User talk:Alecmconroy/Archive1

Stormfront.

I think hiding the references in comments is deeply silly, as you may as well not have them for all the use they are to the casual reader. I can appreciate, however, that we do not want to artificially inflate a hate site's rankings on Google. Surely, though, it is very easy to simply reference urls without linking them? i.e. en.wikipedia.org? Would this not work? Dev920 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. I don't know if Google would pick up on non-linked URLs or not. My concern is that if we treat Stormfront differently than we treat any other websites, isn't Wikipedia essentially passing judgement on whether a referenced is "Good" or "Bad"? I mean, I'm comfortable with me, a human being, saying that white supremacists are bad, but I tend to think Wikipedia should have as a "neutral" a point-of-view as possible on political issues. Should we have a different set of rules for hate sites than we have for other sites? What do you think? It's a complicated issue-- no one wants to help the Nazis, but I don't want to discriminate against them either --Alecmconroy 21:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do agree with you, though I think the references condemn them ipso facto! There is a policy discussion going on at the village pump about this, I know, but what might be more useful is if you could find any previous examples of what people have done when faced with refrencing hate sites. I've been checking neo-nazi articles but haven't found anything as yet - you might have a bit more luck. Dev920 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i know the surest way not to inflate their page rank is to link the google-cached version.-- ExpImp^{talk con} 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alec, that's some interesting stuff you found about that reporter. Nice work :). Yes I think it should stay in but some people are determined to keep it out. Strange, seeing as how that was the main barrier they had and was what they were insisting on. You'd think that finding a story, which is actually reproduced on their site, would be good enough to satisfy them. I'm going to just keep putting it back in. Thanks again, Stick to the Facts 12:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm why did you edit it out? I just noticed that now. Stick to the Facts 12:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SafeLibraries?

Hi Alec, I'm trying to figure out what my next step should be regarding the American Library Association pages. SafeLibraries has been treading into some areas that I'm not entirely comfortable with on the Talk pages as far as bringing my personal/professional life into my trying to keep the ALA article reasonable. I'll happilly step away from it if that's whats indicated, I just feel that his continual attempts to inject more controversy into this page are bordering on bad behavior. Care to offer some advice either here or via email? Thanks. Jessamyn (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:RfC on Muhammad as a diplomat

hey Alec, i just wanted to give my thanks to you for taking a good amount of time to comment on the article in question, it was a very thoughtful contribution. i know what you mean when you talk about few responses to RfC's, it can sometimes be very disappointing, so even more thanks for taking the time to help out. regards, ITAQALLAH 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfront again

Sure, put it back in if you like but please don't touch the Don Black illegal activity part in the first section. Stick to the Facts 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We were specifically told by ElC not to include more than one link to SF. If you want the reference you can make it hidden. Don't get on my case for deleting stuff and then do the same in return. Stick to the Facts 12:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science

I nominated The Quran and science for deletion, do you mind weighing in? Arrow740 00:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an hourly struggle over this article, and it only gets worse. Oh well. At least in a few weeks people will be willing to delete it. Arrow740 08:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSA controversy

I thought you made excellent points in the ongoing controversy re Heqwm and the BSA article. You may be interested in the mediation case he filed: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08 BSA. Rlevse 14:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alecmconroy and Jagz--First, congrats again on the fine job you did getting Boy Scouts of America membership controversies to FA status. I noticed it's had lots of edits lately and looked it over. I'm concerned about it possibly in the future losing it's FA status as things like a section with a bulleted list, poor punctuation and formatting, and loosely joined facts have crept in. I can help with formatting, refs, and such if you like, but as I am not an expert on these controversies, I would likely be of only limited help on the prose part. Let me know if you'd like me to help. If you care to repsond, leave a msg here on your page. Rlevse 02:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you post an RFC read my last comments. I am really only objecting to one word. --evrik ^(talk) 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming good faith, and was even going to say something nice about your last comment on my talk page until I saw your veiled threat about the 3rr. --evrik ^(talk) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I sound irritated about this it’s because I didn't even think about accusing either of you of 3RR because I thought we were working through the issue, in good faith. I find it especially galling because I was willing to compromise with the removal of one word, and the way I count it, over the last 24 hours Jagz crossed the four edit line first, and had there not been two of you tag teaming me I would not have made as many edits. --evrik ^(talk) 23:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought of this as an edit war. I'm done for the day, but if Jagz really wants to file 3RR - that's his business. --evrik ^(talk) 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSB/Shashi Tharoor

