User talk:Rev. Jack Green

Welcome!

Hello, Rev. Jack Green! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DThomsen8 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You mentioned in the Paganistan deletion debate that you are interested in improving our coverage of Native American topics. I have written three biographies of Native American artists, and would like to do more work in this area in the future. They are Al Qöyawayma, Carrie Bethel and Nellie Charlie. Your opinion on them would be appreciated.

You wrote "Your Native American entries including at Minneapolis_Saint_Paul/#Religion are atrocious". Please be aware that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, a work in progress, and we have many excellent articles on Native American topics as well as many that need improvement. My personal preference is to improve poor articles when I run across them, to write new articles on notable topics when they are lacking, and to focus on improvement rather than spending too much time complaining about the project's shortcomings. If I see an "atrocious" article, know how to improve it, and then don't bother to do so, then I have no one to blame but myself for that specific atrocious article. Now that you are a Wikipedia editor, my suggestion to you would be to think in terms of "our" articles rather than "your" articles, and pick several to improve, starting right now. That's what keeps me sane as a volunteer here.

I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to keep that in mind. I hope you understand that my people, like Native Americans have dealt with prejudice and disdain for so long defensiveness is reflexive. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My father-in-law had several dozen cousins in the area that is now Belarus. They kept in touch by letter in the 1930s. After the Nazi occupation, not a single one was left alive. I am very familiar with people's defensiveness following prejudice, disdain and genocide. Cullen328 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning no personal disrespect but "Nullius in verba." What if all you had documenting that was a couple of letters dismissed as 'primary sources' or worse, just the sudden absence of letters, how would anyone ever know to investigate the massacre? That is often the historical situation in the Burning Times for many individuals and allows Christian apologists to grossly underestimate the number killed. You should understand the passions behind this then. So why require citations for us under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_|_Saint_Paul/#Religion when NO OTHER item in that section has a reference citation? That still seems prejudicial to me. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nullius in verba

I would not try to use my father-in law's story as material for a Wikipedia article, and don't resent that it doesn't serve that purpose here. I offered the anecdote in an attempt to empathize with those who feel defensiveness about persecution, as that was a subtext of my relationship with him for 25 years. I was a convert to Judaism and I had to prove myself to him. Let me be crystal clear - I believe that Christian persecution of Pagans and Wiccans is a most notable topic that I personally would like to learn more about. As for asking for references about new material in an article related to one I am debating: The fact that shortcomings exist in various articles is not an accepted reason to avoid improving something that another editor questions. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am not a deletionist. I have participated in roughly 700 deletion debates here. I recommend "keep" or "delete" roughly equally. I want an article on the Twin Cities Pagan community to stay here. I just want it to have a good name and properly referenced content, as I strive for in every article I write or expand. My standards are consistent and my editing record is completely available for your review. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good overall. Nor am I avoiding the research involved. I and others are organizing a 'digging through drawers' campaign as Orange Mike put it even before we talked above and I have two new News references to post in a few hours, after all, I have to work for a living as well. I think overall I'm going to like this new gig as I learn the social rules here at Wikipedia. I just heard another disparaging news report on NPR about Wikipedia and now I have a better understanding of your struggle to be truly 'encyclopedic' in the old Enlightenment sense. I have always wanted to contribute to that in fact I have a large number of old encyclopedia articles on Witchcraft that document the struggle for recognition over the last 100 years of so.Rev. Jack Green (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles that you are hunting up may well be excellent references. Take your time. We have no deadlines here. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles

Please review WP:POVFORK for an understanding of why your idea of having two articles will encounter opposition. I recommend compromise and consensus. That reduces the chance that the closing administrator will delete the whole thing. If "Paganistan" gains significantly greater notability in reliable sources in the future, an article can be created at that time. Also, a redirect can be created so anyone searching for "Paganistan" is automatically taken to "Paganism in Minnesota". Cullen328 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History and Culture of Paganistan

Any way you could add something to that sub-section of the Paganistan article that explains the formulation of the term "Paganistan" itself? For example, when and how that term was coined? I think that would go a long way in helping to clean up that article. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gabe. Working on that now. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debate re: renaming

