: 81.. included: "adopted as the universal creed of Orthodox Christendom not as is widely assumed by the Council of Nicea but by the Council of Ephesus in 431" but this is misleading:

The original Nicene creed was adopted in 325 at the council of Nicaea. It was supplemented (re the Holy Spirit) in 381 at the council of Constantinople. It this "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" that we are generally referring to when saying "Nicene Creed" (as the NCC is hard to utter). At the next council, Ephesus in 431, the normal thing would have been to supplement the NCC in regard to the Theotokos, but instead the fathers decided to affirm this separetely and to proclaim that the NCC should remain unchanged. Because of this move, the NCC wasn't supplemented in 451 at Chalcedon or on any other council and has remained The Creed until this day. Further doctrinal issues are defined not within the creed but in separate documents.

So yes, the NC was adopted as the universal, definite creed at Ephesus, but it was drawn up at Nicea and Constantinople. Str1977 13:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

interesting and characteristicly ingenious arguments, but the present text appears to deliberately fudge a number of key points: eg that the Nicene creed was a rather late addition to an existing body of contradictory creeds, that the eastern and western churches versions differ in important respects, and that the western form is very late and is known to contain an interpolation.

also, I have seen no evidence that the overwhelming majory of Christians subscibe to the Nicene Creed - and perhaps anyone who would like to provide some evidence should be specific as which of the three versions of the "Nicene Creed" is being referred to.

It would be a refreshing break from custom if the clique could make some positive suggestions free of their very obvious PoV rather than simply revert these changes

86.206.110.1 11:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Vandalwatcher

86..., thanks for the name calling. It always helps a contructive argument.

The Nicene Creed was not "a rather late addition to an existing body of contradictory creeds" - it was adopted in 325 and supplemented in 381 and from that point onwards remained unchanged. It was the 381 council that confirmed the NC after the continuing Arian dispute sponsored by the Emperors Constantius II and Valens, and clarified a few points left open in Nicaea. You are right that there were creeds that contradicted Nicaea and each other but they were all issued during the Arian dispute and never actually adopted by the Church. After 381 there are only the Nicene(-Const..) Creed and the Apostle's Creed (and earlier creed from Rome) and they don't contradict each other. The only difference remaining is the Filioque and it mainly a difference in wording. And the text now addresses this dispute.

As for the statement that the "overwhelming majory of Christians subscibe to the Nicene Creed". We have the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Old Oriental Churches, the Lutheran Churches, the Anglican Churches, the "Old Catholic" Churches (and possibly others I have forgotten) adhering to the NC as such, and the great majority of Protestants adhering to the substance and content of the creed. That leaves us with Mormons, JWs, various Adventists, various "Arian" groups and Liberals within the mentioned denominations. Str1977 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Having disagreed with these editors and raised the same concerns over their POV myself I can see what you are trying to say. However after much thought I realised that I was no less neutral myself as in that case my arguments were coming from a humanist rather than deist slant (I didn't even realise I had a humanist POV until that point). The problem with trying to summarise a subject is that you will always write things as they seem to you - therefore emphasising the details that seem the most important in your view. POV concerns get flung around continuously in wikipedia, very occasionaly justifiably, but usually all they do is cause bad feeling.

I think the info you have brought up is very interesting, the links are very worthwhile and I think add valuable insight to other parts of the article such as the great schism. They need to be factually correct however and I have read conflicting info elsewhere on the web about this so it would be real nice if we could stick to the facts and references and try to work out how to present them in a balanced but brief way in the article as this is a summary section. SOPHIA 12:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, thanks for your measured words. However, the valid concerns of 86... have already been addressed in the text. The Filoque play a part in the Great Schism - great on the surface, small in substance - but this is not the article to provide an in-depth study of the Schism. Both Filioque and the Schism have wikilinks to the respective articles. Str1977 13:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert in this as I didn't even know about it until it was brought up here so I cannot add anything to the debate on how prominent this should be. Howeve with my love of linking and follow up it does seem perfectly adequate if there is a brief mention of the issues with wiki links for those who want the details. SOPHIA 14:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Str1977 "This user strives to be fully faithful to the Church and Pope Benedict XVI." would care to explain why his church executed Greek Orthodox priests in Cyprus over a matter that he describes as "small in substance". He might also like to read Timothy Ware on the Orthodox Church to see that this is still a matter which is not considered "small in substance" outside his own Church.

Vandalwatcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.251.36.89 (talk • contribs)

WP:DNFT --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort - many thanks for this. I hadn't understood previous references to "Don't Feed The Trolls". This defines the clique running this page exactly

Trollwatcher, previously known as Vandalwatcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.251.36.89 (talk • contribs)

Dear Vandalwatcher,

I hope you have found my user page interesting. As for the two priest, I can only say that I am very sorry for them, as I have no more information on the circumstances of their death. However, I want to explain what I meant by "small in substance": The words Filioque do not change the meaning of the creed at all, merely give a different emphasis. Western and Eastern Church agreed on this on the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and Council of Florence (1439). The origins of the schism are not matters of theology, but matters of discipline and cultural differences. Photius decided to use the Filioque as a theological cloak in his conflict with the Pope, but this issue grew out of proportion after his death. Str1977 15:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but the Eastern Church did not agree to the Creed at the Council of Florence. Most but not all of its delegates agreed as a compromise to obtain Western military aid, but in doing so they did not represent the views of the Eastern Church, and their compromises were immediately rejected by the Eastern Church as soon as the delegates returned home. Whether the filioque changes the meaning of the creed is a subject that is still being discussed; as far as I can tell there is still not universal agreement on the question. My personal view is that the West insisted on the filioque only to establish papal authority, which is a much more significant point of disagreement between East and West. That said, I don't think all that needs to go into this article; not because it isn't true, but because it's too much detail. Wesley 17:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are free to disagree, Wesley, but I stand by what I said. The question is who is to speak for the Eastern Church? The people, the monks, the Emperor or the Bishops - as it was in these two instances the former two disagreed, while the latter agreed. That they did it for political reasons is another matter, just as the start of disagreements for political reasons is another matter.

I agree that the sides argue about whether the filioque changes the meaning and what I gave was merely my (occidental) view.

However, I must disagree entirely with your take on the motivation of the addition. Rome added the Fq because of pressure by the Emperor Henry II (the Frankish church had used for 200 years by then) - it was the Emperor who played a little anti-Eastern politics here. The dispute about the Fq had already been started a few decades earlier by Photius, even before Rome had adopted the Fq. What the Popes insisted on was the orthodoxy of the Fq and not so much the purdence of including it or not - they had to insist on it, as it was a dogmatic matter in which there could be no diversity (of "it's heretical" vs. "it's orthodox") - in contrast to matters of discipline, rite etc. Such an agreement was reached twice, but unfortunately it didn't hold.