I've put in an RFC over the controversy on the Shashi Tharoor page. Might you be interested? Ekantik 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Funding

I moved the Loss of Funding section again. Is it okay now or do you still like the old way? --Jagz 06:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elephants

Thanks, didn't want to get trampled by vandals again! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MONGO

MONGO has had enough harrassment by ED trolls. Leave him and his Talk page alone, or you will be blocked. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you don't harrass him again. I have just blocked User:Jgp for restoring the ED link. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome

Of course, the Wiki process seems at time chaotic and it is very easily for tempers to flare. I hope that you never felt that I was offended by your comments. I've been around long enough to know that this is just how things work, and that they _do_ work. I think the article is much better. There had been some loose facts creep in along with typos and other editorials mis-steps. While I am taking a necessary Wiki-break due to needing to run a political campaign, I think there is now just one major issue left exposed - how to treat other youth organization policies - and one minor issue - appropriate treatment of the local nondiscrimination policy issue. I am sure that while I am gone, those issues will be worked, and re-worked and end up being a very fine treatment. It's been a pleasure working with you on this. See you after Nov. 7 (or sometime). --NThurston 15:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have these concerns been addressed yet? --Jagz 22:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

I noticed you were back and busy on WP:AN/I. If you can squeeze in the time, we are up to our !!! in alligators on the Talk:Ebionites page. We can't get a word in edgewise to do any serious editing with all the allegations and personal attacks going on. Please make it stop. Ovadyah 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alec, thanks for your comments. The disputes were moved to a new archive, Talk:Ebionites/Neo-Ebionite 2#Act Bold. Briefly, there was a second AfD after an editor restored the deleted Ebionite Restoration Movement article. After three reverts and three speedy deletes, the stub was finally page protected. The comments that follow are a lot of bitter words that I feel cross over the line to personal attacks. (You are mentioned as my meatpuppet collaborator.) The incivility is now being directed at Loremaster, who is the primary editor. Productivity has ground to a halt, and I'm searching for a way to get things moving again. Ovadyah 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem at all. regards, --Aminz 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alec for you efforts about OD article and talk.

I am very agree with you and your NPOV. Opus Dei editors and supporters it seems a group of fanatics. The matter is that they are a powerful lobby. Mostly editions of this lobby are the same edition. Thomas Major it seems the boss of them. All editions are strongly supporter by other fanatics editors, probably Opus Dei members. I hope that some day the administrators make something with all these brochures. I know OD methods, the logical fallacies, the fallacious interpretations of NPOV and the cheats. The obbsesion with biased arguments based in hundred of quotes from selected scholars. They prefer a bad (I think that some of them believe that wikireaders are stupids) article, a brochure better than a good article. Do not miss hope. Certainly discuss with fanatics it is like to talk with a hard rock. Mostly of them probably received direct instructions by the Office of Public Opinion about the "apostolate of public opinion". I know docs about OD, and the strategy is like you can see. Thank you very much Alec, I wish to follow editing, wikistress is not a problem.--Heavyrock 20:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. An article about OD is likely to have OD members and pro-OD people interested. This, in itself, doesn't make a bad or biased article. Otherwise, the same argument could be made for anti-opus people - the "fanatics" from the other side. The article should be judged as it is, point blank. I agree also that there is a NPOV problem, but not that big. The 2 sides are there, Allen is reliable. A little cut would be enough. Louisar 23:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heads-up on a new user

Just wanted to let you know that SafeLibraries has a new username and his userpage seems to imply a continued crusade. Jessamyn (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acts

Alec I have never doubted your sincerity. I am sure they are good faith edits done with a view to improving the article. If you want to know what I think, which I gather is part of your query, I think Luke and Acts were defiantly written by the same author, and there is no real reason to think that it wasn't Luke (since he was hardly significant enough to warrant a pseudonym, and I think the text is too early to be Christian pseudonymity anyway). As for Q, I think it must more fitting to simply say that Luke had a copy of Mark and used that, among other material unique to him. Lostcaesar 08:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!!