Hello, the article was not deleted, and the record of the deletion debate will stay in the archives permanently. Because there was no consensus to delete or to keep under the name "Paganistan" but support for a move (rename), the debate now shifts to whether the article should be renamed, and restructured a bit. Concern has also been expressed about the number and quality of the sources. At this point, there will be an article about Paganism in Minnesota, but we need to develop consensus about the proper title. I encourage you to accept a neutral, non-controversial title such as "Paganism in Minnesota", with discussion of Paganistan as a section within that article. My experience is that article titles based on neologisms often result in ongoing conflict and unnecessary drama. Stability with the article should be a goal, so that work can be devoted toward improving it rather than just saving it. Please be aware that several experienced editors here have been willing to listen to the input of new editors with a vested interest in this article, and to compromise. I encourage you to do the same, but the decision is entirely yours. I bid you peace. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I realize all this and thought I had made it clear I have compromised as well. I accept "Paganism in Minnesota" with a Paganistan section and redirect. Is it also required that I be happy about compromising? Rev. Jack Green ( talk) 07:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need not be happy about it but you also cant be disruptive. You certainly may have your opinion and express it in discussions but sarcasm, exaggeration and hyperbole is not going to go over well. It only lessens the effectiveness of your argument. Some editors may see it as mocking their positions or even mocking them personally. --RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Paganistan are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages.

On a personal note, I can appreciate your passion for this subject but please try to keep on task here. We are trying to gain some consensus among all participating editors on the naming of this article. There are opinions on both sides including those who had previously indicated that the article should be deleted outright. If the naming issue cant be resolved successfully, the article is going to end up being nominated for deletion again. You've indicated your preference, let's leave it at that. Your "related aside" is not related to the discussion at hand (naming the article). Ease up a bit and focus on well reasoned arguments and save the "aside" for later. If there is information to be had on human rights abuses, I encourage you to write a well referenced article on the subject. RadioFan (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Rev. Jack's defense, he is a fairly new editor here (according to his userpage at least) and likely did not know or understand that talkpage discussions, especially about things like redirects and deletion, should be approached as if they are a meeting at work or from a professional tone. I, myself, didn't know that when I first arrived and got lambasted accordingly. Naturally, I think an assumption of good faith here with a "now you know" would be the best solution. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox extensions

Since you inquired, if you wish to make a sandbox extension, you may do so by entering the following into the Wikipedia search box: User:Rev. Jack Green/sandbox. There, you can paste whatever you want into it and use that place to experiment. Have fun! PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, did I read correctly that they get wiped every 12 hours or so? No saving files there?Rev. Jack Green (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The Wikipedia:Sandbox gets cleaned out regularly. But if you create your own sandbox sub-page for testing, it'll only get wiped when you wipe it. Heck, before I started backing up the Paganistan article in my sandbox page, I'd had the same thing there for a year. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, then I'll do it there and back up on my thumb drive and hard drive. Here's to "Paganism in Minnesota"!Rev. Jack Green (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you can create an unlimited number of sandbox pages with the format User:Rev. Jack Green/Sandbox/Topic name with a different topic name for each page you want to create. The main restriction is that the purpose of these pages is to develop the encyclopedia, not for a purpose unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. If that is the purpose, they will be left alone. If the pages appear to be for another purpose, then someone may notice and nominate them for deletion. Otherwise, they will stay around as long as you need them. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen! Rev. Jack Green (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

religion of, for and by the people!!!

Dear Rev. Jack Green,

I'm reaching out to researchers and writers interested in the emerging, or re-emerging, movements inspired by ancient culture in the areas of religion/theology/mythology/culture...I spare-headed an artistic collaboration between a music professor, rock-vocalist and poet to create a modern multi-media experience of the cathardic journey inspired by ancient pagan poetic traditions; A romance to nature seen as a beautiful, divine and omnipotent woman.

It has singularly been my goal to respect tradition while allowing a free and spontaneous interpretation...I believe the utility of a quasi-rebirth of some aspects of the ancient religious tendancies would be achieved in an increase of tolerance, sympathy, and freedom of expression in our modern discoures on religion...so much needed. Until we have a cultural revolution tantamount to the politcal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries [aiding the rebirth of a government of, by and for the people] in the area of religion, I will not rest. Until the rebirth of religions which are of, by and for the people, as fluid as art, as deep as mythology and theology and as powerful as culture, I do not believe we will be truly free no matter what economic or political conditions surround us. Democracy without a democratic cultural is as frustrating as it is ineffectual.

If you have a moment could you peruse the poetry project site. http://www.misbeliever.net As you are a worker in these areas, having ebhanced the Wikipedia, the world's greatest encyclopedia, I would be very honored with any remarks or critisms you could offer either me or my collaborators.

thanks much,

sincerely

Pdiffenderfer (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paul m. diffenderfer

düsseldorf germany +49 (0) 178 178 2117 http://www.misbeliever.net pdiffenderfer@yahoo.com

Thanks, I'll take a look...