I agree with you about the including details or not. Str1977 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I have archived a lot from this talk page. I put it all into Archive 19. I have also created a link at the top of this page to Archive 20, which has not been created. Whoever archives next time can just click on that link to start that archive.

I think we should try to start new threads more frequently. The archive I have just created has 156 kilobytes, and has only six threads. Even if something is relevant to a particular thread, I think it would be better to have a new thread called "Changes part 2", or "Changes revisited". Otherwise, it's very difficult to find the right part of the page. I hope I haven't archived anything that was active. Discussion can, of course, continue on this page, perhaps even by saying something like, "As mentioned in Talk:Christianity/Archive_19#Beowulf". AnnH ^(talk) 11:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicene Creed

I have restored and edited a version of the opening that I think is better. My concern about the version I replaced is that it contained too much about the history of the creed. I think that level of detail would go better in Filioque, or Nicene creed, or even Early Christianity. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the earlier version had too much detail. I did add that it was first adopted at the Synod of Toledo in Spain, as the location is important, as well as the fact that it was at that time adopted at a regional synod and not an ecumenical one. Wesley 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to Str1977 above

Very interesting. I've never come across anyone who listed as one of his dislikes "Voltaire".

I can see that unlike many other members of your clique you do actually know something about the history of Christianity, and this makes it even more curious that you chose to take the approach that you do to this article, almost every aspect of which is tainted by your clique's particular PoV. I notice that a long succession of honest objective and knowledgeable contributors have simply given up and gone away after having won prolonged arguments with you and your clique only to have their contributions reverted anyway. I have to say that a troll is a troll however polite he might be and however strictly he technically complies with the letter of the rules. Has it never occured to you that your undoubtedly strong commitment to one particular sect might be distorting your ability to be objective? How many people have to tell you that you're biased before you take notice ? Does it not occur to you that your dislike of Voltaire might tell us more about you than you'd care to admit, even to yourself.

On the immediate question of the filioque: I think you know that your comments are at best disingenuous. You must also know that the Orthodox Church does not regard this this as a minor matter even today - a fact of which you must be aware if you have read Ware, who, you will also know, is an Orthodox Bishop and so something of an authority on the subject. You say that "the words Filioque do not change the meaning of the creed at all". I wonder if you are not aware that you are expressing a blatent PoV, that the assertion is 100% false by any normal standards of language and logic, and that it is precisely because of its theological implications that the filioque continues to cause such offence to Orthodox Christians.

I notice that the relevant text has been reverted yet again to a version that is factually inaccurate, so I will be putting back a version that whatever else it's failings is at least factually accurate. Your clique by the way needs to be a bit more careful - they reverted one version on the gounds that it didn't mention the filioque, now this one on the grounds that it did. If this contribution is trolled again, I will be putting back the disputed flag, and yet another section of this article will become effectively redundant.

For anyone new to this discussion, please read WP:DNFT. Then, if you have nothing better to do, take a look at edits of the Christianity page over any period during the last few months and play "Spot the Troll".

82.22.236.111 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Trollspotter

82.22.236.111: I don't think your tone toward Str1977 will bear much fruit. As I read the comments, it seems to me that he and Tom Harrison are primarily interested in keeping the bit about the clause brief, with a link (or two or three) to other articles where there is more "room" for discussion. This main article has room enough only for brief overviews of the subject. No one is trying to minimize the importance of the clause or the controversy surrounding it, but a few editors have attempted to prevent the article from dealing with every issue in Christianity in detail. Regarding your accusatory tone toward Str1977, please review WP:AGF. Also, have you edited using other aliases? You seem to suggest that you've made previous edits, but they don't appear at your contributions page. Thanks...KHM03 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr T,

I have my reasons for disliking many things about Voltaire, though I hope his last move was not in vain. And I didn't put him up there all alone. Though he's the most prominent of the bunch others are worse than he was.

My primary motivations in editing are to keep or make it accurate, NPOV and informative. I don't know of any clique - other editors agree or disagree with me as they come.

However, I don't think that an objective editor does really exist. And if he/she does, than I pitie him/her. We all have our biases, prejudices, opinions and we have to deal with them conciously.

As for what I wrote about the Filioque: Yes, that was my opinion, my POV, if you will. Note that NPOV applies to article pages and not to talk pages. And it is a Catholic POV. However it does have its foundations in history. I also know that many Orthodox see it differently and see the difference as more important. What I wrote about Photius however is fact.

As for the article: my aim here is, as KHM as said, to keep it concise and accurate/non-misleading. And the statement about the Nicaean creed being not being issued by Nicaea or even by Ephesus is IMHO misleading. There is a time and a place to write about this in detail but it is not here. If I wanted to silence this, why do think did I include a concise version of this?

Str1977 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977; I used 447 as the date of the Synod of Toledo. I included the date as a kind of compromise with those who want more detail; I'm not committed to including any date, and looking again 447 may not be the best date to list anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tom, thanks for the clarification. I removed it, as giving one date suggests that the adoption the Fq occurred at one time for the entire West, when in fact it was a three-stage (at least) process. Including all dates however blows the confines of this section. Str1977 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Question: I have always been perplexed with the statement "fully God and fully human" when referring to Jesus. The logic of the statment is that 1 + 1 = 1. Although I understand what is attempted to be communciated, the statement is difficult and really does not make sense to me. This must be addressed by a theologian that specifically addresses the statment; can anyone refer me? I appreciate your help. Storm Rider 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Incarnation by Athanasius is probably the best piece from the early Church about the doctrine. You can read it online (PDF) [6]. Hope this helps...KHM03 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Incarnation is also available in html at [7]. This is a late 19th century translation; a better one is available here (which is the print version of Keith's PDF).

Theologically speaking, part of the problem is your method. If you take the statement "fully God and fully man" and apply the workings of mathematics and logic to it, you get nowhere. From a theological point of view, this is backwards; Christians believe that Christ is both fully God and fully man because they believe that is how he has revealed himself to humanity. Early Christian theologians did not formulate the statement "fully God and fully man" as the starting point of theology, but as one part of the explanation of how Christ, having revealed himself as savior, accomplishes this salvation.

To quote Fr Dimitru Staniloae,

God in himself is a mystery. Of his inner experience nothing can be said. But through creation, through providence and his work of salvation, God comes down to the level of man. He who has made us thinking and speaking beings has made himself accessible to our thought and our speech. Touching our spirit, he awakens in us thoughts and words which convey the experience of his encounter with us. But at the same time we realize that our thoughts and our words about him do not contain him completely as he is in himself. For us men, they are flowers grown up from the depths of his ineffable mystery. Our words and thoughts of God are both cataphatic and apophatic; that is, they say something and yet at the same time they suggest the ineffable. If we remain enclosed within our formulae, they become idols; if we reject any and every formula, we drown in the undefined chaos of that ocean. Our words and thoughts are a finite opening towards the infinite, transparencies for the infinite, so they are able to foster within us a spiritual life."