Hey Alec!!! There's a guy at OD. You know him. It's Heavyrock. Keeps on inserting some unpublished from ODAN writings. Please tell him something. He's method's not the right way to fight... Ndss 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALA

Thanks for the background on this... it is my knowledge from dealing with controversy/criticism section disputes at other articles that they should, per Wiki standards, be completely devoid of 1)weasel words, i.e. "twit" is completely unnacceptable, referenced or not, and 2)refs that are secondary editorials or blogs. The ALA criticism had both of these issues, so the validity/significance of the criticisms is almost moot. Beyond that, if legitandcompelling wants to hunt down an objective primary source and filter out the derogatory language, that is a different story. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 23:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help - let me know if you have any more issues with the page.--Jackbirdsong 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of the Apostles

You posted a question on the Reference Desk about the Book of Acts. Religion is a very touchy subject, and as I wish to avoid getting embroiled in a fight with anyone there, I am responding here. A few preliminary remarks may not be out of order.

You are looking for resources on the Internet. The difficulty with that is that most Internet sites indulge in "preaching to the choir." One either finds proselytizing "true believers" who are convinced that every word in their poorly translated bible is the Word of God, and who smugly warn the rest of us that we're headed straight for hell, or one finds proselytizing atheists who are convinced that no two consecutive words in any book of the bible doesn't constitute a lie, and who smugly declare the rest of us to be imbeciles. It is thus difficult to find a site on the net that will state the facts soberly.
It is best to understand that, with no negative connotation in mind, that the Book of Acts is a piece of propaganda. That is, the author is attempting to convince his audience of something. Now, certainly, the truth is an excellent source for propaganda. So saying that the purpose of Acts is to convince the reader of something does not, in itself, condemn it. (Nor, of course, does it guarantee the book's accuracy.)
It is universally accepted that the author/editor of the Gospel According to Luke is also responsible for Acts. Randel Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?) reminds us that the gospels often tell us less about the persons in them than about their authors. So, then, who was "Luke?" Note that the two volumes of Luke/Acts are anonymous. That they were written by Paul's physician and sometime travelling companion is merely a 3rd century guess. Well, what can we determine from a close reading of the text? One thing is clear, even in translation it is evident that Luke is literarily superior to the authors of the other three canonical gospels. Luke is more highly educated than they and is quite familiar with Greek literature. Considring the style of the original Koiné Greek, an Aegean provinance is most likely. So far, nothing controversial.
However, if we continue to look closely at Acts, with sufficient background knowledge, a definite picture begins to emerge. Acts paints of picture of harmony among the earliest Christians. With everyone in agreement, Luke is guaranteeing that the viewpoints and beliefs of the Church must be exactly what Jesus wanted, passed on through the apostles to the reader. Yet when we read Paul's epistles from the 40s and 50s, here's what we find
"I have been told . . . that there is quarrelling among you . . . that each of you is saying: 'I am for Paul,' or 'I am for Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas' or 'I Christ'." (1 Cor. 1:11-12)
Four different sects of Christians in one town a dozen years after the crucifiction? If the beginnings of Christianity were really as stated by the Gospels and the Book of Acts, this would be impossible. Note, too, the vituperation of the author of 1 John about the schismatics in his own church. Notice, also, how the the Epistle of James contradicts (and, IMO, refutes) Paul's "faith alone" doctrine.
Then we might notice that Paul, who admits in his epistles that he is not a good speaker, but writes well, is a marvelous speaker in Acts. Oddly, though, Peter's speeches are totally indistinguishable from Paul's, both in form an content. But in the epistles, it is clear that they don't really get along at all. These orations are, of course, Luke's own compositions. Then there's the "Grecian" party centered on Stephen. Strangely, they have names that are to be found as characters in Plato's dialogues. Then there's Stephen himself. It's peculiar how closely his trial mimics Jesus' in Luke's gospel. Luke seems to believe that "a good story is a good story," and is willing to tell it over and over again. He tells of Paul's experience on the Damascus Road three times in Acts, but the details keep changing. Various incidents that happen to Paul happened to better-known folk in Josephus. Or they are incidents from Euripedes' plays. In fact Jesus' voice from heaven includes a line from The Bacchae. And how come the timing of Paul's visits to Jerusalem (and their purpose) in Acts don't match what Paul, himself, says in his letters? And if Paul had been harrying the Church as Acts states, how can Paul claim in his epistles that he was unknown to its leadership at the time of his conversion? And have you ever noticed that when Luke, the great universalist, has a miracle happen involving a man, almost immediately something similar happens to a woman? or if to a Jew, then right after to a gentile? And if Paul was a Roman citizen from birth, how come he reports being beaten and whipped repeatedly by the Lictors, which would have been totally illegal? And how could he have been a student of Gamliel, the head of the Pharisee party, as claimed in Acts, when he is (A) working for the High Priest, the head of the Saducee party, and (B) fails to demonstrate even the most rudimentary knowledge of Pharisee logic or exegesis?
When we put Luke and Acts together, the picture that emerges is this: Luke lived in the 2nd century and produced Luke/Acts circa 150 AD. Luke, unlike Mark who was an adult convert from paganism, may well have been born a Christian. Luke was probably upper class. And a woman. (See the Helms book for the reasoning on that last.)
Luke was also a major league plagarist, and in Acts of the Apostles wrote the most fraudulant book in the canon, surpassing even Daniel.

