Talk:Separated brethren/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite flag

I added this flag because I am concerned this article is moving toward POV. To the extent it is neutral, it is not much more than a dictionary definition, which is, of course, not what WP is. I had proposed merging this article in Catholic Church and ecumenism which seems to have irritated this article's creator--he was blocked for removing the discussion banner. I changed my mind and withdrew the suggestion (the discussion is here: Talk:Catholic Church and ecumenism#Separated_brethren_merger_discussion) but I still remained concerned about this article. I have added fact tags to specific sentences I think need to be supported and reworked or removed. Novaseminary (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

NOT ALL of the article needs to be "re-written entirely" as you claim because of personal bias and uptightness......the intro definitely does not... and neither does the "History" section. Citations maybe, but not a total re-write. You're being disrespectful and unfair, sir, and I don't like it..... You need to leave your uptightness and whiny issues and nonsense out of Wikipedia. I'm not perfect, I know. But neither are you, and neither is anyone.

If you had put simply a "citations needed" tag, that would be different.....because that is sufficient...but you dogmatically put a "total rewrite" tag, when that's simply not fair, true, or even sane. The intro and the second section don't need a total "re-write" to warrant that tag you put. Also, on the discussion page for this article, you lied when you said that I got blocked because I removed the discussion tag on the other article. That's not really why. I got blocked for supposedly breaking the 3-revert rule. Not simply for removing a tag in general. (and you were "warring" too, as WP Policy says that "warring" is NOT only breaking the 3RR, although it can include that. And you were reverting back and forth yourself...nobody's perfect.)

I know that you have contributed greatly to Wikipedia, and I don't discount that. I try to be fair and objective about everybody, including people like you. You've done decent work on articles, I know. But your dishonest inaccurate sloppy unreasonable uptightness at times can make that overshadowed. I'm just being honest. We can learn from ANYONE. I ALSO have contributed greatly on Wikipedia in just a matter of months. Clean-ups, tweaks, meaningful and needed additions, removal of vandalism, and whole sections added to articles by me, that I knew should NOT be separate articles, creation of articles, fixes, additions of good and appreciated images, and important edits. So you being so dismissive is not cool or reasonable.

And also, your careful edits and additions are, of course, welcome, as is the case with anyone. This article belongs to NO one specific person. In fact, I was hoping some people would get on this and expand it. Etc.

Like the See also links issue on this, you did have a bit of a point on, I must admit. But I must disagree (even if I never created this article originally or edited it at all, I'd be saying the same thing) that the WHOLE article needs to be "re-written." You seem to have elements of truth, but then exaggerate the matter. But again, your contributions to improve this article, I of course would appreciate. But not a total dissing of it. Also, not all those "citations needed" tags were needed at the end of each sentence, when it was already stated and referenced in other parts of the article. (But that's a more debateable issue). Also, removing a reference from an Anti-Catholic Protestant website was not warranted, as the whole point of that last paragraph was talking about the VIEW of Anti-Catholics and Fundamentalists....and how they basically reject "Separated brethren" as being valid. Open for discussion though, I admit.)

Again, if you had just put a "Citations or clean up" tag, I would NOT be this annoyed, or probably not even annoyed at all necessarily. But you went beyond that with a rude and unfair and inaccurate "total rewrite" tag. Huh?? Not everything (I'm not chopped liver, so stop treating me as such) has to be totally completely (helloooo) "re-written". What is with you? The intro is basically fine, the second section is basically fine.........maybe the third section could use improvements.

But to re-write the whole article? When you say things like that, you tend to lose some credibility in a way, as just being an uptight nit-picker. And I know that you're more than that. And I actually appreciate how Wikipedia Admins and Editors keep things strict and careful. As it should be. The biggest and most popular online encyclopedia should have important rules and regulations and care-taking. But sometimes personal tastes are mistaken for policy, and things can go overboard the other way. Some of my friends on Wikipedia almost can't believe this. And it's insulting to me, and overall inaccurate. And it's an unnecessary overbearing approach. AND, ALSO, IT'S JUST YOUR OPINION.......not a fact. An opinion that may be considered, of course, but not necessarily automatically accepted or agreed with.

Because believe me, I do try VERY HARD to be NPOV on everything, in fact, I go out of my way to do that. And I have removed blatant POV on many articles. Opinions or disputed positions presented as dogmatic fact. So careful re-wordings are in order sometimes. In this Separated brethren article, there was no real provable opinion stuff here, but just cold objective matters. Of how Roman Catholicism views this or that, and how maybe other professed groups view the matter. And there's documentation. And so it's not really true that I was POV on this. I tried hard exactly NOT to be that, in fact.

You let personal tastes dictate your habits on Wikipedia sometimes, rather than let WP Policy itself (as I already demonstrated with the "when to merge" and "notability" and "stand alone sourced subjects" issues) guide a lot of it. You THINK you follow WP Policy, but you seem to go by your own interpretations and likes and dislikes. If you don't like a wiki link, you remove it. Even though good-faith and accurate additions should NOT be reverted. Just cuz YOU think something is "tangential" doesn't mean everyone else in the world might. etc etc etc..........just cuz YOU have issues with how some parts of an article are presented does NOT mean the whole article needs to be re-written, or that everyone other Wikipedian would see it your uptight way.

The intro and many parts do NOT to be "re-written". So your tag saying that is removed. If you wanna put a Citations or Clean up tag thingy, well that's more reasonable. But a total re-write tag is nonsense, and not warranted. Thank you. And as I said, your good-faith help and contributions are welcome and appreciated....Sweetpoet (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary "Undues"

the fact that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider everyone who professes Christianity as "brothers in Christ" or "brethren" is stated basically RIGHT BEFORE, with the whole Mormon thing, and reference. Stop second-guessing everything I do and say and write, and going crazy with the wiki tags for every little thing that you have trouble piecing together, bro. It's getting annoying. For some reason you miss the obvious. And WP policy does NOT require a reference for EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE especially if the point was ALREADY STATED AND REFERENCED IN A PREVIOUS PART OF THE ARTICLE. The Mormon thing states the point. Case closed. If you have a big problem with this, then take it to the Talk page.... (and by the way, I put a reference for the "re-baptize" thing with the Orthodox Church with Catholics...a different matter though). Sweetpoet (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:V ("Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."). Novaseminary (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I tried putting the thing as a "heading" but for some annoying reason the Heading drop-down thing was not working when I clicked it like 5 times (it's working now though). Anyway, point taken about the wiki reference if it's not a valid reference (I can find another one, or you can if you want).