For an excellent reevaluation of early Christian theological method, see this book. JHCC (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it's also helpful to understand a phrase like 'fully God and fully man' by contrasting it with other formulations. This statement excludes the idea that Jesus may have been half god and half human, like Hercules (who had a god for his father and a human for his mother); or fully God with only the appearance of being human, somewhat like the angel Raphael in the book of Tobit who only appeared to look and eat like a human but in reality was a good spirit; or a human who somehow became godlike or extremely godly. The phrase also suggests that Jesus had the same nature as God, and then at a point in time "took on" or "assumed" the same nature as man. He did not have or switch to having a third nature that somehow combined or mixed the divine and human natures. Wesley 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. To take it a step futher, such phrases as "fully God and fully man" should be contrasted with other formulations in use at the time they were formulated. Similarly, the Nicene "born of the Father before all ages" stands in direct contrast to the Arian "there was a time when he was not." JHCC (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And it is always good to mix in a bit of Negative Theology. What we say can only be stuttering in the light of the Greatness of the Lord. Str1977 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks people; I appreciate your comments and the links provided. To state fully God and fully human has always caused me problems (and I suspect others that have a mind that thinks in mathmatical terms); it is fraught with easy miscommunication. On the other hand, it may be an attempt to demonstrate the mystery of God. However, I would recommend that we delete that phrase and use some of the other phrases you have used. They are cleaner and do not carry potential "baggage" that this one phrase carries. My mind can easily wrap itself around "he was both god and man", but the "fully" destroys the symmetry that is Jesus. Most everything else you said was great. For instance, as a Latter-day Saint the statment above, "there was a time when he was not" is something in which we would not find agreement. Christ was always the First Born, he has always existed; there was never a time when he was not. Where we part is that we believe there are three distinct beings, God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but they are One in purpose, One Godhead. Thanks again to each of you. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated. Storm Rider 01:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I'd prefer if we retain the phrase "fully God and fully human", as it is the common and official short hand for this. However, we might supplement it with a further explanation addressing your concerns. Str1977 09:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but with those unfamiliar with some of the doctrines of Christianity, we might not create a stumbling block for them when reading about it. Supplement would certainly be better. When things have the appearance of being illogical, rather than question or pursue answers they might just chock it up to being "those crazy, unthinking Christians". Storm Rider 16:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WARNING TROLLS OPERATING IN THIS AREA]]

Re earlier interchange on the Nicence Creed and the prevelence of Trolls on this page. I'm not sure how many editors are genuinely striving to be neutral around here, but I have the very strong impression that a small group of Trolls effectively own this page and have been exceptionally successful in presenting a view that at best fudges any facts that devout Christians prefer not to hear, and at worst presents a pro-Christian PoV (Just a few examples: playing up persecutions of Christians and playing down persecutions by Christians, denying the Orphic elements in early Cristianity, and glossing over the fact that the term Nicene Creed can denote three different texts, none of which was known to early Christians). The same few Trolls - all of whom are very clearly extremely devout believers - have induced a long series of serious knowledgeable and NPOV editors to give up and go away. They are also behind the unresolved arguments resulting in all the Warning stickers on this page. Since their Troll behaviour is so persistent and clearly deliberate, I think something needs to be done - perhaps a Troll Warning banner to save genuine editors the frustration of tangling with them, perhaps getting them banned, perhaps some sort of arbitration. Of course if all other contributors agree with them and think I'm biased then I'll happily go away and stop bothering everyone. So, as a first step I think it is time to name the Trolls and see how many people agree or disagree with my assessment. Reviewing the past few weeks the worst trolls appear to be KHM03 (the most subtle), Str1977 (the most knowledgeable), Storm Rider, and AnnH, all of whom have been repeatedly informed of their obvious bias by other editors over an extended period.

168.224.1.14 17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Trollspotter

168.224.1.14 -- Aside from the truth that you are factually incorrect, please review WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. I, for one, welcome your constructive involvement in improving this article, but not at the expense of allowing you to lie and/or misbehave. Thanks...KHM03 18:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be entirely in agreement with the keeping the section on the Nicene Creed brief. If (as I understand) the only difference between the creed adopted at Nicea and what we now call the Nicene Creed is a word or two then discussion of it should be left to the article on the creed itself. This is already a very large article and we can't go into every theological point in detail. DJ Clayworth 18:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just on the limited point re the Nicene Creed. Please see the external link I added to give the Orthodox view, which is completely missing in the earlier pro-Western test of this page. Of course the trolls will want to cover up all the key information here - that there are earlier creeds than Nicea, That there are three different versions of the Nicene Creed, that the Orthodox Church regards the RC as heretical on this matter, that this is a principal (if not the principal) point of theological dispute between east and west, and so on. Off course ecumenical Christians prefer to conceal these facts. 168.224.1.14 18:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Trollspotter

168, thanks for the flowers up there. As for the link, no one here denies that there is a specific Eastern Orthodox view to this and I certainly wouldn't want to exclude it. My posts here included my POV, as I said, but that is not the aim of my edits on the article page. The current version, which you repeatedly revert to another, contains the dispute with a link. That is enough, as we also have to keep it concise and also avoid misleading statements. One more technical point: as far as I understand the POV-tag, you are not allowed to revert to your version and at the same time post the POV-tag, as the one tagging a section declares that he considers it POV - but you hardly consider your own POV POV, do you? You may however, flag the version you disagree with. Str1977 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a page on the Nicene creed (and on Early Christianity, and on the History of Christianity, and probably more that I'm not aware of.) We summarize, and link to the article for more detail. If anything I think the coverage here of the Nicene creed is too detailed already, especially in the last paragraph about the heresies. The anonymous editor's uncivil remarks on the shortcomings of other editors does nothing to recommend his own viewpoint, and only makes the discussion more difficult. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course we should never feed a troll, but this is rich. If Anon 168 actually understood the differences in beliefs between Str1977, AnnH, KHM03, and me he/she would certainly see how choice this moment is. As for my part, I am honored to be mentioned in the same group. Though we have fundamental disagreements between us, these people are wonderful to work with. Granted we each actually strive to be disciples of Jesus; in this sense I gladly recognize them as brothers and sister in Christ. Anon, you do understand that I am a Latter-day Saint? My efforts attempt to include a broader definition of Christianity in this article rather than the strictly historical Christian perspective. IMHO, this article focuses for the most part on the Orthodox, historical Christian perspective almost to a fault, but given that it is the majority view it should have the majority focus. I sense you may be shooting from the hip and not knowledgeable about the edit history of this article to realize that. Spend more time reading archives and we all look forward to your edits. New voices are appreciated. Storm Rider 07:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Troll spotter - I think you're almost exactly spot on in your observations. I ssuspect the point is being lost in this discussion on creeds,so if it's Ok with you I'll start it up as a new topic. I think you're up against more of a confederation than a formal group, but they certainly need watching, and innocent editors need warning about them.