But, of course, it wasn't my word on this that you wanted, but a source in the Internet. Okay, here goes. [1] Now this is merely a book review. (The book itself, which I own, is excellent, and is what you really should read, but the review is a good start.) While not directly an analysis of Acts, both the book and the review go over the same territory as Acts and highlight what Luke was up to. It's not an easy read, and the book is less so, but then your "simple" question wasn't so simple after all. B00P 06:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I have filed a formal complaint against NazireneMystic on the Personal Attack noticeboard if you want to add any comments [2]. Ovadyah 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Not a problem, I am trying to be civil, but badlydrawnjeff has an agenda to keep almost everything, and we've all been through this multiple times, plus jeff has a vested interest since he's a poster at ED. And there have been ED-ites banned from Wikipedia for their continued attacking of MONGO. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion?

I feel, again, that this is pushing the boundaries of what LAEC shoudl be doing to the ALA Wikipedia page. While I don't disagree with the edit per se (though I think the point is so minor as to not really be worth making an edit) I feel that his continual attention to this article and pushing of the envelope of what he wants the article to be like is, once again, stretching it. I was just wondering what you thought, because perhaps I am too close to this issue. Jessamyn (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I posted the wrong link, I meant the subsequent one, but I'lll take your advice to heart in any case, thank you! Jessamyn (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving Alecmconroy! ^{This method of wishing someone a happy thanksgiving has been stolen (with permission) from Randfan (talk · contribs).} | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you a happy Thanksgiving! I hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

By the way, how can you be an athiest and a jesuit at the same time? ;-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei

Let keep the discussions on my talk page. Taxico 10:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei PR

Please move old PRs to a different title before making a new request. Users who click the link at the talkpage to what they will think is the ongoing peer review will wind up at the PR from back in May. Somewhat confusing, I'd say.
Peter ^Isotalo 13:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei

Hi Alec, I've replied to your edit to the Opus Dei discussion page. Let's see how things go.

Pax.

Iamlondon 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Alec. Per your request on my Talk page, I've chimed in about your OD changes on its Talk page. Interesting observation (which may be outdated in a few minutes!): comments about your content and organization changes are overwhelmingly positive, while comments about your methods and procedures of doing the changes are overwhelmingly negative. Regardless of the motives or edit histories of the negative commentors, if the content comments were running 50/50 or so, I would side with the methods/procedures people. But as they are very positive, I backed keeping your changes as the new status quo and then settling the procedural dispute, on account of WP not being a bureaucracy. Regardless of the outcome, I do commend you for a stellar article. Baccyak4H (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: FYI, others have been calling for comments about your changes, much like you have done, but have implied in the request that the changes were solely a POV imposition. While I would agree that there are still balance issues, you have explicitly pointed out five other issues besides POV which you meant to improve upon. This misrepresentation could span anywhere from good but misguided intentions due to ignorance, to disingenuous fearmongering and troop rallying. Naturally, we should assume the former. In any case, understanding how your changes have been portrayed may be helpful in future discussions. Baccyak4H (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Opus Dei