But again, this other matter of you going wiki tag crazy over every little sentence, is unnecessary in this case because it's already basically stated in other parts of the article JUST BEFORE, with the Mormon matter and the "Trinitarian Baptism" Only matter, that the Roman Catholic Church does NOT consider all professed Christian groups as their "brothers". THE POINT IS ALREADY THERE AND REFERENCED. And WP Policy does NOT necessitate the citing and footnoting of EVERY SINGLE THING UNDER THE SUN in an article, especially if the overall point was already-stated and already-referenced. I'm not sure how you're missing how the point is already there with the Trinitarian Baptism and "Mormons are not considered by Catholics as 'separated brethren'" thing right there just before. Otherwise I could simply use the same reference source for that other sentence in the very next paragraph if you want. Also, I told you that YOU CAN FIX AND SOURCE THE ARTICLE too if you want. I took a break from this the past few weeks. I want others to elaborate on this. Why can't you, if you think it's lacking in various places? Anyway, though, as I said, the thing there is already pre-stated and pre-referenced, with the Trinity, Baptism, and Mormon points.....peace.Sweetpoet (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I only added the particular tags after you removed the general top-level tags. You suggested that I add more particularized tags on Talk:Separated brethren. Novaseminary (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's fine, and I do appreciate that. But I have to say that I am bit annoyed at your message on my talk page. First of all, I did not actually "revert" or "undo" anything. As I left the point alone about the inappropriate wiki reference. And I only manually undid your wiki tag thing TWICE. Not three times. Whereas YOU actually reverted already about 3 or 4 times!!!!! This is the problem with you, and it's EXASPERATING......you only see stuff in other people (real or imagined stuff), but NEVER SEE IT IN YOURSELF, EVEN WHERE WITH YOU IT'S ACTUALLY WORSE!!!! YOU are close to violating the 3RR rule, most likely, and in fact, it looks like you already may have. So should you be blocked? for that? if that's the case, but you don't see me making an issue about your habitual reverts and edit warring. YOU ALREADY WENT TO 3 REVERTS AND EVEN BEYOND, WHEREAS I ACTUALLY DID NOT YET. Not actually. So not sure why you think I'm "close to violating the Three Revert Rule. Check thyself, man. For real.

For the record, though, I'm being very careful NOT to go beyond 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. But the question, bro, is, are you? The talk page is for that stuff....peace Sweetpoet (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference put in again

OK, I hope this is sort of ok with you. In that spot, that you have an issue with, about "not all brothers in Christ", I put in the same reference (which I'm sure you'll probably have a problem with too for some reason) that dealt with how Roman Catholics only view "Trinitarian Baptism" as valid for consideration as "separated brethren" and the point with how the R.C. Church does NOT consider "Mormons" as their brothers. The general point is there. So I simply referenced it again. I'll fix it again though, with the right tag thingy.Sweetpoet (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A better reference for the "Orthodox re-baptize Roman Catholics"

This here is a good and fairly solid (IMO) reference source for the issue in question....And it's in the article now. ^ Orthodox Information Center - Orthodox Baptism - From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, No. 1, pp. 2-6. Sweetpoet (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection

The article has been protected for one week due to edit-warring. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page. Drive-by comments in edit summaries are not a substitute for a proper discussion. if you are deadlocked, a WP:Request for comment is a way to bring in outside views. This can avoid continuing a lengthy two-person revert war. See WP:Dispute resolution for other options. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Verifiable sources

though I understand your concerns about reliable sources, and your tags on that (which I left alone, by the way), I just have to say real quick that "Catholic Answers" is a KNOWN verified and fairly solid source for Catholic Apologetics and doctrine. It does (this has already been confirmed over the years) give the basically official Catholic "Answers" and explanations and views on various subjects, including this one. Catholic Answers is NOT some fly-by-night flash-in-the-pan thing that some Catholic who owns a pizza place on the corner slapped together 2 years ago. It's been around a LONG time now, and is recognized and approved by various Catholic officials. And C.A. was simply telling official Roman Catholic position on what THE OFFICIAL ROMAN CATHOLIC view on groups like "Mormons" would be, in this specific matter. The Mormon thing has been WELL-KNOWN already, from the Catholic perspective. It's not conjecture or supposition.

And Catholic Answers is a reliable source (overall) and has been considered a reliable source for some time now, in or out of the web, on official Catholic positions. (Most people I've dealt with and talked to know this.) Anyway, bro, your concerns may be understandable, but in some cases not really all that necessary. But as I said, I would appreciate (as in reality I'm NOT really dealing with articles all that much anymore, as I have other things to do) if you could elaborate or maybe get others to work on this article even further. It's all good. Peace out, bro...Sweetpoet (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of the two sources I tagged at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Feel free to post there to get other editors' opinions. Novaseminary (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Yeah, maybe that should be done. Thanks for mentioning it. But you do realize that just because it may not be listed in that specific thing, that does NOT necessarily for sure mean that the source is "unreliable" per se. Sometimes things happen, or lack of updates, etc. But as I said (and this can be looked up in general) "Catholic Answers" has been around a LONG time now, and is recognized and approved by various Catholic officials. As far as presenting official Roman Catholic position and doctrine. Peace...Sweetpoet (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said the source was unreliable. I merely tagged it as possibly unreliable. It certanily is not a respected acadmic publication, book press, news outlet, or more traditional RS. That doesn't mean it is not an WP:RS, but something other than Sweetpoet says so should suport that proposition. And if it is an official site or the equivalent, one must be sure to be on guard for WP:UNDUE issues. Novaseminary (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

the point you keep missing is that it's NOT just "Sweetpoet saying so". Catholic Answers (whatever page of theirs) is verified and proven and official, and listed as such, and proven even on other Wikipedia articles themselves. (As well as, of course, outside of Wikipedia articles.) Just cuz you weren't aware of that fact doesn't mean that it's not so or that it's just my word... (and of course you, as this was an older post, have come to agree with this now.) Sweetpoet (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Rejection statement

I removed the following sentence: "But a number[citation needed][weasel words] of professed Christian groups, especially anti-Catholics and fundamentalists, generally reject the notion of "separated brethren" as having any Biblical validity or importance, and don't generally recognize or accept the designation.[9][original research?]" I did so because the citation was to a purported example of this phenomenon, not a description of it in a reliable source. A statement such as this must be supported by a reliable source, not good-intentioned original research/sysntehesis. Novaseminary (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I again removed this sentence that was reverted by Sweetpoet. This is the type of assertion that needs a good reliable sourced. It does not have one. Wikiepdia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. All this sentence needs is a cite that is not original research. Novaseminary (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just your opinion that it's not a "reliable source". Your credibility has shown to be questionable on what's a reliable source, as you've proven from your unwarranted questioning the validity of long-established "Catholic Answers" for example, to show official Catholic teaching and views.

Also, this other source is in the context of showing what ANTI-CATHOLICS BELIEVE. That source was clearly "anti-Catholic", clearly "fundamentalist", and CLEARLY rejected the term "separated brethren" as valid. It was a "reliable source" FOR THE CONTEXTUAL PURPOSE OF THE PARAGRAPH.