By the way, they have something of an obsession with anonymous editors (they love pretending that they are all the same person) so you might want to sign up.

Also, a troll warning will soon get lost. How about a Troll Watching page that you and others can refer to. We could pretty soon build up a good coherent case against the worst offending trolls John1838 15:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)John1838

Jewish religion

This may be nitpicking but I have changed the first appearance (in the history section) to Judaism to "the Jewish religion", as Judaism is more strictly the religion as defined by Rabbis and Talmud which was still in flux during Jesus' time. Str1977 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but shouldn't we have a link somewhere on the article to Judaism? KHM03 23:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a link right next to it (Rabbinical Judaism, when we are talking about the "parting of ways". And possibly elsewehere in the article as well. Str1977 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Judaism has been the main Jewish religion since Moses, although it has changed somewhat. But Jewish religions include Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Egalitarianism, Atheism, Baal Worship, Astorah God-Wife, Noble Savage Belief, Ethical Relativism, Secular Humanism, Marxism-Liberalism, Kabbalah. So is the Jewish religion precise enough? ^rossnixon 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the actually Jewish religion, so that excluded anything that wasn't around at that time and anything non-Jewish, e.g. Asherah.

The issue is that Judaism can be understood as the Jewish religion in general (as you seem to see it and as certainly the previous editors have put it in here - I must know, I am one of these editors). In this way you are right about Moses.

However, Judaism can also refer to the Jewish religion as it constituted and consolidated after 70 AD, under the Rabbis and the Talmud - Christianity didn't evolve out of rabbinical Judaism. Rather both Christianity as well as Rabbinical Judaism (in this day mostly represented by the Pharisees) were two currents within this one Jewish religion (two that were quite close, while others were further off) - the two currents that survived, two currents both claiming to be "the real deal". I want to avoid this confusion of two different meanings of Judaism.

That's not to say that Rabbinical Judaism didn't go back to Moses as a root - it is rather a question of how to continue the branch where the division comes. Str1977 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care one way or the other how we word it; I defer to community consensus. KHM03 01:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems with graphic

I have already written on the discussion page of the graphic asking for it to be changed to reflect historical accuracy, but this has not been done, and I do not know how to edit the graphic myself. First, the pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches are labeled "monophysite," yet most of these Churches are not monophysites, the are miaphysites. Secondly, the Anglican Church should have a dotted line that connects to the pre-Chalcedonia Churches, sicne the primitive Celtic Church in Britain was a mission of St. Philip. Nrgdocadams 01:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Isn't the Celtic Church different from the Anglican Church? KHM03 01:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nrgdocadams,

• Miaphysitism is IMHO merely a variant (though a substantially orthodox variant) of Monophysitism.
• The Anglican Church's only connections are to the RCC and to Protestantism, it has no connection to anything that might be termed Celtic Church (in fact, it was Henry VIII who stamped out the last remnants of the Celtic Church when he dissolved the monasteries).
• Furthermore the mission of St. Philip to Britain is more legend than historical fact.
• The Celtic Church, in regard to the graph and in fact, was part of the Catholic Church and not a denomination that actually separated itself from the main body. It was separated by geography, but the same could be said about other far-off Churches, and distinct in organisation and feasts, but the same could be said about the Church of Milan. Str1977 15:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

* The important distinction between monophysitism and miaphysitism for purposes of wikipedia is that the latter term is the one actually used and claimed by the Oriental Orthodox churches. If in fact they are substantially the same, as the chalcedonian churches have generally believed, then I see no harm in using the term they prefer. It's probably preferable.

* There are I think several different Christian groups in various parts of Great Britain that claim some form of connection to the primitive Celtic Church in Britain, though most of these I think believe they are reviving or restoring it, not continuing it unbroken. historically, the Anglican Church appears to be a pretty straightforward offshoot from Roman Catholicism, as Str1977 says. Wesley 00:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Why doesn't this article have a criticisms section? Many of the other religion-focused articles I've seen have such a section detailing the common complainst and/or criticisms of the particular religion. Christianity is certainly not exempt from such criticisms and yet there is no such section. Is this simply another symptom of the prevelant NPOV editing throughout this article? - Hayter 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because there already exists an article devoted entirely to such criticism.And there exists here a section on persecution. Str1977 15:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that article, thank you for mentioning it, if neglecting to provide a link. There should still be a small section regarding it here though, as is done with other such situations, indeed it is done on this very article. And I thought about mentioning the Persecution section earlier. Christianity being outlawed by the Romans is not the same as modern scientists saying it's unlikely there was a Garden of Eden. One, I think most would agree is clearly persecution, the latter is a base for criticism. Such criticism as a subject cannot be covered under a heading of persecution without POV editing. - Hayter 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is there, under see also. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I'm not sure how useful a summary it is to say, "restoring more accurate and NPOV version," (although who would not be grateful to the editor who did that?) It does have the advantage of universality; anyone can use it anytime to describe any edit. But that same strength is its weakness. So many people can and do use it to describe their edits that it tells me nothing; it does not in fact usefully summarize the edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, it typically means the editor is striking what they think is a blow for truth and justice in the midst of an edit war. I agree it's generally unhelpful. Wesley 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

TROLL WARNING

Warning. A number of Trolls are suspected of working on this page.

These trolls are editors who persistently revert contributions that do not conform to their own common PoV. A review of the history of this page will reveal a number of them, some much more subtle than others.

Does anyone have the time to accumulate some hard facts, examples, methods, clues as to how to spot one, underlying agendas, ways of dealing with them, etc?

John1838 15:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)John1838

This is a great idea. Many thanks. Also thought your talk page was good. Haven't really got time now, but would like to do a case study of one of the worst offenders. Will get a log on as soon as I get round to it. Can I use your page in the meanwhile ?

Any one else have any thoughts on this? Belinda & Giovani you sound like the sort of people who might feel they've suffered at the hands of the cabal. Is anyone in touch with earlier victims ?