In regards to the Opus Dei article, I find the NPOV problems manageable with its current format. The article does reference the reputable criticisms towards the Church prelature, even if a more complete version is due. I do support a more complete section on the criticisms. However, as you have most likely found out, there are many highly devoted members and supporters of Opus Dei who do not take drastic changes within the article lightly, especially considering opposing criticisms. In the past I have found that when an editor does not bring a neutral point of view into their additions or editions, correcting their error and warning them personally works best. -- AJ24 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei- RFC

I'll try to take a look at it in the few days because I'm really busy right now. Not sure how much help I'll be on this article though. --Jagz 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the article but don't think I'm qualified to comment on this topic. --Jagz 21:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei

Mr. Conroy. I plan to revert to the old version until you have provided proof as stated here. Lafem 09:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Escriva's self-mortification

Regarding Escriva's self-mortification, I don't want to go into it in any detail in the Opus Dei article (as you say, that's for the Josemaria Escriva article itself), but it should at least be mentioned in the Opus Dei article, not least because he originated the practice and serves as a role model for the movement. I'll also defend the word "vigorous": Opus Dei does not, AFAIK, require its members to flagellate themselves to the same degree as their founder. -- The Anome 13:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei

I'm going to watch to see what happens with NPOV flag. I don't have a lot of time right now to go into a full-fledged debate, but I will try to moderate. As a Lutheran, I do not exactly support Opus Dei, so my voice in trying to defend the article should have some weight. I'm not really in the FA process -- I'd have to think too hard to do that! GA is steep enough for me. 8-) --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you spare a moment?

Hi, I know you're busy, but I wanted to point out this AfD. Your input would be welcome : ) Doc Tropics 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and insights. This was only my third AfD nom, so I threw every detail I could think of into the "reasons for deleting" text, and hoped that others would help sort it out. I think it's going fairly well at this point; thanks again for contributing. Doc Tropics 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

Hi Alec. Thanks for your note. :) AGF is such an excellent policy, I don't think this encyclopedia would ever move forward if it were not in place.

As regards what will happen, well, I just have to leave everything in His hands. I'm hardly the creator of anything, but just doing what I think is right. :) Thomas 06:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Cilice3.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Cilice3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Dominick ^(TALK) 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of the Apostles

Hello again.

It's been bothering me that sending you to that Book Review wasn't as helpful as could be. Here's a much better resource.

Acts as History

You may supplement that with

Acts as Source.

B00P 04:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OD

Alec,I am glad I could help. Let me run through a few of your comments.

About the sentence on Hitler – that sort of thing just happens. A controversial sentence appears, and so people scramble for refs to back it up; eventually we end up with eight or so that may or may not match. Its just how it goes.

As for "penitential mortification", my experience with this is in its medieval form (I study medieval history), in which it was a penitential monastic practice. The most famous mortifier I know of is Radegund, though perhaps better known are the flagellants. I assumed that OD practiced the same (albeit a milder form) of this penitence – but I have never talked with anyone in OD about it. Perhaps it was a mistaken assumption. My apologies.

Now the cilice, this is a bit different. In medieval Latin cilicium means hairshirt. They were uncomfortable garments worn originally by Egyptian monks and brought to southern France and popularized by St. Martin's, Tours, very early in the Middle Ages. Its name derives from the Cicilian goat hair that they are made out of (Cilicia is in Asia Minor - where St. Paul was from). Maybe in a modern context it has come to mean any uncomfortable mortifying item, but I think we could use a source for this. As for the image, I still have some problems with it. It strikes me as using a picture of JFK's motorcade after the assassination from a group called "Oswald Innocence Organization". So I am still a bit uneasy about this. Some reliable sources all around would make be feel much better.

As for mortification in general, I think we can structurally improve this matter a bit in the article. At present, we say who mortifies under a list of positions on OD, but we don't introduce mortification until after. We should probably define something before we mention it, especially something easily misunderstood. Also, I wonder if it is really central to that section, since mortification is one pious act, and we don't mention any other pious acts that some members might do. So perhaps we could cut it from that section or, if not, then introduce mortification earlier.