It's a proven fact (and it should be noted and made known) that not all Protestants accept "separated brethren" as valid. It's NOT just "original research" or "synthesis". This has BEEN known, for a while. That "Anti-Catholics" reject the concept "separated brethren" from Roman Catholics. I did NOT personally draw that conclusion, but this has been established for years now. Not sure why you have problems with that fact. But I've detected pro-Catholic bias from you from the beginning. But whatever the reason, what you did was NOT warranted. Sweetpoet (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are probably right that the statement (if better phrased to be less POV) is true. But your source is insufficient. And it does not matter whether you and I think this fact is true. The first sentence of WP:V is: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Let's keep that in mind. If this fact is so widely believed and supported, finding a RS or two should be easy. Novaseminary (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove valid facts simply because you don't personally like them

Not all "Protestants" accept or recognize the "separated brethren" designation or notion, and that's simply a fact, that is WELL-SOURCED AND PROVEN. You should not remove the whole thing just cuz you don't like it. I'm serious. Why start an edit war? Because another edit war will happen if you do this again. Caused mainly by you. (And I saw your stuff on the Talk page too). You need to stop your uptight neurotic nonsense, Nova. I'm FED up with it now. You personally don't like the fact that not all "Protestants" accept or recognize the Roman Catholic "separated brethren" designation, so you'll SUPPRESS that knowledge and point, and make wholesale removals. I WON'T TOLERATE IT.

Just cuz you feel there's no good source for that fact (even though there are sources all over the place that prove clearly that "Fundamentalists" etc generally don't accept the "separated brethren" label), doesn't mean that the whole paragraph should be summarily removed by you.

This rude unwarranted biased uptight junk has to stop, sir. For real. Valid edits are one thing. But you keep going way beyond that. I'm tired of you. I gotta be frank. Cuz really, LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE FROM THE START. The disrespect came from you first. You've had issues with this article from the get-go. I'm TIRED of you and your uptightness, sir. I'm serious. Any nonsense you do again, I'll simply undo. (And don't whine again that I wrote on your talk page. Get over it. I'm done being polite or civil with you, even though I DID TRY EARNESTLY TO WORK PEACEABLY WITH YOU, but enough now. As you've proven to be unworthy of any deference or etiquette.) Again, you do this stuff again, and I'll simply undo EVERYTHING you do.

You think you can remove whole facts BECAUSE YOU PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE THOSE FACTS?? Well, sorry. But it's not happening.

It's a proven fact (and it should be noted and made known) that not all Protestants accept "separated brethren" as valid. It's NOT just "original research" or "synthesis". This has BEEN known, for a while. That "Anti-Catholics" reject the concept "separated brethren" from Roman Catholics. I did NOT personally draw that conclusion, but this has been established for years now. Not sure why you have problems with that fact. But I've detected pro-Catholic bias from you from the beginning. But whatever the reason, what you did was NOT warranted. Sweetpoet (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

While I would not agree with Novaseminary's overall pattern on this, you have a statement that is (sort of) being challenged, and it appears that you have only one somewhat weak (by Wikipedia standards) reference for that statement. While the "perfection" end of the sourcing spectrum (per WP standards) is rarely achieved, IMHO your current sourcing for that statement sits at the other (weaker) end of the spectrum. In Wikipedia, the ultimate arbiter in something like this is sourcing, not truth. Why not look for an additional and/or stronger source to cite for that statement? North8000 (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation format

Rather than the continued ad hoc citation method currently employed in most of this article's citations, I propose we use Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news, and Template:Cite journal and similar. It is pretty easy and will lead to uniformity. Here is an example of it used in this article. Novaseminary (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source

Via a tag, I questioned whether http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Mormons is a reliable source as used in the article. As I noted in a discussion of this source and other issues in a previous section of this talk page, I cannot find a discussion of this source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. This source might be a RS, but I would welcome other editor's thoughts. Sweetpoet removed the tag with this edit history: "it's already been discussed and proven that "Catholic Answers" IS a reliable and WELL-ESTABLISHED source stating official Catholic views and doctrine...so need for that tag questioning it". I'm going to reinsert the tag because so far as I can find, Sweetpoet didn't mention where this has been well-established, and I cannot find it myself. I am not impugning the source or claiming it is not a reliable source. I am only saying that it is not an obviously RS (like a major academic journal, newspaper, publishing house, etc.) and so its status should be clarfied someplace at least. I'd welcome others to chime in, too. Novaseminary (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, Sweetpoet removed the tag again with this edit history: "you really want to do this again, man?....see talk". Hmm... I won't bother to reinsert it. The issue is now obviously raised here now. I welcome Sweetpoet or anybody to offer support the source as reliable so we can check one thing off of this troubled article's unwritten to-do-list. Novaseminary (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's IMPORTANT to notify the reader that officially the Roman Catholic Church simply does NOT view all professed Christian groups as "separated brethren"....otherwise the chop-job on the article will reduce the article to barely a stub or dictionary definition. And it would make things sloppy and incomplete.

When you say that "Catholic Answers" is an "unreliable source", to be frank, it shows (again) that you simply do not really know what you're talking about, at least on various matters. And obviously (by reading above) I'm NOT the only one who thinks you're uptight and that you simply OVER-DO things. "WP lawyering" run rampant. And UNnecessarily. You have been OVERLY-cautious, not just cautious, to the point of insufferability. Though I think you did some good stuff too, to be fair. But overall it's just been as North8000 told you above. Too many tags and removals. I mean, really, also...when you constantly disrespect my discussion points about Catholic Answers, and dismiss them, and find the need to always put that tag on Catholic Answers, then you're being OVER-SCRUPULOUS MUCH.

Catholic Answers is so verified and reliable and official, and EASILY CHECKABLE as such, that it makes me wonder if the real reason you keep doing this is because you just don't like the premise of the article (which you showed from the beginning with your tag to get the whole article removed), and you don't like certain facts and realities in the article, that you wish to remove them and suppress them. You don't personally like the fact that the R.C. Church rejects Mormons as "separated brethren" that you will find a way to remove the statement from the article altogether, and you'll do it by questioning ANY source citation. And that I simply won't tolerate. IT AINT HAPPENING.

And you said on my Talk page yesterday that you would knock it off, but you don't. You can't seem to. You again brought up what I wrote in the edit comment and pasted on here neurotically to again some how get me in some sort of trouble or STOKE THE FIRES IN OTHER EDITORS' MINDS AGAINST ME. What's the point of that? Listen....The Mormon thing will stay......that's one NON-NEGOTIABLE THING WITH ME. No matter what other editors you may or may not get on your side on this matter. Otherwise this article will be an incomplete dictionary stub and a joke. And even though I don't own the article, I have a right to have an interest in its proper management. You just want it gone.

Now, you question "Catholic Answers" for some reason, but look at what WP itself says about Catholic Answers (and PLEASE don't dismiss it simply because it was from Wikipedia....FOCUS ON THE FACTS STATED ABOUT CATHOLIC ANSWERS)....thank you..

Catholic Answers, based in El Cajon, California, is one of the largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States. It publishes This Rock, a six-issue-a-year magazine, focusing on Catholic evangelism and apologetics. It also produces the Catholic Answers Live radio show, which features some of the most prominent men and women in the Catholic Church answering callers' questions.

Catholic Answers operates with the permission of the Diocese of San Diego. As such, it is listed in the current edition of The Official Catholic Directory the authoritative listing of Catholic organizations, priests, and bishops in the United States.