168.224.1.14 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)TrollSpotter

Is this appropriate? WP:CIV, WP:AGF and all that. KHM03 21:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Utterly inappropriate, and probably best ignored. Grandad 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about a cabel but I suppose one could come to this view, although to me it just seems a coalesing of editors who share a common ideological point of view. The same could be said with other schools of though who want in see that their POV is included. I don't see any evidence for trolls, here, except for the occasional vandalism. As for my own POV, what I do is I seek is for a historical context be given for the emergence of Christianity, including the fact that there was no one Christianity, that it's also in part a hybridization and development of various older religions. I will want the various influences, noted by scholars, included which all serve to contextually the religion in its time and thus give understanding to its emergence. Specifically, a Jewish context, ofcourse (its various groups, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes), but also the Pagan context most marked by syncretism, but also those also with clearly distinct threads, prominent being the cults of the Roman State, the mystery religions, and the schools of Geek philosophy. To have this presented is important as it gives balance and accuracy reflecting the modern understandings of the development of early Christianity. Giovanni33 00:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside questions of viewpoint, I think that level of detail belongs in History of Christianity or Early Christianity. Incidently, is History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism a subpage? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gio. Don't see trolls here, and while I do feel I was picked on by the "cabal" I think that is normal for any article where there are editors agressively defending their turf (their POV) and its a battle to get it changed to be more inclusive. Overall, I think, though, that they have allowed the other POV and now its just a matter of wording, clarify, and some other POV language that is in dispute. Im sure in time there will be a further synthesis and compromise.BelindaGong 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think it's odd that John1838's first and only contribution outside of his own user page is this "TROLL WARNING." Grandad seems to have the right idea. Wesley 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Five quick points: A] why is this innappropriate? What's the problem with inviting potential contributors to take a look at past edits before deciding whether its worth their while to contribute to the Christianity article (I did and I won't be contributing as a result) B] Two of the contributors above seem to confirm that there is "a coalesing of editors who share a common ideological point of view" who are "agressively defending their turf (their POV)". Is this not exactly the substance of the claim about trolls on this page (you do not need to call them trolls for the accusation of them being consciously and systematically non NPOV to be substantially correct). Does anyone have a better name ? C] Obvious though the point is, I think it is worth saying that trolls are going to say that there are no trolls operating here, and are likely to try to throw in some red herrings. D] well done BelindaGong and Giovanni33 for your generosity of spirit. E] If there are no trolls on this page, could someone offer a suggestion as to why the behaviour of those accused has changed so noticeably since this section on the discussion page was created ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.224.1.14 (talk • contribs)

Certainly there is "a coalesing of editors who share a common ideological point of view," since according to checkuser, "User:Giovanni33 is also User:BelindaGong." Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ok to point about poor editorial behaviour, but criticizing editors simply because of their religious affiliation violates Wikipedia's policies regarding civil behaviour. Also, while it's not proof, any time I see a brand new user citing policies and generally showing a lot of familiarity with wikipedia, it gives me the impression that they may have used wikipedia before, under a different username. Wesley 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I also point out that troll does not mean a person who holds strong opinions, or even a person who is "agressively defending their turf". It means someone who is disrupting normal discussion by making deliberately inflammatory posts. Even if you think there are people pushing their own point of view, can we at least use the correct terminology. DJ Clayworth 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

It's not clear to me how your repeatedly reverting the article is going to lead to synthesis and compromise. Three reverts in twenty minutes seems inappropriate. The three-revert rule is not 'everyone gets three reverts a day.' Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Gio's version. I think he has made his case and so others who object should state their arguments here instead of reverting. He has signifiant support among many editors who want to see these elements included so rv alone will only result in rv back within a few mintues. MikaM 23:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, Gio's version is contested by several users. Let's talk about it here; we've made progress in the past. Make your case here for the changes before just adding them in...consensus can work! KHM03 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I rolled back Giovanni33's latest "revert" not so much because it re-introduced his version of some paragraphs, but because it also carelessly re-introduced some typos in other sections (and possibly in the sectin he meant), and deleted a subsection. It seemed as if he re-pasted the entire article from a version that he liked; even if his version of the main paragraphs he changed is better, it had too many obviously unintended side effects. Wesley 03:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reported Giovanni/BelindaGong for 3RR violation, supported by results from Checkuser[8]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicene Creed warning label

I'm starting a new section since the earlier one got sidetracked. What still needs to be addressed before we remove the NPOV warning from the Nicene Creed section of this article? Wesley 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wesley. Good idea to revisit this. There are a number of problems outstanding. These are listed in the earlier section and most have not yet been addressed. I will not repeat them, but would like to clarify one point which appears to have been misunderstood. This is the statement that the Nicene Creed is subscribed to by the overwhelming majority of Christians. No one disputes that the majority of modern christians claim to subscribe to the Nicene Creed - which incidentally is slightly different thing anyway. But even this formulation fudges several important issues. The first is that the overwhelming majority think (wrongly, on two counts, I supose you will agree) that they are subscribing to the earliest formal Christian creed which was confirmed at the Council of Nicea. The second is that the Eastern and Western Churches are actually refering to two different texts (this is a separate point from the fact that neither was even considered at Nicea). I suppose it's just a question of definitions - to take an analogy, it's rather like saying that "most religions accept the scriptures" instead of saying that "most relions accept their own scriptures".

On a second question I have to own up to a degree of confusion. One of the points made earlier was that the Orthodox view on the filioque was being repeatedly airbrushed out of the article. This airbrushing (ie repeated reversions) was not disputed but justified by Str1977 on the grounds that the filioque was a matter of trivial importance. A citation and a link was then supplied which showed that on the contrary the Orthodox Church regarded and still regards it as a matter of very great importance. Str1977 then said "As for what I wrote about the Filioque: Yes, that was my opinion, my POV, if you will." Now no-one disputes anyone's right to voice an opinion on these discussion pages, but I wonder if I'm missing something if contributions can be reverted on the grounds of what are explicitly admitted to be personal opinions. Can anyone help me on this one? Am I missing a logical step somewhere?

To understand how much this contributor's opinions differ from those of the Orthodox Church all anyone needs to do is take a look at the Orthodox Wiki site. A link was provided to this site but that link was immediately removed without explanation. The first Paragraph of the page to which the link referred gives a flavour of the Orthodox view:

Filioque is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the Holy Spirit thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son."

Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880. This word was not included by the Council of Nicea nor of Constantinople, and most in the Orthodox Church consider this inclusion to be a heresy.

The description of the filioque as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great Father and Pillar of the Church, St. Photius the Great, in his On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. He describes it as a heresy of Triadology, striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

Now let me emphasise that this is not necessarily my opinion. My point is that the views of four out of the five Patriarchies are being airbrushed off this page on the basis of what is admitted to be a POV and no-one else seems to find this at all odd. Could someone help me here. Many thanks. Trollwatcher 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not brushed out the Eastern view on the Filoque. Yes, I made some references to my view on the importance of the controversy (regarding the Fq's substance). Maybe I shouldn't have done this, as it has no bearing on the article. All issues regarding the Fq controversy belong into the Fq article and not into this brief overview. In the light of the topic of the article and of the section, the controversy is well covered.

