I need help in editing the "Little Mary Sunshine" article. The article is too superficial: it fails to describe the many specific allusions provided by each of LMS's songs. I have deduced the many allusions and have prepared a fairly long, song-by-song description of the Broadway antecedents of the songs. I have also prepared a minor revision of the first two sentences under "Background." These sentences overstate the play's dependence on Victor Herbert, Rudolf Friml, and Sigmund Romberg, overlooking four of five other composers whose work is alluded to.
I am not a techie. I could not possible master the technique of editing a Wikipedia article. I can't even get started in the sandbox. So, I need a volunteer to copy and insert in the "Little Mary Sunshine" article my new material.
I'm willing to try (again) to post the copy here (doesn't seem to work), send it to you by email, or send it by snail mail. Earlier today I tried posting it here with a similar request for help. When I hit the "Save" button, this message came up (in red!): "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. It it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in."
That message is a real enigma. In the first place, I did not submit an edit, so what do they mean in saying they couldn't process an edit? I presume "loss of session data" means, as soon as I hit the "Save" button, Wikipedia's computer erased everything I had written. Does "Save" mean erase? I took it to mean "Post," since there is no "Post" button and no other button that comes closer in meaning to "Post" than "Save."
Anyhow, do I have any volunteers who know how to edit a Wikipedia article and will do it for me if I provide the copy? [query by Saul Tillich on 19 August 2007]
I suggest that you post your suggestions to the WP:MUSICALS discussion page. Then editors there can discuss it and help you edit in the info. Do you have citations to published sources]] for this discussion? See WP:RS and the "five pillars of Wikipedia" referred to below. Best regards! -- Ssilvers21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it, to see if your idea has already been discussed. Even then, it is often helpful to suggest a major change before making it, to see if anyone objects or wants to discuss it. Do not delete materials on other people's talk pages or on the talk pages of articles.
When you contribute to a talk page, please sign your name using four tildes: ~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces.
I just found this reply. It's helpful: I have bookmarked the Manual of Style (though I'm likely to follow Chicago without checking Wikipedia) and have printed out "How to Edit a Page." (I'll dig through the latter later to see if I can find pi.)
Hello again. I notice that you have been adding commas into wikidates. You don't need to do that, because when you write a wikified date, the software automatically adjusts it to suit each reader's automatic "preferences". For instance, if I write January 12007, a U.S. reader will see "January 1, 2007" and a UK reader will see 1 January 2007. If you put in the manual comma, you don't allow the software to work properly. Thanks! -- Ssilvers21:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oh. This advice comes too late. I've been enclosing the year in commas whenever the month is followed by the day, and I changed one "Navy style" date (e.g., 7 December 1941) to conventional style. The change to conventional style, however, was fully justified: other dates in the article used conventional style, and stylistic consistency within an article is basic to good writing. In the future, I'll avoid putting commas around years that have an accompanying day of the month.
If you want to survey the damage, I've edited the articles on The Vagabond King, The Desert Song, The Student Prince, The New Moon, Oklahoma, Carousel, and The Sound of Music. The Showboat article has way to much material on racial issues (including black English), a problem made worse by the material's appearing under at least three headings (it should all be in one place). Major cuts are needed, but I'm not the person to make them.
RegardingShowboat, I could hardly restrain myself from adding a comment under the Canadian production. I saw it here in Washington, DC, at the Kennedy Center when it was touring in the 1990s. And I wanted to say that the producers really screwed up when they had Captain Andy's wife, Parthy, sing "Why Do I Love You?" to Nolie's baby as a lullaby. That song, one of the all-time great songs from Broadway, is also one of the all-time-great duet songs: it should have been sung by Gaylord and Nolie--as a duet, of course.
By the way, if you like musicals, check out WP:MUSICALS. Also, if you like Gilbert and Sullivan, check out WP:G&S. The purpose of the projects is to bring together editors who are interested in a subject to collaborate and help each other to improve Wikipedia coverage of the subject. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers22:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not a Gilbert and Sullivan fan. It just happens that, way back in the 6th grade (we're talking 1942), I had a music teacher (Mrs. Holt) who spent most of her time teaching us classical and semiclassical music, including Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concert, "Buttercup" and "I am the Captain of the Pinafore" from HMS Pinafore, "My Hero" from The Chocolate Soldier (she even took us to the Rise Stevens, Nelson Eddy film of Chocolate Soldier one evening), and lots of other good stuff. That's how I so quickly picked up the connection between "Heap Big Injun" and "I am the Captain" in Little Mary Sunshine. -- Saul Tillich01:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Saul.
Thanks for the e-mail that you sent me, but I had nothing to do with the "Karpathy" stuff. That was another
editor. Best regards, -- Ssilvers03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please discuss paul tillich changes on article talk page
hello, i've reverted your edits thus far, as they fail on policy basis and within the context of cooperative editing. please discuss your desired changes on the article talk page. thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Paul Tillich, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you: please stop adding disruptive material to Talk:Paul Tillich. These lengthy personal essays arguing Tillich to be an atheist do not serve any purpose and are a clear attempt to obfuscate discussion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Paul Tillich, you will be blocked for vandalism. Please do not further refactor other user's talk page comments, as you have done here. As a side note, you have WQA case that can be seen WP:WQA#User:Saul Tillich.