It's an OFFICIAL Catholic organization. That is SO easily verifiable, it's like not funny. Again, Catholic Answers is NOT some rinky-dink web page or organization that some Catholic put together recently. It's an official thing. No need to question it anymore. Sweetpoet (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

All I asked is whether a partciular FAQ webpage was an RS. I have since sourced "the Mormon thing" to a published book. I hope that proves I was not out to remove a fact that meets Wp guidelines. I really just wanted to verify the source, as I said all along. Relax. Novaseminary (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears that the facts Sweetpoet sought to support with the general Catholic Answers citation noted above were part of a Q&A that appeared in an actual magazine, I have updated the URL and the bibliographic info to relfect that with this edit. I hope that satisfies everyone. Novaseminary (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No sir/ma'am...

It doesn't matter that it was a "FAQ" page given the fact that it was part of the "Catholic Answers" organization in general. And it's a proven official Catholic Organization that is established. Also, you HAVE shown that want to remove the Mormon thing as you DID remove the very word "Mormon" from the article itself, with just the vague "not all groups" or whatnot.

Citing specific examples of how a group views another group, to make the point, is NOT against WP policy, even if it is against your own personal likes. No REAL good reason to remove the "Mormon" reference necessarily. Because then you'd have to do it on OTHER Wikipedia articles, that do the very same thing (articles that I won't mention, since I know you'd probably run to them and disrupt them too, or question "Mormon" references.)

This Rock" IS from "Catholic Answers"...and I stated that on the Talk page......so if "This Rock" is ok to use, then by default logically so is Catholic Answers...and it sources phrase in question.... Sweetpoet (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it is from Catholic Answers. You are right. It is fine by me. The cite is just more complete now with a more specific URL, magazine title, article title, and wikilink to Catholic Answers:

"Quick Questions: Why doesn't the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?". This Rock (El Cajon, CA: Catholic Answers) 14 (5). May-June 2003. Retrieved 2010-6-18.

I also didn't remove the word Mormon. As I've said, I have no problem with inclusion of this fact.

ok, that's true, as I see the history again of it, you just re-arranged the wording, so I first thought that the word "Mormon" was removed altogether. But you DID remove before the words "nontrinitarian" and "polytheist". And my point is that giving the specific "why" of a position by a group or organization WITHOUT AGREEING with said reasons (otherwise that would be too much POV and a violation) is important to inform the reader of the complete situation. Not just saying "well they don't accept all groups, such as Mormons, as 'separated brethren' or 'Christians'." With no actual stated reasons given, by the R.C church. The main reason (documented reason) is because of the non-trinitarian polytheist deal that Mormonism has, as the R.C. Church sees it. And also, that fact is stated about Mormons and Catholic view of Mormons in OTHER WP articles. But regardless of that, it's simply a position that the Roman Catholic Church has officially, and it is very well documented and well-sourced. But again, as far as the "Mormon" word, no, you did not remove it as I first thought, but merely put the word in a different spot. Which is no big deal. But hence why I said it was a bit confusing what was going on. And "This Rock" is of course fine. Sweetpoet (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Novaseminary (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In case Sweetpoet or anyone else would like to see the net impact of the last round of changes, here it is. This compares back to Sweetpoet's reinsertion of the nontrinitarian language ignoring all of the needless conflicting edits in between. Only some minor language was reworked (merely word order to make it less passive voice) and a cite was cleaned up and the Mormon Q&A Catholic Answers cite was also fleshed out with a more specific URL, date, magazine name, location, etc. Novaseminary (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Answers IS a reliable source.....so no tag is necessary

ok, listen carefully. please.

You keep thinking that if a source is not totally "neutral" that that ipso facto no matter what makes it "unreliable".

ok...

You need to finally GET OUT of that narrow, flawed, and wrong thinking already.

Catholic Answers IS a reliable and established source FOR THE PURPOSE OF STATING OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, VIEWS, AND POSITIONS. It's been recognized for a long time for that.

It does NOT MATTER that "Catholic Answers" is not really "neutral". It's still reliable for the stated purpose.

Let me give you an example that proves my point, about how always equating "neutrality" with "reliability" is a fallacy.

The CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA is NOT really a "neutral source" as it is definitely PRO-CATHOLIC. Correct? With me so far?

well guess what, and I think you know this.....

THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, FOR EXAMPLE, IS ALWAYS CITED ON WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES AS A SOURCE, REFERENCE, AND RELIABLE CITATION.

yet.....IT'S NOT REALLY "NEUTRAL". Doesn't matter. It's established and reliable for its purpose of stating official Catholic teaching. SO IS CATHOLIC ANSWERS. I said to you already, and it's annoying that you so quickly DISMISS everything I say and the points I make.....

Catholic Answers is NOT some fly-by-night flash-in-the-pan thing that some Catholic who owns a pizza place on the corner slapped together 2 years ago. It's been around a LONG time now, and is recognized and approved by various Catholic officials. And C.A. was simply telling official Roman Catholic position on what THE ROMAN CATHOLIC OFFICIAL view on groups like "Mormons" would be, in this specific matter.

The Mormon thing has been WELL-KNOWN already, from the Catholic perspective. It's not conjecture or supposition. THERE'S NO VALID NEED to put an uptight and doubting "tag" on the thing all the time, especially after it's already been discussed and established.

Catholic Answers is reliable (to repeat it again) and is a RECOGNIZED source to state what Roman Catholics OFFICIALLY teach and believe, on things like this and other things related to Roman Catholic doctrine and positions. Sweetpoet (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

All I am asking for is a pointer, a link preferrably to where "it's already been discussed and established." Then there is no problem. And please follow proper discussion procedure by not hapharadly creating new sections. Answer in the section the question was raised in. It will make it easier to follow your argument. Novaseminary (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And keep in mind, whether the source is neutral is not the issue I am raising with tag in question (that does raise WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues with regard to the text, but my issue is just establishing the reliablility of the source). Just let us know where it is established that this is a source for official Catholic doctrine. Novaseminary (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a need to put a new section, I feel, as this is focusing on just this one source, whereas the other section above was dealing with "unreliable sources" IN GENERAL, or sources that have been questioned by you. This section here is ONLY regarding the Catholic Answers matter, and nothing else. (Also, I didn't really see your own section on it...but this one here is more pointed anyway. And by the way, I do not know for sure whether you're a "man" or "woman"...as you never answered my question on that the other day.)

Now, with all due respect...I have to be a little blunt here (but within bounds)...I feel that the real reason you are questioning the Catholic Answers citation is because in a way you simply DON'T LIKE that the Roman Catholic official view is to discount Mormons as "not brothers" or "not Christians" because of being "nontrinitarian" and "polytheist" etc. And because you don't really like that reality (you may deny this, but I'm entitled to my opinion, especially given that I am perceptive and I've seen an overall pattern with you from the beginning), that officially Roman Catholicism does not view all professed Christian groups as "separated brethren" etc, that you will find fault with just about ANY source, no matter how reliable it is, just so you can maybe eventually REMOVE THE WHOLE SENTENCE FROM THE ARTICLE ALTOGETHER... In other words, to suppress certain facts and realities, cuz those facts may personally irk you. You can deny it, as I said, but when you constantly question or doubt the long-established "Catholic Answers" as a valid established source THAT STATES OFFICIAL CATHOLIC POSITIONS, then I have to wonder. And to be frank, if you think I would tolerate you removing whole sections (just like you managed to remove the "Anti-Catholic rejection" paragraph, simply because the source itself was anti-Catholic), just cuz you don't like those facts or sentences or sections, even if they are reasonably sourced, it just aint happening.