Still, apart from the Fq, Eastern Orthodox, Old Oriental (whether Monophysite or Nestorian), the RCC and those Protestants doing creeds adhere to the Nicene creed (and whether they believe it to be the oldest creed is speculation and purely beside the point), while quite a lot of Protestants also subscribe to the substance/content of the creed without doing creeds themselves. Str1977 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Theodosius paragraph

The editor who calls himself Kecik has reverted one of my edits with the summary rv Restoring sections removed by STR1977 that was here for a long time in which were removed w/o re to talk page. THAT was the controversial change.

He is right in so far I didn't explain on the talk page (I am doing that now) and that it was there for a long time. It was there for some time which is deplorable since it's quite worse than the rest of Gio & Co.'s POV pushing. It must have slipped through some editor's fingers.

I explained in my summary restore proper theodos section (no POV pushing, legends inclusive, please). I meant three things:

• This paragraph was about events in the 4th century, namely C's legalization by Constantine, C's becoming state religion through Theodosius, doctrinal issues (Arianism) leading to Councils. All valid parts of a history of C. But some people don't care about that stuff and remove it from the article by replacing it ...
• ...by a section almost completely devoted to persecution of pagans and heretics by Christians, going into many details that have no place in such an overview. As we didn't have a whole section further down on persecution. My earlier attempts to bring these sections closer to each other were adamantly opposed by Gio & co.
• To make matters worse, the hijacked version of the paragraph was even inaccurate and spinning legends, most notoriously "programs were enacted to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians" - could the editors posting this please provide the slightest evidence for such programmes? Who drew up these programmes? When? How did they look like?

Hence, it was completely justified to bring back the relevant paragraph substituted for this nonsense. If it happened only after it was there for some time, than it was even more important to get rid of it now.

Str1977 21:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I am a new user but I have taken the time to read through the whole talk page, and archived version. Needless to say, I found it very interesting. I will disclose my POV as a secular humanist. I also note that your POV is that of a conservative Christian. I think all POV's should be included and that this article should be accurate. I think its important that we acknowlege our own bias. What I find interesting is that you do not see that the answer to your questions about the evidence has already been given many times, including recently above by Giovanni, and others. These is not legend, as you put it. It also fits in here and not in the persecution sections (although it is persecution) because of its context in describing the particularly intolerant nature of the resulting orthodox Christianity that emerged in the 4th century. I'll include the text above down here for you to see. Also, I am interested to see the original Prof. White passage that was objected to. That might be a better version.

"The original Prof. White passage, which I generously agreed to replace with another source that expressing the same idea, per KH03's suggestion. Still, I supported my claim that the White passage is widely accepted thusly:

Prof. A.D. White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology" (3 vols.), as well as prof. Draper, and Kohler, are all authoritative in their subject matters and I say we should use them as perfect representatives for the the view, characterization of the orthox Christian stance against intellectual freedoms. To support my source as one that is widely accepted I provided a further source: "historian Bruce Mazlish certified White's thesis to have been established "beyond reasonable doubt," and the late George Sarton, a distinguished historian of science at Harvard found White's argument so compelling that he urged its extension to non-Christian cultures. See Mazlish, Preface, P. is; George Sarton, "Introductory Essay," in Science, Religion and Reality, ed. Joseph Needham (New York, 1955), p. 14."

But, this is now moot since it was replaced by another quote that states the same idea. This source was suggested by Mika. She said:

"What do people think of this book as a reference, A World History of Christianity

by Adrian Hastings (Editor) [9] Here one can find a through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[10] Even though this book is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history, I note they also make the point: "Hastings notes that after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that of the Manicheans and Arians and even tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues."

I agreed, so I used this quote instead. I note that no one disputed this source or this information from Hastings as presented by Mika.

Str1977 about a week later, along with other sections and he revereted to a very old version that had been objected to as POV. Specifically the language about heresies. But his objection was that one quote did not have attribution and the point about intolerance was already made in the Perecustoins section. I responded with an argument why its not the same thing, and I provided the attribution for the other quote..." that describes the programs. To clarify these programs were state decress issued under Theodosius I. As the passage states, "The state issued a series of decrees to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older Pagan religions."

"Joseph McCabe, "A Rationalist Encyclopaedia: A book of reference on religion, philosophy, ethics and science," Gryphon Books (1971). Excerpts appear at: http://www.christianism.com/articles/18.html"

So you see why I find your wondering where this comes from intersting. It's all laid out, more than once. I don't see any arguments that you've made against the inclusion of these well supported statments either, only that you reverts after letting it sit a while (followed MusicalLinguist who always supports your POV). I also note her being a conservative Christian. I think we need to respect all points of view and be honest about reading a version that is inclusive and accurate.Freethinker99 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr 99 (for the moment I will assume that you are indeed a new user),

If you define the "programs" as "decrees" you have already conceded that emptiness of using the word programmes. Also, "suppress all rival religions" is inaccurate, first because it forgets about Judaism and secondly because it equates persecution of pagans with the closing of the temples.

But the accuracy of the passage (which I still dispute, as being completely un-ancient) was only one of the problem with the revert. More important still is the fact that valid information gets substituted for an over-blown repetition of things that have already been said.

So, it is not your/Giovanni's version that is accurate and comprehensive but the one I resinserted.

And note, I am not a "conservative Christian". I am only conservative regarding secondary issues, e.g. traffic regulations. I consider myself an "Orthodox Catholic Christian" - in fact I am one with Chesterton on conservatism.

Str1977 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, and I prefer reasonable arguments and rational discourse to books based on an ideology.

Thanks for your generosity in assuming that what I say about myself are not lies. Thanks! I'll extend you the same curtesy. I only thought you were conservative based on your talk page where you state your dislikes of Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and their epigones, and your likes of Dante, for example. Most liberals like Voltaire, Rousseau, while most conservatives dislike them.

The decress are the best concrete example of the programs. I don't think its innaccurate to say all rival religions were suppressed. It doesnt forget about Judaism. Infact it specifically states that the "after the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, the new Christian Church became increasingly intolerant of dissent such as that tolerated random acts of violence against Jewish synagogues." The closing down of other religions temples, I'd say, is persecution. Do you disagree that governments like China are not persecuting Christians by closing down any of their places of worship? The sources are not "ideological" they are representative of both POV's in a scholarly fashion. TheA World History of Christianity by Adrian Hastings (Editor) [11] is a rather symphathetic look at Christian history. Here one can find a through review of this book, in this Journal of Theology:[12]

Also can you point out what the "valid information that gets substituted" is? I agree valid information is getting substituted,which is why I restored it.