Overall I think the article is doing well, despite the challenges of such a sensitive topic. Critical pov's are generally well handled in a proper section without too much weight given them, and I am glad the article does not cite fiction as fact. There are some areas to improve on. Most of the sources are Internet articles and, though fine, these could be better. For example, we cite an online book review a couple times concerning the content of the book, when the much better thing to do would be to cite the actual book. But this will clear up in time I hope.

I really appreciate that you took the time to look over my edits. Sometimes, when I clean up an article by moving a paragraph here or removing bullet points there, co-editors will see a lot of red and, without reading to notice that the content is the same, jump to the rv button. This conversely has been a nice experience of collegiality.

Cheers,

Lostcaesar 10:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uncovering that weblink to the CNN article. That is the sort of source I was looking for. We still have some technical problems with the picture, but it seems less urgent now. I suppose if we end up without a picture we could still describe the item well enough. I have a few more points to make about the article. Concerning the controversy section. First, I think the bullet point is bad style for an encyclopedia article, and I think if you look at wikipedia good articles, you will be hard pressed to find such a presentation (bullet point of criticisms). I really think, stylistically, we should make this a paragraph. Also, I notice that you did not prefer my edit, which presented the material slightly differently. My attempt was to represent the sources properly. They were mostly from ODAN, and if not, then from new articles which vaguely said "critics", unnamed, and whatever the case had far fewer accusations than ODAN. I noticed in your edit commentary that you said that there were other critics besides ODAN. This may well be the case, but at present the article does not support its general claims with references. I understand if you need time to get more sorces, and I am willing to be patient. However, in the meantime it might be preferable to use the edit I made. We could preserve the older version on a userpage sandbox until it can be better referenced. Lastly, as to the section on mortification, I think some of the criticisms can be better handled in the criticism section, especially those made by ODAN, and we might was just a general sentence in the mort. section describing criticism. Thoughts? Lostcaesar 14:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's see. The image itself is fine-- just a minor case of copyright paranoia, hehehe. About the identities of the critics-- as luck would have it this old version of the Controversies article has a giant "yellow pages" of the most-vocal critics, as it were. ODAN is basically code for the DiNicolas, who are two, but only two of the critics. So far, I don't know of any criticism that is being made only by them-- in general, the criticisms predate them. Between the Hutchison book, the del Carmen Tapia, and the Walsh book, I think every single criticism is in there. So, no, no-- it's not just ODAN. If you want for the purposes of citation, I can look around try to find web-accessable citations of non-ODAN people making the specific criticisms, just for the sake of ironcladness, but let's definitely NOT say that ODAN is the only one making the criticims-- that would takes us from sentences that are true,cited, and possibly web-citable, and transform them into sentences that are false. lol.

About the bullett points list, I'm less sure of myself. I can read a book that tells me for a fact ODAN isn't the only one making a certain criticism-- finding a book telling me whether or not the section is better in bulletpoints is harder. heheh. Let's see what Bish, Doc, Baccyak and some of the others think. Bulletpoints are briefer, which I know was a big concern of the OD members. If we go to prose, we have to include topic sentences and explanatory sentences, and the like or else we'll sound schiziophrenic. On the other hand, the bullet points are style we don't use elsewhere in the article, so maybe we shouldn't use them here either. Let's see what they think.

What I'm really stymied about is the Controversies about Opus Dei. Right now there's basically no organizing scheme to the thing. I'm trying to decide whether it should be organized "by faction", "by topic" or "chronologically". If you have a chance to look it over, I'd majorly appreciate your suggestions on it! :) --Alecmconroy 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph form would not be too long; check out this example, which says everything the bullets say. Lostcaesar 15:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it to be a good article I think you need to drop the bullets; do some asking, I will work on the paragraph's prose. Lostcaesar 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general the MOS gives strong preference to paragraph formatting rather than lists. However, there are exceptions to the general rule, and criticism/controversy sections are one of the most common. Due to the nature of these topics, it is often much more clear and effective to highlight the individual points with bullets. I reviewed both the original content in the article, and LC's text version. The text LC provided is well written and quite lucid, but due to the number of individual facts involved, as well as the number of refs and hyperlinks, it looks a bit cluttered and hard to follow.