It's IMPORTANT to notify the reader that officially the Roman Catholic Church simply does NOT view all professed Christian groups as "separated brethren"....otherwise the chop-job on the article will reduce the article to barely a stub or dictionary definition. And it would make things sloppy and incomplete.

Now, you question "Catholic Answers" for some reason, but look at what WP itself says about Catholic Answers (and PLEASE don't dismiss it simply because it was from Wikipedia....FOCUS ON THE FACTS STATED ABOUT CATHOLIC ANSWERS)....thank you..

Catholic Answers, based in El Cajon, California, is one of the largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States. It publishes This Rock, a six-issue-a-year magazine, focusing on Catholic evangelism and apologetics. It also produces the Catholic Answers Live radio show, which features some of the most prominent men and women in the Catholic Church answering callers' questions.

Catholic Answers operates with the permission of the Diocese of San Diego. As such, it is listed in the current edition of The Official Catholic Directory the authoritative listing of Catholic organizations, priests, and bishops in the United States.

It's an OFFICIAL Catholic organization. That is SO easily verifiable, it's like not funny. Again, Catholic Answers is NOT some rinky-dink web page or organization that some Catholic put together recently. It's an official thing. No need to question it anymore. Sweetpoet (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the above section. In sum, I am fine with the Q&As that appeared in actual publications. And since this was the only reference to the cite, I have no problem with it. There is no need to battle out whether every page on the site can serve as an RS. I'm sorry to have rankled anyone. Novaseminary (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the beginning of a Catholic book, you'll find a nihil obstat and imprimatur, along with an explanory note saying this simply certifies that the book is free of doctrinal & moral error, but does not signify agreement with opinions expressed in it. In other words, in general, a Catholic source proves only that the Church permits a particular view, not that it's the official view. Peter jackson (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

it doesn't matter....Catholic Answers gives what official Catholic TEACHING is, and it's substantiated. And we're not talking about some "Catholic book" that may have an "imprimatur" (which by the way is very significant in itself, as "imprimaturs" are not handed out willy nilly.) But we're talking about AN OFFICIAL CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION that gives official Catholic teaching and positions. Catholic Answers does not go out of its way to give its own private views that are not in line with official Vatican views. Correct? Don't you know that? It goes out of its way (and has for a long established time now) to give forth what OFFICIAL CATHOLIC POSITIONS ARE. It won't uh deviate from that. It does not make up things on whims. Stuff that may be different here and there from official Vatican teaching. And the fact that it's approved by the Roman Catholic Church as an "official Catholic organization" etc etc solidifies the point further. Not sure why it's hard for some to grasp this. Catholic Answers (and Nova agrees now basically) ONLY TELLS WHAT OFFICIAL ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IS, not really anything apart from that. And that's not opinion, but is kinda well-documented. Sweetpoet (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweetpoet, my advice would be to calm down and stick to the actual point of contention regarding the article, if one even remains in this area. Doesn't Novaseminary's statement about 3 posts up resolve this? North8000 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to as far as my last post. There was no "lack of calm" there necessarily, but merely addressing what Peter said. Did you even read what I wrote there carefully? I DID "stick" to the contention regarding the article. How didn't I? The whole point was about "Catholic Answers" and what's "official" or not. That IS "the actual point of contention". And this time it was to "Peter." Didn't you read the part where I said that "Nova agrees now"? So why are you asking me now if Nova's "3 posts up resolve this"? I get the feeling that you either did not really read what I actually wrote to Peter, or maybe you didn't read it carefully. NONE of what you said in your own post here makes any real sense, at least in this specific context. There's NO "lack of calm" necessarily, it DID "stick to the point about the article", and I already showed that Nova agrees and it was "resolved" in that sense. So what's the problem, bro? Your post was totally unnecessary. And mind you, I'm on YOUR side overall here, in what you've been writing on this talk page....so no sweat. Sweetpoet (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not hearing it the way you meant it, but your wording style sounds like being riled up and rough with people. And since Peter Jackson didn't say to not use the reference, I didn't understand if there was an article-related open issue that you were arguing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the reasons given for assuming reliability are inadequate. More should be given. It's no good just bellmanizing. Sources should be cited to prove this source represents official Catholic on all points it mentions, not just permissible opinions. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are y'all discussing the article-related-question in Novaseminary's RFC, or a different unspoken article related question? If it's the latter, what statement in the article is it about? The most recent discussion seems to be a new one, and not about the general reliability of a source, but it's specific suitability/reliability to source a statement of official Catholic position. It's not that I need this information (i.e. answer it for yourselves, not for me), this is more of a suggestion to provide clarity, organization and forward motion to the discussion. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are discussing the RfC in this discussion. (I think the consensus from the RfC is that the source is not sufficient, and that sentence is out anyway.) I think they are talking about another issue I raised above in this "Reliable Source" section of talk regarding catholic.com as a RS. What is now (current version I am speaking of) footnote 9 had been supported by a citation to search results from this website known as Catholic Answers. That struck me as not necessarily an RS, so I tagged it. That led to some back and forth with Sweetpoet. I found the actual Q&A Sweetpoet wanted to use as the source and it appeared in an actual print version of a magazine put out by the Catholic Answers organization. I figured with this citation to a print magazine, which to my mind might still be on the line for an RS, but a whole lot closer than a search result, could suffice for now. I would note that I think the Q&A itself should probably be replaced with a stronger source that more clearly supports the text footnote 9 is cited in favor of and that Sweetpoet insists be in the text. (Despite Sweetpoet's claims to the contrary above, I really do not care whether this sentence regarding the RCC’s take on Mormonism and polytheism remains, is cut, or is expanded, so long as it is sourced. I even added a source that supported most of what Sweetpoet wanted in there, but that was insufficient for Sweetpoet). Of course, the current comprise of citing a magazine version of a Q&A rather than a more general cite to catholic.com doesn't address whether things only appearing on catholic.com are sufficient to serve as RSs. Since there were accusations of bad faith against me, I figured I would not fight this battle unless it again becomes necessary. For what it is worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Peter that somebody needs to do more than say it is so to make catholic.com an RS. Along similar lines, I tagged and am unsure about the source that is now footnote 5 (again, this is the version I am referring to, the latest as I write this) at catholicapologetics.info. Anyone have thoughts on this one? Novaseminary (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I do NOT think what you put was "insufficient". I told you that in one of my posts above. Maybe you missed what I wrote to you a few days ago, above, and in case you did, here it is (and it shows that I acknowledged my mistake in thinking you removed the "Mormon" reference, and how I said that "This Rock" is just fine)....so if you're thinking that I have a problem still with what you did, then you need to know that I don't think that.....(by the way, it's MUCH MORE than someone simply claiming that Catholic Answers is an official reliable source for official Catholic doctrine and information....it's proven and documented, and officially listed, approved, and recognized, and so "Peter" is NOT correct in still questioning it....and I'm not sure why you're even saying this, as you yourself seemed to agree and admit days ago that it was a sufficient and reliable source, not necessarily the Q&A, but Catholic Answers in general...) anyway, as far as how I felt about your latest edits and changes from days ago, in case you missed it, this is what I wrote:

ok, that's true, as I see the history again of it, you just re-arranged the wording, so I first thought that the word "Mormon" was removed altogether. But you DID remove before the words "nontrinitarian" and "polytheist". And my point is that giving the specific "why" of a position by a group or organization WITHOUT AGREEING with said reasons (otherwise that would be too much POV and a violation) is important to inform the reader of the complete situation. Not just saying "well they don't accept all groups, such as Mormons, as 'separated brethren' or 'Christians'." With no actual stated reasons given, by the R.C church. The main reason (documented reason) is because of the non-trinitarian polytheist deal that Mormonism has, as the R.C. Church sees it. And also, that fact is stated about Mormons and Catholic view of Mormons in OTHER WP articles. But regardless of that, it's simply a position that the Roman Catholic Church has officially, and it is very well documented and well-sourced. But again, as far as the "Mormon" word, no, you did not remove it as I first thought, but merely put the word in a different spot. Which is no big deal. But hence why I said it was a bit confusing what was going on. And "This Rock" is of course fine. Sweetpoet (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Sweetpoet (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I should make good on my word and bow out of this one because I do not have the expertise that y'all do. I'm doing that now, but if can be of any help drop me a note on my talk page. But, as a parting thought, IMHO, only a minority of WP sources meet WP:RS 100%; ABSENT ANY OTHER ISSUES, I think that then norm would be to accept this one. But, if the sentence it's used in is saying that xxxx is an official position of the Catholic Church, then there IS an additional issue, the one raised by Peter. Is it a RS with respect to official Church positions?

That said, my overall advice is to focus on solving issues in addition to raising them. Good luck. Signing off. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I have focused on solving issues, and so has Peter Jackson with his comments above (as have the editors putting forth their opinions above on the RfC). I added the revised Whalen book as a cite to support what the Catholic Answers cite had been supporting. I also found and added the specificity to the Q&A cite pointing to the actual magazine. Sometimes one editor doesn't know how to solve an issue. And raising issues is exactly what an article talk page is for, so that the proponent of any particular text can show how they have met WP:BURDEN. The article was locked once already for edit warring. It could stand more reasoned talk, not less. But thank you for your input. Novaseminary (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

THIS time I wasn't implying anything nor did I have anybody in mind. I was just thinking generically. Bring up the issues AND try to fix them. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Novaseminary's unwarranted reverts again...

Nova obviously can't help him/herself. And this person simply does not see things that the rest of the article itself brings out.

The problem is that only really inaccurate things and/or vandalism should be "reverted", NOT good-faith additions, clarifications, or wordings. Nova constantly violates that WP policy and recommendation, by always reverting or removing things that are technically valid, but that he just does not personally like or think is necessary. That's not his job. He doesn't get that.

I make it a point to NOT revert or undo or remove things from other editors that are technically accurate, good-faith, and not vandalism. PER WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Nova is always with WP tags and issues, yet he misses a lot of the rules and points of WP, ironically. Like what makes for a valid stand-alone article, and like what warrants blatant reverts, and what doesn't.

No one is perfect, in every regard, of course. I know I'm not always. But really, I do try to respect people's good-faith additions to articles. The only thing I remove is redundant words, awkward or bad grammar, or inaccurate things, or vandalism. Nova removes ANYTHING he has personal issues with, whether they're technically correct, valid, grammatical, or not.

"Mainstream" is valid, so as to distinguish from other so-called "Protestant" groups, and also the rest of the article makes the point of "mainstream" already, so it's fitting.

Also, "officially" is good there, to make the point that it's not just Roman Catholic individuals, but to make it more clear in that particular paragraph, that it's an OFFICIAL view from the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and not just the view of maybe some individual Roman Catholic apologists.

It seems that Nova DOES NOT PERSONALLY LIKE that it's the actual OFFICIAL view of the Roman Catholic Church that "Mormons" are NOT their "separated brethren", it irks him, so he suppresses that fact and that knowledge, and disrespectfully removes it when I put it in there. I won't have it. Valid accurate things should not be summarily dissed and removed, because of personal issues or whims.

HE always starts the "edit war"...not I. I only respond to his rude WP violating nonsense. And it's annoying.

He second-guesses JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING I put in there, cuz he/she has personal neurotic issues against me and against this particular article. I won't put up with it. ENOUGH....

It's an "official" view of the Roman Catholic Church that "Mormons" are not their "brothers" and are "polytheist" and "nontrinitarian". He should get over it.... And that point should be made clear to the reader.....whether you personally like that factual point or not.

STOP REVERTING ACCURATE AND GOOD-FAITH VALID THINGS, SIMPLY CUZ YOU DON'T LIKE THOSE THINGS. (If you don't, then I'll do a Nova number, and tattle and go to that very Admin who got annoyed with your nonsense a couple of weeks ago. I'm tired of this already...)

You're not supposed to be doing that. I can quote you (and I may have to) WP Policy on reverting and removing. It DISCOURAGES doing that, unless it's really vandalism, wrong, or problematic. "Officially" is NOT any of that. Not sure why you don't want to accept or respect or understand that. The word "mainstream" and "officially" will stay. Period.... Cuz there's NO valid reason for those words to go. You don't own this article, as I don't.....so valid additions and modifications and edits should be RESPECTED, not rudely removed...cuz of personal issues. For real. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweetpoet reverted other editor's edits (removing "un-Christian" in one edit and later reinserting "officially" three times). I restored them. I think Sweetpoet has now violated 3RR, again, so I will report to the notice board. Novaseminary (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nova is obviously spiteful, and wrong. I violated NO 3RR rule, though Nova WISHES that I did, and wants to force-fit it that way, to suit his own agenda, TO SIMPLY HAVE ME BLOCKED. If you check carefully, there were mainly unrelated changes and simple edits and modifications that were NOT necessarily "reverts", and one revert of the word "orthodox" was actually not related, but a new and separate thing.

There were NOT four actual related "reverts" in a 24 hour period in that sense. It's a little confusing, but if you examine it carefully, you'll see that there really was no "3RR" violation. Nova sees it that way, cuz of bias, and his need to get me blocked, so he can have free-run of an artcle that he never liked to begin with. The Admin "B" already is aware of Nova's antics, and warned Nova recently that if he didn't stop it, he would be banished. He warned both of us. Two to tango. But the point is that Nova ALWAYS has STARTED the "edit wars".....by blatantly removing good-faith and accurate things, that he personally does not like. Which in itself is in violation of WP policy and recommendation. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't be personal, Sweetpoet. We are only talking about a few imprecise words. I don't think any of the editors editing today actually disagree on substance. Please self-revert your edits so I do not have to report you, Sweetpoet. Some word other than "mainline" or "mainstream" should be used, per my edit history. "Mainstream" most often refers to specific Protestant denominations, per Mainline Protestant. More than just these groups are considered separated brethren, so limiting it in this way (which I don't think you mean to do anyway) is inaccurate. Further, Sweetpoet is the only editor who has inserted "officially". It was actually not me who removed it earlier today in the first instance. So as to not violate 3RR myself, I will not revert again. Novaseminary (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, to keep some semblance of peace and civility, I granted your request. I removed "mainstream" and put in the word "most." But to be honest, I'm not sure why you have this thing against the word "Mainstream" as I see you removed it also from the other part of the article. Why???? Your thing is that "evangelicals" are not considered "mainstream"? Well maybe, there's a case there, but sometimes it's in the eye of the beholder too, and not so black and white. My only point about "mainstream" is that per that paragraph, "Mormons" ARE CONSIDERED "PROTESTANT".....but NOT "mainstream Protestant." It was simply clearer and contextual to the paragraph.