Freethinker99 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You see, Mr 99, I am no liberal (in any current sense of the word) either. Though I love France, I dislike this bunch of "intellectual arsonists" - Voltaire for his commenting on things he was ignorant about, and Rousseau for being the father of totalitarianism.

To say "all" is inaccurate, as Judaism wasn't surpressed by the decrees. Yes, the closing down of temples etc. is a form of persecution (and that is already included in the article), but it's not "imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older Pagan religions". Apart from the fact that the wording includes quite many details, intended to inflame, while the persecution of Christians is state in factual and neutral language (as it should in an encyclopedia).

If a book bears the name of an ideology in its title, I presume it is also based on that ideology. I wouldn't mind if you called the Catholic encyclopedia a religious book. I don't think that a Rationalist Encyclopaedia is different. Not that we can't use it, but we have to keep this in mind.

The information constantly substituted is the part of the paragraph that does not constantly reiterate the supression of paganism. Let me just state again: Doctrinal disputes, Arianism, Christology, Councils, definition of dogma.

Also to say that "Christianity existed as a mixture of both Christian and Pagan notions" is self-refuting. If Christianity had been such a mixture, the mixture would by definition be 100% Christian. The other wording ("pagan remnants") is better and actually more in line with what scholars say.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Gio's "persecution extra" passage is inaccurate, POV and overblown. Str1977 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dirty sock issues

Most folks may know this already, but we have a few socks among us. For sure, Giovanni33 and BalindaGong are the same user, both currently blocked. There's a chance that John1839, Kecik, Trollwatcher, and now Freethinker99 are the same person as Gio, being utilized to evade the block. We can assume good faith, but we've done that before and allowed this user to violate rules left and right. Let's just step carefully. KHM03 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS - The user is using several anonymous identities as well. KHM03 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the apparently unlimited number of 'new users' who appear, read the talk page and archives, carefully compare the various edits of the last month, and then revert to Giovanni33's preferred version, I wonder if we should consider some kind of page protection. So this isn't misunderstood as snarky commentary, let me be clear. I think Giovanni33 is using other accounts and sockpuppets to circumvent his latest 3rr block. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be a real shame. What do you suggest? What action can be taken against this user, who now appears to be violating left and right? KHM03 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Geez, thanks. It really makes me feel welcome as a new user. I guess no one can agree with the secular humanist point of view (articulated by Giovanni) without being accused of being him and a proposal to block out such a view. I never new this to be a Christians-only club. I think arbitration might be needed in order to get admins here who are not biased with a pro-Christian POV. Freethinker99 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr 99, if you are indeed someone else we are all sorry about this happening to you, but you should understand that we had a whole trackload of new users arriving on articles frequented by Giovanni, always agreeing with him, always echoing his thoughts, sometimes falling into the same argumentive patterns (like addressing the supposedly weakest part of an argument while ignoring all the rest and then reverting). These people seem to follow Gio where he goes or surface after he has been blocked to continue his work. Some of these have been proven to be sockpuppets, while others are merely suspected. Now, if you are experiencing false suspicions you can thank Giovanni and his tactics for that. I am willing to assume good faith and hope your behaviour proves me right. However, I must admit that your post above follows the Gio pattern I described. Str1977 23:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I have seen sock puppets used, it has never been an issue for me. Can't admins determine who is using a sock puppet by comparing the address of the user? It does not create a comfortble environment when we accuse others of being a puppet and I hope we all refrain from pointing any further fingers. If we can't prove it, don't point a finger. That being said, the similarities in some of the edits are disturbing with several of the new editors. Sort of saps the joy out of editing. Storm Rider 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked a question on Giovanni's talk page,[13] and it was answered in wording that suggested Giovanni was replying to me and to KHM03 (who had also asked a question); his answer denied that any of the users (including Freethinker99) was connected with him.[14] Unfortunately, he didn't realize that he was actually logged on as Freethinker, so when he signed with the four tildes, the signature came out as Freethinker's. Then he tried to undo it by logging on as Giovanni, and changing the signature to Giovanni's.[15]. But of course, he couldn't erase it from the edit history.

Giovanni, I think the days of your sockpuppeting, your duplicity, and your edit warring are over. AnnH ^(talk) 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is your interpretation of the events, but you're wrong about that. What did happen was that, as I explained, I allowed Giovanni to post a response on his own page with my account. As it was his own text, I thought he should log in and change it to reflect that it was his, and not mine. This does not make me Giovanni. Giovanni denied all the users, refering to the list given by KM03, before he added my name. Obviously I Giovanni knows me, and introduced me to Wikipedia. Is that wrong? Sorry if I violated any rules but I am still very new. If any mistakes were committed, they were mine and not Giovani's. He is respecting his block, although he doesn't agree with it. I know for a fact that BelindaGong is a different person (yes, I know her too). Freethinker99 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid after the behaviour we've had from Giovanni/Belinda and numerous new accounts showing up to follow them around Wikipedia and revert to Giovanni's version, and vote to support Giovanni, in some cases appearing on pages that they'd be unlikely, as brand new users, to find by chance, we're all going to find it a little bit difficult to accept that. I can't see any reason why Giovanni would use your account. And in any case, even if it were true, it would still make you a meatpuppet, which means that you are not entitled to revert for him. AnnH ^(talk) 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the logic behind using other numerous accounts that support Gio's view being a negative thing or have anything to do with Gio himself other than they support the same view (not his view, its not original). Gio informs me that you did a usercheck and that this proved that all these other users are not his socket-puppets, so I think you should drop that matter. You said you can't understand why he would use my account. I already explained so I don't know why you can't understand that. He is over at my place. He is teaching me how to use Wikipedia. I read the talk pages and let Gio response to your quesiton on his page with my PC (he can't with his own since he is not home. I am not aware what a meatpuppet is. Maybe you can help me out and explain things and try to be nice? Freethinker99 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni-thinker, even if we could believe what you state, that FT allowed Gio to edit from his account on Gio's talk page (given that Gio had no trouble posting wihout being logged-in), you would still be convicted of false statements, as Gio (supposedly only using FT's account) stated "that these users are not in any way associated with me, present or past" [16]. "These users" clearly included FT (and it was included for 50 minutes before you answered). A strange feat to get permission to use the account of someone unknown to oneself, isn't it? Even if you only invited him to the community, which also casts a light on the statements FT made when first appearing here. You (which of you? - I don't care) said it correctly: It was a mistake to sign it as FT - one mistake too many. Only Remington Steele can live under so many identities without tripping at one point. I am afraid to say that all weaseling and dissembling help after this. You cannot be trusted, period. Now that is bad faith if there ever was one. Str1977 00:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Im really suprised at the hostility we have here. I think I explained this confusion already. The persons Gio was refering to that he had no association with were the list originally included by KHM03. My name was added on a second line which after Gio saw he edited his talk to acknowlege this. I'm more interesting in contributing to the substance of the article and deal with all these rather silly accusations whose motivations seem to stem from ideological disagreements about the substance of this article. My one mistake of allowing Gio to contribut with my computer while not logging out first (and I note that I only allowed him to make an edito to his own talk page to answer a question, which is allowed, I understand), is not one mistake too many. Its my first one. Again, can we stick to the real issues? Freethinker99 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are surprise after what you did, Gio-thinker? This is a real issue!

