User talk:ADM/Archive 7

Archives[edit]

Latin American Herald Tribune[edit]

I've added some tags to the article on the Latin American Herald Tribune, which you started and provided most of the content for. I'm not sure I understand what justifies the statement that it is part of the International Herald Tribune or how it is associated with the Washington Post, etc. Can you point me towards your source about this? Thanks A man in space (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I remember where the I got the source, so maybe the introduction of this article needs to be re-formulated. The initial article was just a stub anyway. What struck me though is that both the IHT and the LAHT have the same calligraphy in their title pages, with H and T being written the same way. [1] [2] Maybe if you dig deeper you'll find links, but as with any press publication, it's sometimes difficult to determine who exactly the owners are and what socio-political interests they represent. ADM (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to remove that stuff until I (or someone else) can find a source. A man in space (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate comment[edit]

I've replied to you here at length, and here, and here. It was definitely not my comment, and I agree with your displeasure about it. Swliv (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your reply. I'm assuming good faith, although I'd like to do a checkuser on User:98.207.234.30, while keeping in mind that it could be anyone. ADM (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me to do CheckUser. My first exposure to it. Sounds appropriate. Consider this my permission, if you need it. Swliv (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/98.207.234.30. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added code letter B. The original IP was 98.207.234.30, I initially suspected that it was either user:Swliv or user:Tajm, but I am also open to the idea that it could be other users as well. ADM (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adversus Judaeos[edit]

Dear ADM

You have been the main contributor of this article. It seems that this article is in contradiction with the article on Tertullian. You mention Chrysostom as the author of these homilies which in the other article seem to have been written by Tertullian. --FLLLFrance (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Tertullian wrote a book with the same title, and you can look it up if you want to, but in this case the title most definitely refers to the homilies of John Chrysostom, given that his writings on the subject are much more notable than those of Tertullian. ADM (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antichrist article[edit]

Although the Antichrist article had a substantial description of the history behind the historicist position, I hardly see the need for an article splice, given that the article is well under 100kb. I would much rather see a Futurist add to the history of the futurist position. I am not capable of doing this myself, given that I am ignorant of the Futurist viewpoint's history prior to the Schofield Reference Bible. Perhaps you could add it? In addition, the unique views of the Eastern Church deserve explaination, but likewise I'm not well read enough to write the section. Issues of undue weight are better fixed by adding more to the other points of view than by removing sourced material.

In your comment, you claimed that Historicism is a minority view among Protestants. I was under the impression that Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists tend to be historicist, while Baptists, Church of God, Church of Christ, and Pentacostals tended to be Futurist. While there are more Baptists in America than any other Protestant Church, when you look at at the situation globally, there are more Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists than Baptists, Church of God, Church of Christ, and Pentacostals.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans are not historicist, that is for sure, given that they have long had ecumenical relations with the Catholic Church. In general, any Protestant organization that engages in ecumenical relations with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity must have long abandoned historicism, because you can't reasonably dialogue with someone whom you believe to be the Antichrist. Given this information, the Lutheran World Federation isn't historicist, and neither is the calvinistic Baptist World Alliance, or the World Council of Churches for that matter. There are probably a minority of Baptists, a minority of Lutherans and a minority of Pentecostals who still are though, along with various non-trinitarian groups. Even if that does sound like a minority, it's still a substantial minority of people that adds up in the millions of adherents. ADM (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a narrow definition of historicism. Historicism is merely the interpretation of Revelation as dealing with events throughout history, not just the end of the end-times. In contrary to your statement that those that dialogue with Rome cannot believe that the Pope is the antichrist (a claim made by some historicists), the Missouri Synod has dialogued constructively with official talks with Rome together with the LWF for over a generation now and the LCMS doctrine hasn't changed since then. Rome must be more tolerant of the view than it used to be.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is because LCMS dialogue with the Vatican has been deliberately kept at a strict minimum by its conservative leaders, such as Gerald B. Kieschnick. For instance, the LCMS never did sign the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, as most Lutheran bodies did. I suspect that if the LCMS did sign the Joint Declaration and did participate in all the interfaith meetings such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America does, there would be strong pressures both from within and from outside the Synod to do away with the papal antichrist doctrine. I'm refering here to historicism as it has historically been understood by most Protestants, with all its associated symbology of the Man of Sin, the Beast, the Whore of Babylon, which have been deliberately used to target the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you advocate that all the other possibilities for the Antichrist should also be given a separate article, for example, "Antichrist (futurism)", "Antichrist (dispensationalism)", "Antichrist (orthodox)", "Antichrist (preterism)"? Who is going to write all these articles? Why would anyone visit them?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advocate it unless a substantial amount of material was added on the subject. If it were, I would say why not?, but that hasn't beeen done yet. I am thinking about adding some content on futurism, so maybe it will be done eventually. The important thing is that the article is properly categorized, so there are enough categories that link to it. The historicist doctrine is arguably among the most notable of such teachings, and so it deserves special attention because it has deep roots that in the writings of the Reformers, as well as in the medieval period. ADM (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life movement articles[edit]