As for "officially", I'm sorry, there's NO good reason at all to remove that one, because as I said, it should be made clear to the reader that it's actually an OFFICIAL Catholic view that "Mormons" are not "separated brethren" and are "polytheist" and "nontrinitarian", and is not just the view maybe of some individual Roman Catholic apologists. You MIGHT have a point about the word "mainstream" (maybe)......but the word "officially", I'm sorry, there's really no excuse or reason to remove that. Anyway, like I said, I don't think I actually violated 3RR per se, as they were mostly unrelated edits in a way, but to keep civility and respect and courtesy, I did what you asked. See how it looks now. Sweetpoet (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mormons are considered Protestant by whom? I'm pretty sure they don't consider themselves to be Protestant. They consider themselves to be restorationist. In other words, they say that all Christian denominations in existence prior to their's were apostate and they came on the scene to be the one true church. I guess some of the cults (Jehovah's Witnesses, Branch Davidians, Pentacostal Oneness, etc) might claim the title of Protestant, but since they don't hold to a proper view of the Trinity, the Catholic Church would not call them separated brethren (assuming I understand the term correctly - I'm not Catholic). I wouldn't consider the cults to be Protestant, but they probably self-identify as Protestant and Wikipedia usually goes by what the group calls itself, not by what others think they are. --B (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I have to say that your use of the word "cult" seems extremely wrong, biased, and POV (even in a discussion page), loaded, and offensive. I seriously question what you're saying.

JWs, Mormons, and Oneness Pentecostals should NOT be mentioned in the same breath as "Branch Davidians". You seem to have some bias against them. For real. A bit surprising I guess for an Admin. Yes, there are people who consider them "cult", no doubt. But they seem to have credibility issues themselves, and TONS of biases and presuppositions and even hate that any group considering the Father greater than the Son, or maybe with no co-eternal trinity, or may have some centralized authority (even though Catholic Church has a centralized authority), or may believe in "faith plus works", is somehow a "cult."

It's all subjective. What's a "cult" to one person may not be to another.

But Mormons don't go around drinking poisoned Kool-Aid, neither do JWs or Onenness Pentecostals. Also, did you know that Mainstream Lutherans have considered "evangelicals" a "cult"? Like I said, it's all subjective and biased.

Your use of the word "cult" is a little disturbing, and is SUBJECTIVE, as "cult" means anything that anyone with agendas and biases wants it to mean. Just saying..... I don't agree with many of some of these "fringe" groups, but that does not mean I compare them to Jim Jones people or "Branch Davidians". And simply disowning the Nicean formulation and "co-equal triniatrianism" does not make a professed Christian group wacky or "cultic" necessarily.

But then again, the first century Christians were considered "fringe" "heretical" and "cultic" by so-called "Orthodoxy" at the time. So it's all SUBJECTIVE.....and I feel should not be bandied about so freely in a WP setting.(Talk page or not, and also given that you're an Admin too...) So I'm kinda surprised that you did. And by the way, "Mormons" are considered "Protestant" in some sense by a number of people. Just not really "mainstream Protestant". It depends. Sweetpoet (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I should not have grouped all Pentecostal Oneness groups in there together - certain groups that use the label "Pentecostal Oneness" are cults, while of course there are plenty that are merely wrong, but not cults. I stand by my label of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Rick Ross calls them a cult. Our own article says that it is a legitimately debatable point. NPOV doesn't apply to talk page comments. I did not label Mormons a cult - I said that they are not Protestant. While I agree that some people call them Protestant, to my knowledge (and feel free to educate me), that's just out of ignorance, not out of fact. Most people with no connection to Christianity think that if you're not Catholic or Orthodox, then you're Protestant. But that just isn't true. I don't think "fringe" or not "mainstream" are good descriptors of them either. The best option is to say what you really mean. If the distinction between "separated brethren" and non-brethren (for lack of a better word) is that separated brethren are trinitarian and non-brethren are not trinitarian, then use the word "trinitarian" - don't try to make up a rule that isn't there. --B (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, here we go from the horse's mouth, the official site of the Mormon church says they are not Protestant. http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-84-57-16,00.html --B (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's fine, about Mormons, I understand that they may not consider themselves "Protestant". And neither do JWs consider themselves as such either...

But it doesn't matter that JWs are called "cult" by biased types like "Ross". There is no set definition of the word "cult" anyway...as it is all subjective and biased and emotionalism. JWs are a "cult" simply cuz you don't like them or their beliefs. Like no literal hell-fire, no co-equal trinity, abstain from blood, and associating mainly only with fellow believers, etc.

Meanwhile the word "cult" conjures up in people's minds long-robed bald people giving out flowers in airports, or poison drinkers looking for Haley's Comet, or David Koresh burning his people in some compound. UPC and JWs AINT that at all. They're just some church that has somewhat different views from mainstream "Christianity". Though some of the views are similar. But "cult"? Well.... It's loaded, and hateful... And yes, a talk page is freer I know...I'm just saying in general though. And as I said, even if JWs or Oneness people are "cult" so what?

THE FIRST CHRISTIANS IN THE FIRST CENTURY WERE CONSIDERED THAT WAY TOO BY OFFICIAL "ORTHODOXY" AT THE TIME. ahhh, didn't mean anything. The first Christians had what was considered weird and annoying views and habits, by both Jewish Orthodoxy and Roman (and Greek) Pagans. It's all subjective.