I'm afraid that regardless of the quality of writing, a paragraph format is simply not going to look as coherent as the list format. Just my two cents : ) Doc Tropics 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm LMAO because you refered to me as a celeb : )

I did a bit of tweaking to "Criticisms" and explained on the talkpage. I also want to reorganize "Replies" for better flow. Are we having fun yet? Doc Tropics 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If those things made you worry, you should have seen My Beliefs and Interests. It has been nice working with you Alec. I have butted heads with many editors, and am rather used to differing points of view, but generally so long as everyone is willing to be reasoned with things can move along nicely. There is still one part of the criticism section that makes me nervious. The supposed quote about Hitler, reported by "a certain priest" and hosted on two websites that I have no reason to trust — it just seems a little over the top. That aside, I think the article is getting much better and am glad you have contributed and been likewise willing to work with me. Cheers; Lostcaesar 09:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your beliefs page is interesting-- we share quite a number, but I won't say whichs ones. As regards the hitler allegations-- that has worried me to that we leave that a little too "un-rebutted". I think what we say about it crticism is factual--- I'm pretty sure that it's undisputed that (1) the priest does make those claims about Escriva saying those two quotes. Similarly, I think it's undisputed that (2) the critics make so much mention of that issue (in the press and elsewhere), that the issue is notable. The biggie source for these two statements are the Hitchens book, but we have four different cites to back up those sentence (two are hidden). More cites could be obtained, but I said, I don't think anyone disputes those two assertions.

Because of that, I wouldn't want to just delete the quotes, for example, because they are a valid part of the dialog. Recognizing, however, as that the criticism isn't a very reliable assertion, I suspect we should add extra rebuttal to that particular issue. We already directly quote the Prelate's denial, but I would like more there, and will look for some.

As an aside, something that's bugged me is that the controversy article never makes the case that even if all the Franco/Hitler allegations _WERE_ true, that still doesn't necessarily makes Escriva/OD "bad". Here is my simple, totally original research thoughts on something that could be said on that issue:

It's claimed that Escriva supported the Fascists. If it's true--- Big deal! WWII was gave people a choice between Fascismm and Communism, and by and large, people chose to support whichever side wasn't actively trying to kill them. For Escriva, you have the Communists under Stalin-- already having total violations of any rights, already having genocidal campaigns. And you have the Fascists-- bad and totalitarian to be sure, but they weren't trying to abolish the church and murder the catholics.

I don't care who you are-- when you have to pick sides between a bad person actively trying to kill and a bad person actively trying to kill the person who wants to kill you--- your choice is clear. If Escriva's alleged support of Franco/Hitler seems shockings it's because we're looking at it through the lense of a post-war western power: where the choise is between democracy and totalitarianism. We equate Hitler with satan, but we do that because we already know what happened in the camps under his regime. For someone like Escriva-- they didn't have a choice between democracies and totalitarianism--- they only have a choice between fasciscm and communism. Simiilarly they didnt' have the benefit of hindsight-- while they could know about that stalinist purges, Hitler's holocaust was obviously something that people didn't firmly believe yet.

That may make Escriva guilty of being a bad historian or something, but the fact is, whole nations full of good people supported Hitler. We don't criticize all germans, and they DIRECTLY supported Hitler, even going so far as to fightt for him, whereas St. Josemaria is only accused of having expressed ambivalence about whether the things being said about Hitler were true. In short, the very worst we can say about Escriva on the issue is that he was a little too guilty of "Assuming Good Faith"-- not quite quick enough to recognize evil in other humans. But does that make Escriva a bad person, or a good one?

