Talk:Ex indumentis
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
User:Str1977 has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them. This article was one of those removed.Perhaps not in the interests of the non-indoctrinated Wikipedia reader? I have no opinion in this particular case myself. --Wetman 09:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, i'm the guy who started this article, included it in "Christian Mythology" and I do have an opinion about it. I guess you could say that I would be classified as an "indoctrinated" Wikipedia reader, as I am proudly Catholic. I believe that Sacramentals, Relics and much of the Christian faith does indeed fall under the purview of "mythology" when viewed from a non-Christian point of view. I realize that not everyone in the world is a Catholic or a Christian as I am, thus in the interest of fairness, it is important that any classifications be either neutral, or dually noted. To a Catholic or Christian, an ex-indumentis relic is an article of the faith and a sacramental. I believe it is fair to label it as such, in accordance with the fact that there are Wikipedia users who are Christian or Catholic. To a non-Christian, an ex-indumentis relic would clearly be a matter of mythology, thus it seems to be in the interest of fairness that it be classified as such, alongside of it's religious classification. I am putting the "mythology" tag back. --FactsAndHonesty 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- But that classification is not accurate. Mythology deals with deities and other supernatural beings. This article deals with one aspect of relics, which are very much real and are not mythologically in the least. NPOV cannot be attained by inserting into false categories but by wording an article in a balanced way, without asserting truth or untruth or a certain belief. And yes, under Wetman's premises you would indeed classify as "indoctrinated" and as a "child" (see his page for that). So would I actually and it is telling that he cannot make his posting without personal attacks. Str1977 (smile back) 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would remove it again and we could go back and forth. However, I do have a suggestion: do you think relics in general should be classified in that category? If so, we could include a subcategory "relics". This does sit entirely well with me but I would accept such a compromise. Str1977 (smile back) 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- But that classification is not accurate. Mythology deals with deities and other supernatural beings. This article deals with one aspect of relics, which are very much real and are not mythologically in the least. NPOV cannot be attained by inserting into false categories but by wording an article in a balanced way, without asserting truth or untruth or a certain belief. And yes, under Wetman's premises you would indeed classify as "indoctrinated" and as a "child" (see his page for that). So would I actually and it is telling that he cannot make his posting without personal attacks. Str1977 (smile back) 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that wetman is a jerk and a typical "anti-Christian" crusader, however, the sacramental value instilled into holy relics by the faithful could very easily be considered to be a component of mythology by the non faithful. At the very least, superstition... Really, I have no strong feelings about it either way... Maybe we should remove it from mythology. --FactsAndHonesty 22:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Not an orphan
[edit]At the top of the article, there is a note that no other article links to it. This is not true, as I arrived from the article "Relic". Someone who knows how to do it, please remove the note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.69.17 (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)