Can you please help to edit some new articles related to this one ? There´s a new user who keeps editing articles related with Christianity and abortion in a very biased way. Thanks.Mistico (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I also find her edits to be problematic, given that something like 95 % of early Christians were against abortion. Just because 5 % of early Christians did not speak out against it doesn't mean that the vast majority of the Church didn't oppose it. Quoting the Bible can never be a substitute for the authoritative teachings of ecclesiastical synods and councils by the way. If you have a problem with this, you should consider reporting it as a matter of concern to senior administrators, who have dealt with her before it seems. The user was apparently blocked back in October 2007 for having abused a number of multiple accounts (cf [3] and checkuser). I am in no sense part of the Wikipedia élite, so I couldn't really contribute to solving conflicts in ways that most administrators could. ADM (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Iscariot[edit]

Greetings,

I think the article has too many sections. I think a better option is having a section on "Questions and interpretations" and then a subsection on "modern interpretation".ReaverFlash (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my basic problem with the philosophy section is that it quotes the Bible several times. I am skeptical as to whether quoting the Bible like that really counts as philosophy, and whether it shouldn't be included as part of the theology section. In general, most of the issues mentioned in the philosophy section have been discounted by modern philosophers, and are usually considered to belong in the realm of theology, because a) people like Nietszche often argue that we have evolved Beyond Good and Evil because of the growth of contemporary utilitarianism b) the notion of free will isn't very important in modern thinking because of the role that determinism plays in the realm of science, i.e. biological determinism, environmental determinism, cultural determinism, etc. ADM (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about renaming the section "Theology and Interpretation"?ReaverFlash (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be okay. ADM (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted some sections. Check it out and see if you want to make any changes.ReaverFlash (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I like the Gospel of Judas with its own section. It's an apocrypha, so I think it belongs with the relevant section of the Gospel of Barnabas and the Evangelium Infantiæ Salvatoris. I am of the opinion that there are really two Judases : the Judas of mainstream Christianity and the Judas of Gnosticism/New Age. Just like Gnosticism/New Age has its own version of Jesus (i.e. the Da Vinci Code), so too it has its own apostles and its own disciples like John, James and Judas. ADM (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, Gospel of Judas does look like it belongs in apocrypha.ReaverFlash (talk)

Heresy[edit]

What was the reason for removing almost all of the information that was in the Judaism section of Heresy? warrior 4321 13:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information appeated superfluous, given that Judaism has relatively few adherents compared to Christianity or Islam, and that Orthodox Judaism itself is a minority movement among North American Jewish communities, who are predominantly Reformed or Conservative. I am currently transfering some of the information into heresy in Orthodox Judaism. ADM (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Warrior4321's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

warrior 4321 14:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Talk:Bishop of Ossory.
Message added 16:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at User:Ikip.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Per what I wrote there: If you allow me, I can userfy these articles immediately, and this will allow you time to merge them, otherwise these editors appear to want to put them up for deletion. This is a temporary solution only, which will give you time to merge them. User:Ikip

I don't think any of them deserve deletion, I would instead suggest that we have a vote, which ideally should decide for a keep. I think you are probably talking about the following entries : Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Italy, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the Netherlands, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Belgium, Catholic sexual scandal in the United Kingdom and Catholic sexual abuse scandal in France. It would be very easy to add many details for each of them, there are already many sources and writings on the subject. ADM (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per what I wrote there: If you allow me, I can userfy these articles immediately, and this will allow you time to merge them, otherwise these editors appear to want to put them up for deletion. This is a temporary solution only, which will give you time to merge them.

I don't think any of them deserve deletion, I would instead suggest that we have a vote, which ideally should decide for a keep. I think you are probably talking about the following entries : Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Italy, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the Netherlands, Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Belgium, Catholic sexual scandal in the United Kingdom and Catholic sexual abuse scandal in France. It would be very easy to add many details for each of them, there are already many sources and writings on the subject. ADM (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. Ikip (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility would be to create an article entitled Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Europe which would combine all the information from the previous articles, the latter being linked together through a #REDIRECT. I find this to be a better solution, given the fact that no European country can really compare to the United States because of the USA's population. ADM (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syncretistic controversy[edit]

I don't think the content of syncretistic controversy should be fully included within the article syncretism because it contains too much specific information, as opposed to the much broader phenomenon of mixing religions and beliefs together. This peculiar Lutheran affair happened centuries ago, in the 1600s, and so it should be treated as a primarily historical matter that occured in a very regional context, i.e. between Protestant churches in Northern Germany. ADM (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be a separate article some years back before someone merged it. I personally am indifferent as to whether it is a seperate article again. However, the articles which wikilink to the section must all be fixed by hand. Making a redirect will not work in this situation. I'm somewhat afraid that if you go to all the work of fixing all the wikilinks, someone half a year from now will get the bright idea to merge them again. The fun never ends!--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of the Holy See[edit]

Thanks for your help on the articles on the Holy See. I do agree that there is a case for having a separate section on the legal status of the Holy See in Int L. Unfortunately, the summary that you left in the general article is rather inaccurate. I´ll try to redraft it. Now, having a separate article on the legal status, I will beef it up a bit more.