Ross is not some infallible person, and is arguably out of his mind in some ways. A pathological and biased guy who is on a demented soap-box, and just goes by his own traditions and "historic positions", likes, dislikes, and personal tastes. Who's to say? It's whatever. peace out..... Sweetpoet (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's subjective, then I'll subjectively use it.  ;) In any event, that isn't the point. The point is that we generally refer to groups how they describe themselves and unless it's a recognized and wikilinked term like Mainline Protestant, we shouldn't assume that the reader is going to understand what "orthodox Protestant", "mainstream Protestant", or some such thing means. (I had thought that the JWs considered themselves to be Protestant - upon checking, you are correct, they self-identify as restorationist.) Since it isn't really a Protestant issue at all, I think the wording in there now ("most") is actually pretty good wording that accurately describes the issue. --B (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

One other detail here that bothers me is the grammar ... "... considers groups such as the Mormons to be an "un-Christian" group holding "nontrinitarian" and "polytheistic" beliefs and, therefore, not "separated brethren"." Taking out the clause "such as Mormons" gives you, "... considers groups ... to be an un-Christian group ...". That grammar isn't correct. It might be helpful to split this up into two separate sentences so that you can say what you really mean. --B (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Some authorities, such as the Penguin Handbook of Living Religions & the World Christian Encyclopedia, use the term "Protestant" in a narrower sense, as part of a somewhat different clasification of Christianity. In the 2nd edition of WCE, it's as follows:

1. Roman Catholic
2. Independent (mainly BMC)
3. Protestant
4. Orthodox
5. Anglican
6. Marginal Christian (LDS, JW &c)

Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

BMC? --B (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Black-Majority Churches. Peter jackson (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Noveseminary's edits and reworks....

the recent "rework" is ok, as, per WP policy, I don't generally mess with good-faith changes and edits or additions...but the word "officially" kinda needs to be there, for more clarity, whether supposedly "understood" by most or not...

but even so...

get ready to probably run and tattle to the notice board again, no doubt....for real or imagined infractions by me, cuz you can't help yourself. You have serious issues, and you seem to add nothing more (at least to this article) but uptight nonsense and censorship and aggravation.....and I'm NOT the only one who thinks that.

this was discussed, and I KNOW you were waiting for a time to remove the whole Mormon thing, but it's non-negotiable, and already established...your dislike of facts gives you no right to remove em... The Mormon thing stays, as it IS sourced, and is established, and is a point of example how "separated brethren" OFFICIALLY is not applied to groups such as Mormons. Get over it, and move on about it already. And by the way, there will be NO 3RR violation by me at all on this. But it doesn't matter, as I know that you will edit war regardless.

You think that by waiting a week or two to undo the whole Mormon thing that that's somehow not a "revert".

It's a manual revert, whether it was done 5 minutes later or 5 weeks later.....so don't try to fool Admins or anyone else with that tactic. It won't work. You had a hang-up against the whole Mormon reference from the very beginning, and you just WAIT for the opportunity to mess with it, and totally remove it. And then act all innocent that it's just me doing the "edit warring".

Anyway, the Mormon thing is established, well-sourced, and important to note, for the reader, whether you personally like the sourced fact or not.... Sweetpoet (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I am singled out, when two of us were working on this section. Regardless, I have no problem with the fact that the RCC does not consider Mormons to be separated brethren. I really could not care less about the fact. Per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, though, this statement should be placed into context. I have tried to do so with this edit. Again, I do not and never have had a problem with this fact. It needed context. The way I have done it adds the context, but is not very elegant. I was hoping that somebody could do a better job of it before adding back in these facts, but that does not seem possible. Novaseminary (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the general re-work (to me) is fine, and WP policy and recommendation is that valid additions or re-works should NOT be undone or reverted, and most of the time I stick to that...(it's NOT my article or anyone else's)

but the problem is that you had removed the name "Mormon" (or LDS) completely, as a good EXAMPLE of how RCC does NOT (officially) consider some professed "Christian" groups as "separated brethren". Remember, this is a WikiPEDIA article, and NOT a dictionary definition or stub, so the thing, if anything, should be ADDED TO, and NOT taken away from.

In other words, if you were to ELABORATE AND EXPAND on the article, I'd be your biggest fan probably, but it seems that 99% of the stuff you've done (on this article at least) is REMOVE REMOVE DELETE TAG TAG REMOVE SUPPRESS ERASE GET RID OF REMOVE...and it gets a bit annoying and unnerving, that even WELL-SOURCED THINGS, like the Mormon matter, gets removed by you. It was bad enough that you manuevered the removal about "Anti-Catholic rejection of 'separated brethren' concept" cuz arguably it was not very well-sourced, but the Mormon thing (which IS a big thing in Roman Catholic positions and apologetics) to be obscured by you too? (Something that IS well-sourced?) Why? If, as you say, you couldn't care less? Because of supposed "Undue"? Matter of interpretation, but to be that much of a stickler, especially in the context of an article that is DEALING WITH THE VERY SUBJECT... So it's NOT really "undue" to let the readers know what the official RCC position is on various groups, Mormons being one of the biggest examples of how the term is NOT applied by RCC. By the way, can you FINALLY tell me if you're male or female? I've been curious, and also, I'd like to address you as "sir" or "ma'am", instead of some vague thing.....I have a feeling you're a woman, but I'm not sure... Can you tell me maybe? (if you don't want to say, I'll understand...but just wondering.) Sweetpoet (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted by my insertion, I have no desire to obscure the "Mormon thing", so I cannot give you my reason for wanting to obscure it. Even "well-sourced" examples need to be placed in proper context or the reader is inadvertently left with a distorted view. You know more about the subject than I, which actually, I fear, prevents you from recognizing where your examples either lack context or sourcing. If you had merely added the appropriate context, I would have had no problem with the reinsertion. As it is, I tried to add the context, however clumsily. I hope this satisfies you that I do not want to keep the fact out and will allow you to again assume good faith on my part. Novaseminary (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, that's fine. Context is important, but the overall context of the heading "Consideration of certain groups" or "Usage" etc, would seem to be fitting. (By the way, I softened the section title wording a bit, on this talk page, if you notice.) Anyway, so you don't want to say if you're a man or a woman? You keep dodging that question. As I said, I get the feeling you may be female. Just curious.....so are you? Sweetpoet (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for removal of This Rock Q&A about Mormonism

In an effort to prevent another edit war, let me explain this edit in which I removed a citation to this source.

Per the section immediately above this, the Q&A about Mormonism does not directly support the sentence it was attached to. The sentence Sweetpoet most recently attached the source to then read: "The Roman Catholic Church officially does not consider members of what it considers to be "non-Christian" groups to be separated brethren." The sentence now reads: "The Roman Catholic Church does not consider Mormons and members of some other religious groups to be separated brethren"). Whether the source is a reliable source or not and whether it accurately represents Vatican positions or not, nothing in that Q&A directly supports either version of the sentence. So I removed it, again, with this edit. At most, the Q&A supports the idea that the Roman Catholic Church does not characterize Mormons as Christians inj the same way the RCC does traditional Protestants. To go from that proposition to claiming Mormons are not "separated brethren" is synthesis that violates WP:SYNTH as pointed out above by Glenfarclas.

Whether this "fact" is true or not, the removed source does not state the fact explicitly (or even in a roundabout way). The Q&A has nothing to do with the concept of "separated brethren". For what it is worth, the other source listed with that sentence, and the sentence following, does more directly state the proposition, if not perfectly. Like just about every aspect of this article, this proposition should be better sourced. But, since there is at least something supporting the proposition, I left the sentences. (I was the one who added that source for that proposition in the first place, so I hope nobody feels I am trying to cover-up the "fact" that the RCC does not consider Mormons to be "separated brethren".)

So to sum up, I am fine with the source, though Glernfarclas is right, it is not an official source (though unofficial sources, like a newspaper, can report on official positions). And I am fine with the "fact" (or at least have no reason to doubt it in light of the at least minimal support remaining in the article). The source doesn't directly support the fact without a WP:SYNTH leap, though, so I am not fine with the source cited to support that fact.

Novaseminary (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)