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Paul Tillich, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Message for Anastrophe and His Colleagues: May I remind you, Mr. Anastrophe, that you are deleting my edits as often as I am deleting yours. Back in January you took pleasure in quoting to me the following: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Well, just as you have been editing my work mercilessly, I am doing the same with yours, which I am entitled to do. I am deleting your false descriptions of Tillich's theology because they are false, and false material does not belong in Wiki. That is not vandalism; that is editing. Please do not "continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Paul Tillich." In other words, stop blanking out and deleting portions of page content, templates, or other materials.
That you and your compatriots regard my article as "unconstructive" is irrelevant. I regard your work as unconstructive -- false and naive. In the talk discussion, you have never been able to support your position with quotations. Instead you use ad hominen argument and sarcasm. Worse, you dishonestly accuse me of attempting "do discredit Tillich," whereas I am doing no such thing. Your accusation seems to reflect a belief that, as a theologian, Tillich could not possibly be an atheist. In the process, you ignore the evidence I have presented that a very strong majority (not your "tiny minority") of Tillich's interpreters regard him as an atheist -- either a pantheist, a mystic, or a complete nonsupernaturalist. To base an article, as you are doing, on nothing but personal prejudice and a closed mind is the epitome of "unconstructive" behavior.
So come off your high horse, cut out this holier-than-thou nonsense, and accept the fact that I have as much right to edit as you do. Grow up, learn that people disagree on many things, and realize that disagreement does not constitute vandalism.Saul Tillich (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the above three paragraphs. Your threats are outrageous, and your ridiculous accusation of "vandalism" is the very sort of personal attack (not the first, either) that you wrongly accuse me of. Can you explain why my replacement of material I consider false with accurate material is "vandalism," whereas your colleagues' replacement of my material (which they consider false) with their own interpretation is not vandalism? How can you not realize that what we have here is disagreement about whether Tillich is an atheist? Both of us are "mercilessly editing" the other side.
I would also point out that an outside observer on the Wikiquette page reached essentially the same conclusion: "Please provide specific diffs that show uncivil behavior. What I'm seeing on that Talk Page thus far is that it's an ongoing content dispute and that's out of our area. If it is content and not incivility, you might want to ask at any of the Wikiprojects associated with the article to see if any of the editors there might be willing to step in and build consensus." DanielEng (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I regard both your personal threats and your willingness to cry "vandalism" when the other side edits your side's material as the "uncivil behavior" around here.Saul Tillich (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that you are not vandalizing; instead, you're disrupting. There's a consensus not to change that article, so please do not change it until you can compromise. If you continue to edit war you will be blocked. Consider this a final warning of sorts. Thank you, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺06:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once you return from your block, please go to the article talk page and engage in discussion with the other users. If you continue to revert like this, you will be blocked for a longer period of time. Nishkid64(Make articles, not love)22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{I was threatened with blocking, then actually blocked, for going against "consensus" and for "disrupting." The basic issue is whether the Tillich article should (a) describe Tillich as a theist -- a person who believes in the supernatural personal God of theism -- with no other points of view presented or (b) describe him as an atheist but with other points of view presented; my position is the latter. To begin with, consensus strongly favors my Tillich-is-an-atheist position. I have identified 16 sources, including 3 encyclopedias, that describe Tillich as an atheist -- either a pantheist or a complete nonsupernaturalist -- whereas only 5 sources call Tillich a theist. Even the original Tillich article, which I replaced, called Tillich a pantheist, which is a form of atheism! Also, if we redefine consensus as the majority view of editors on the subject's talk page, nothing in Wiki's dispute resolution policy calls for resolving disputes by consensus or for blocking those who disagree with the consensus. On the contrary, the dispute resolution procedure calls for mediation. I suggested mediation (my suggestion was blocked rather than saved) by an impartial mediator, preferably a professor of philosophy. (People with backgrounds in theology, apparently including those who disagree with me, have a built-in bias: they tend to assume that a recognized theologian can't be an atheist.) Using the talk page, I have offered abundant evidence (quotations and interpretations from Tillich and others) and arguments that Tillich is an atheist. The other side has offered no evidence or quotations; its position is purely dogmatic. I have been falsely accused of "vandalism" and altering quotations and "bogus footnotes," all of which accusations I have refuted. I have three times been accused of "original research," and each time I have pointed out that my primary authority (Wheat) published his interpretation (Johns Hopkins Press) 38 years ago. I did acknowledge originality where, using indexes, I counted the number of times Tillich referred to Hegel and other philosophers; and I deleted this original material. Two outside observers on the talk page have commented that the dispute is really one about content -- they are unconvinced that any "vandalism" has occurred -- but the cries of vandalism persist. If deleting material one regards as false is vandalism, then those who want to see me blocked from editing are guilty of vandalism: they have repeatedly deleted my revisions of the article's section on Tillich's theology. What both of us are doing, of course, is exercising our right to "mercilessly edit" material we regard as false. To say that I am being disruptive but the others are not is to apply a double standard.Saul Tillich (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
{{So that the real issues become clear, I am spelling out below why I say the article I object to is full of falsehoods.