On the other hand, I do not know of any legal authority that claims that the Holy See - separate from the vatican - is a "regular" state. Most would agree that it is a entity sui generis. If you have reference in this regard, I would like to check it. The discussion between constructivist and realists on the definition of what a state is belongs to the area of political science, not to international law. The article (or section) deals only with the "legal status of the holy see. BonifaciusVIII (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined UN membership from 1944 to 1964[edit]

I find this title rather confusing, If anything, the Holy See was a Non-member, Non-observer during that period. I suggest either going back to the previous title or going for "Non participation between 1944 to 1964" eventhough it is not fully accurate. BonifaciusVIII (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to include the League of Nations part of history, where there was also no participation, which is why the correct title is somewhat difficult ot ascertain. I do agree with your suggestion though and will abide by it. ADM (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Probably a separate section or even a short page on the relationship between the HS and the League would be interesting. The books of Robert Araujo and Graham, that I quoted in the legal status article, have a wealth of info about it. Right now, though, I´m trying to finish Multilateral foreign policy of the Holy See I guess it will take me at least a couple of weeks just to fill in the blanks ... BonifaciusVIII (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate redlinking[edit]

Did not understand why you were deliberately red-linking names in Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum).Student7 (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only name I redlinked was Charles Moredod, due to the fact that he is a prominent theologian and ecumenical expert in the Roman Curia. I had created a stub article in the meantime, but it did not appear that way immediately because of a linking problem (i.e. Moredod instead of Morerod). ADM (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinking[edit]

You recently removed a large section of the article Peacekeeping and inserted a link to Peacekeeping child sexual abuse scandal in place of it. This article does not exist and a search did not turn it up under a similar but different title. Do you plan to write this article or is there some other explanation? - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It exists now, you can examine it if you wish. I'm still adding material to it though. ADM (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see you have since created the article - please disregard the question. In future you may want to create the new article before you remove the material from the old article to avoid confusion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington[edit]

I noticed that you took out information about George Washington's relationship with the Catholic Church. I know that some of the allegations appear to be over-the-top, such as the story about the Jesuit at his deathbed, but I still think it is noteworthy to include some of the material that indicates that there was an existing relationship, at least on the political level. For instance, Washington is mentioned favourably by the 19th century Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Longinqua. He is also given credit for having assisted bishop John Carroll in setting up the earliest dioceses and Catholic schools in the United States. It is possible that as an Anglican, he was involved in the high Church branch of the Church of England, also known as anglo-Catholicism. This would explain his favourable inclination towards bishops, religious icons and sacred liturgies. ADM (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources, feel free to add information. But please don't add speculation or imply a conclusion not explicitly made by sources.

From everything I have read about Washington, he was not High Church ... for example he rarely took communion, a fact which, many years after Washington's death, resulted in an Epicscopal Bishop (one who was definitely High Church) stating that he thought Washington was a Deist. Washington does not fit the pattern for Low Church either. If I had to put a label on him (and doing so is dangerous as our modern concept of these labels has changed since his day) I would call him a "Latitudinarian"... disdaining the extremes of both High and Low Church.

Be particualry careful not to apply anacronistic labels to historical figures. What we think of today as "Anglo-Catholic" is really the result of the Oxford Movement of the mid to late 1800s. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul of Tarsus[edit]

Hey, about this edit you just made, the main article that you linked to is, as you can see, a red-link. So the information you took out was merely deleted. Were you planning on making this article? If not, then i'm going to have to revert your edit. Silver seren^C 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming soon, don't revert it. ADM (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked. Thanks for responding and sorry to bother you. :) Just as advice, since there is likely other users that would just revert without checking, I would make the article first if I were you and then remove stuff from other articles. If you do it that way, then there's no confusion. Silver seren^C 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest submitting the article to DYK. Always good to get it out there. ^_^ Silver seren^C 22:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is DYK? Afaprof01 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "sponsoring" this new article. Good move! I'll be supportive in building it.Afaprof01 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding Bible passages and creating new subheads as appropriate. I'm also adding commentary and citations in quotations that are far too long. If you have time to trim before I do, please do so. I have several commentaries from which I will be adding. Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Bible[edit]

You have made several sweeping deletions to articles in this "series," but the reasons given were either non-existent or sketchy. Please give more detailed explanations for more than tweaks. Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deleting anything, just re-organizing it. I feel that we can have specialized entries such as women in the Hebrew Bible and women in Church history while maintaining a good deal of general commentary. ADM (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]