You are allowed to let anyone post to your talk page but you are not allowed to scok-puppet. It is one mistake too many, Gio-thinker, even if it was your first one under that particular name, it was a crucial, revealing one.

The interval between FT being added to the question and your reply was fifty minutes. And again, want to evade one part of the issue by focusing on another (see pattern). FT did answer a question directed at Giovanni, which makes you a sockpuppet. Str1977 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am very surprised. I guess this is normal for you but I am new to the Wikipedia community so the sectarian hostility does surprise me. Maybe what I did was more terrible than I realize. Again, Im new. I did not think allowing Gio to respond to a question on his own talk page with my pc (he is visiting), would be such a terrible crime. But, if it is I'm learning. I don't think your assuming bad faith accomplishes anything except furthering the flames of hostility. Freethinker99 01:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Gio - you may get an individual vote in the "real" world but not here - welcome to the world of people with POV's who know the rules. By the way - I'm under the sock puppet cloud too for daring to question consensus - seems the only reason for anyone to disagree with the cozy christian mainstream view is if they're out to fiddle the system. SOPHIA 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I don't think you have ever been seriously considered to be a sockpuppet of Giovanni. I read that you were supposed to be The Shriek (and whether that was actually sockpuppeting, editing at the same time from two accounts, I don't know), but your behaviour on WP, despite our differences, is miles apart from the stunts Gio has been pulling. Also, you don't usually follow Gio's pattern of argument (which I described above). There's no need to feel sorry for Gio, who fell into his own hole. Not because of anyone's POV but because of his direct breaking and trying to circumvent the Wikirules. And I am not so good in knowing the letter of the law - you don't need to know to avoid what Gio has done. Since I think quite highly of you, Sophia, I expect that you will agree that his actions are unacceptable. Str1977 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to give SOPHIA the benefit of the doubt. Her husband operates from the same address...OK. No problem. If I've upset or offended her (or Mr. SOPHIA, TheShriek), I am sorry. But, as stated above, the Gio/Balinda/Freethinker99/etc. problem is a real one. I'm willing to forgive, forget, and move on...I just kinda want Gio to come clean. I'm really disappointed. KHM03 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio says (since he can't respond here: "I have come clean. But, I wont admit to things that are not true. My talk page is honest. --Gio" As I said, I can't vouch for Gio that BelindaGong is a different person, and he willing to prove it. Anyone want to take him up on that? Freethinker99 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's really big of you all I must say - no hard feeling huh? Maybe I'm not too chuffed to find out that all the while I was editing in good faith there were suspicions about my integrity for the simple reason that I see things differently to you. I'm afraid I have taken this very personally as I've always tried to be moderate and as NPOV as I can - admitting when I've learned lessons and trying to bridge the gap of the more extreme views. Quite frankly I've got better things to do than waste my time with a load of people who can't be upfront and feel the need to check up behind your back if you differ. SOPHIA 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've appreciated your conciliatory attitude and your help on this project, and, again, I apologize if I said or did anything to upset you. KHM03 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be pretty reasonable person, KHM03. I hope you can use your influence to calm down Str1977 and MusicalLinguist who I find to be very hostil, lacking in civility. As you can see in the article, I addressed changes that Str wanted, and I reverted to your version, after you removed a section. I'm fine with that. But, Str1977 just reverted back to his original version. Lets all work together and iron out our differences. To do this we must first all of be civil with each other. Freethinker99 01:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Miracles section

I know I have done this before on another issue on another page, but so be it. I move the following section over from the article, as it is argumentive and POV and inaccurate and Original Research:

There are two leading beliefs in the world first is Christianity, and then there is, of course, the uprising belief of evolution and the big bang and all other sorts of great ways to explain the creation of the universe without having to elude to someone greater than humankind. There is, however, one very unexplainable factor that the many groups of these secular scientific groups cannot just simply push to the side, dismissing it as a childhood fairy tale. That factor is miracles. "Should it surprise a true believer in God that God is working miracles today? According to the Bible, "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). If Jesus was ever a miracle worker, He is today. Did He ever tell you He had stopped doing miracles? To deny miracles is to mock prayer today, since even the slightest true answer to prayer involves a measure of divine intervention. God can do whatever He wants at any time. He has not gone on an extended vacation. While there is order in the Universe, there is also plenty of scope for the direct involvement of God's Spirit.

Many people are merely religious. They have never contacted or known the living God. They are satisfied with a religion which gives them rules to obey, or ethical principles to follow. The religion tells them that if they are faithful to keep the rules then they are right. But no one has ever kept the rules of any religion 100% of the time. So religious people hope their good deeds outweigh the bad. But they don't know if they do in their case. Deep within they suspect that something is seriously wrong. And it is. Because only when you trust the sacrifice and work of Jesus Christ can you be on the right track. "He who has the Son of God has life" (1 John 5:12).

Miracles confirm the true message of Jesus Christ (Mark 16:15-20). If no one is getting changed in your church or religious group, you are involved in dead religion. You need to meet the Lord. The changes God produces are not confined to inward, spiritual changes. They also include physical changes. Miraculous healings are occurring more and more these days, especially in places where many people pray as the Bible teaches us to pray. The Bible teaches there is such a thing as the gift of miracles. Read 1 Corinthians 12:8-10.

What follows are some links on this subject. I simply do not have time right now to research and catalogue all that God is doing or has done to confirm the message of Jesus with signs and wonders following. I have witnessed many things myself, of course, but there are others who have witnessed far more than me. All glory and praise to God for the things He has done.

[17] - a book full of interesting stories including many miracles by a personal friend of ours who we fellowship with in Sydney.

Miracle Stories (link unavailable, sorry) - a web site devoted to testimonies on the subject.

As time goes on you will find on this site more and more material to document and report the miracles I can find out about. I'm planning to put some videos onto the internet of actual miracles where I've been involved."

Str1977 23:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)