The article’s lead paragraph says Tillich is best known for his “method of correlation.” Tillich is actually best known for (1) his three-volume Systematic Theology, which is what brought him fame, and for (2) his call for replacing the traditional God of theism with a mysterious (but identifiable) “God above the God of theism.” The method of correlation is of little consequence, because most people know only its question-and-answer definition, which fails to provide either questions or their answers. (A lesser known definition of correlation -- correlation of analogous concepts -- really applies.)
The article implies that Tillich is a supernaturalist and, as such, a believer in the God of theism. But Tillich has repeatedly disavowed both supernaturalism and the God of theism. By suggesting that Tillich accepts the traditional “Christian message” that the logos (God, according to Jn. 1:14) “became flesh” (was incarnated as Jesus), the authors grossly misrepresent Tillich. Tillich said “the antisupernaturalistic attitude” is “something that is fundamental to ALL my thinking” (“all” includes God). He said “no divine being exists.” He said his concept of religion has “little in common” with “the belief in the existence of a highest being called God.” He said God is “not a [one] being” (the “a” is italicized for emphasis: not ONE being). Referring to the God of theism, he said, “There is no evidence for his existence, nor is he a matter of ultimate concern.” He said the Christ (God incarnate) is a “myth,” along with his virgin birth, his miracles, his resurrection, and his being a savior (Tillich also repudiates beliefs in the soul and life after death).
The article misrepresents Tillich’s method of correlation by uncritically accepting Tillich’s symbolic statement (not meant to be taken literally) that he is correlating questions from philosophy with answers from theology. But Tillich presents neither questions nor answers, and his theology does not use a question-and-answer format. As my revised article points out with specifics, Tillich elsewhere says he is correlating analogous philosophical and theological concepts (e.g., being and God), which jointly symbolize a Tillichian concept (e.g., the God above God). The authors refuse to acknowledge the real meaning of correlation, even though it has been presented in considerable detail.
The article misrepresents Tillich’s “norm” – “Jesus as the Christ” – by presenting only a superficial description that omits essential information. First, Tillich says his reason for using "the norm" is to base his theology on the Christ, a mythological being according to Tillich, rather than on the historical Jesus, because the existence of the historical Jesus might in the future be questioned. The authors, on the other hand, falsely imply that Tillich is endorsing the divinity of Jesus. Second, the authors hide the reason the Christ norm is championed by Tillich. Tillich explicitly says the reason for using this “norm” is that the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) declared that the Christ was “fully God and fully man” rather than half God and half man: “The decision of Nicaea saved Christianity from a relapse to a cult of half-Gods.” Why does Tillich insist that “fully God and fully man” be the norm for judging a theology? Because, although God by any definition is “fully God” (by definition), only Tillich’s “God above the God of theism” – humanity – is fully man as well. “Fully man,” incidentally, invalidates the God of pantheism, because that God is only partly man and partly everything else in the universe.
The article has no discussion of Tillich’s use of symbolism. Symbolism takes the old supernaturalistic concepts of Christianity (e.g., salvation) and gives them largely hidden nonsupernaturalistic new meanings. Princeton philosopher Walter Kaufmann called Tillich’s giving nonliteral meanings to the old concepts “double-speak” (conveying different meanings to different audiences). Tillich himself acknowledged that, as a theologian, he felt obliged to be "all things to all men. Symbolism is one of the pillars of Tillich’s theology. To take Tillich literally, as the authors have done, is to misunderstand and misrepresent him.
The article also ignores the most important pillar of Tillich’s theology: the Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis-and-synthesis. Tillich calls his theology “neo-dialectical”; he repeatedly refers to “dialectic” and “dialectical”; and he peppers his theology with the terminology of Hegelian dialectics. Tillich’s God, which is the analog of Hegel’s metaphysical Spirit, undergoes a “divine life” that progresses from (1) thesis: Yes to God, the God of theism, to (2) antithesis: No to God, atheism, to (3) synthesis: a higher Yes that incorporates the No to the God of theism. The higher Yes says Yes to the nonsupernatural God, humanity, “the God above the God of theism,” the God that is “fully man” as well as “fully God.”
The article badly garbles Tillich concept of estrangement, which is actually self-estrangement (selbstenfremdung in German), estrangement from oneself. Hegel’s Spirit, a metaphysical essence embodied in everything in the universe, including man, was estranged from itself because individual men did not recognize other men and other external “objects” as essentially the same thing as themselves – Spirit. Estrangement is failure to recognize oneself in others, where the self is a redefined God (Hegel’s Spirit); estrangement is also failure to recognize God in oneself. In Tillichian estrangement, all men participate in God, because God is humanity. Man is estranged from himself (self-estrangement) because he fails to recognize God (humanity, the “universe” man belongs to) in other men – and in himself.Saul Tillich (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Paul Tillich, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Paul Tillich, you will be blocked for vandalism. Please do not further refactor other user's talk page comments, as you have done here. As a side note, you have WQA case that can be seen WP:WQA#User:Saul Tillich.