So, anyway, that's the way I tend to go about responding. So far it's just my OR, but I bet someone notable has thought the make the same points, and it's something we ought to mention if we ever get to the controversies article. People say he said the Hitler stuff, so we have to mention it, but we don't have to treat its like it's persuasive, and we can definitely add more rebuttal in. I'll work on it finding more sources and more rebuttal-- hopefully one online, but if nothing good poops up, I can alwways go to the print sources to find a nice reponse from OD's supporters on the hitlet stuff. I already know at leat one reply I can add. --Alecmconroy 20:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: I think a simply way to say some of your point would be to mention the anticlericalism of the Spanish Civil War. The number of priests and religious killed in those few years was tremendous, far more than the numbers killed, for example, by all the inquisitions and witch-hunts over centuries combined. Lostcaesar 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for the late response. Sorry to tell you this, I don't know anything much about Opus Dei, so I cannot comment further. Besides, I don't have anything to say about the Criticisms section, but do ask me to comment on Opus Dei again. I would love to comment, but I can't say much due to my vague knowledge of the topic. Ter e nc e Ong 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD//Opus Dei and civil leaders

Done. My apologies for the error. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei RFC

LM-- First off-- the Ebionites article is looking really great! Good job. I keep meaning to learn enough about Ebionites to be able to help out over there, but other wikipedia things keep grabbing my attention. I better hurry though, because if ya'll keep editing, I'm sure you guys will be up to FAC in no time.

Anyway-- I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. In doing so, I've upset some people not unlike NazireneMystic-- single-purpose accounts with strong religious views about the subject of the article. Some want the whole thing reverted outright, some think it violates NPOV. If you have a second, could you look it over and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment, if it's NPOV, and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know enough about Opus Dei to be of much help. Sorry. --Loremaster 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with as many edits as you have should enable email.---Alecmconroy 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Loremaster 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because once you're a regular contributor, sometimes it's helpful to be able to contact people-- i.e. if they haven't been on-wiki lately, or if you want to ask a private opinion, etc. --Alecmconroy 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had problems with email harrassment in the past so I tend to avoid enabling it. --Loremaster 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OD new version

My definite opinion is not yet made about the new version versus the old one and the vandalism issue. To my knowledge there is only one clear mistake, or inexactitude in the new one. It has to do with the "rather than" the dioceses. The prelate has authority ONLY concerning the specific goals of OD. The rest is under the diocesan bishop. In principle it's a shared jurisdiction. I've edited the new version in 3 passages about that topic.

yours

Louisar 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sources seem to agree that OD members are under the direct jurisdiction of OD. In contrast, there are no sources that describe personal prelatures as "shared jurisdiction" (see google searches: [3][4][5][6]. ) Nonetheless, I added the language about "working in harmony with local dioceses" to the replies to criticism section. --Alecmconroy 12:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youre wrong. I don't know if you are catholic, but it is obvious that no lay catholic may be under the juridiction of OD rather than of his diocesan bishop. I will refer to canon law and correct your mistake another time. I appreciate your "harmony" stuff but it's not enough and not precise: these are legal matters first, opinion matters second (that is, critics of OD are saying that the shared jusrisdiction ( in principle and in the law) is not in fact shared, or is not shared enough). But jurisdiction is not a fact, it's a legal concept. May I add that youre looking like the boss about this article and it seems to me that you take all the place. At the moment, my reference is OD site - Place in the church:

"The Opus Dei Prelature is a jurisdictional structure belonging to the pastoral and hierarchical organisation of the Church. Like dioceses, territorial prelatures, vicariates and military ordinariates, it has its own autonomy and ordinary jurisdiction to carry out its mission in the service of the whole Church. For that reason it is dependent immediately and directly on the Roman Pontiff, through the Congregation for Bishops.

The authority of the prelate has to do only with the specific mission of the Prelature, and is thus in harmony with the authority of the diocesan bishop in regards to the ordinary pastoral care of the faithful of the diocese:

a) The lay faithful of Opus Dei are subject to the authority of the Prelate in all that refers to the fulfillment of the ascetical, formational, and apostolic commitments which they take up by the formal declaration incorporating them into the Prelature. By virtue of their content, these commitments do not interfere with the authority of the diocesan bishop. At the same time, the lay faithful of Opus Dei continue to be faithful of the dioceses in which they reside, and thus remain under the authority of the diocesan bishop in exactly the same way and regarding the same matters as any other baptized person in the diocese."

I've just cut and paste so i let the "harmony" (perhaps a NPOV problem there) word; but harmony is not the point. The point is the sharing, or more precisely, the delimitations of jurisdictions according to the specific goals. We're not dealing with opinions or criticism here, but with the laws and functionnig of Catholic Church. I'm not sure you're the most competent person about that. Let the others contribute.

Yours Louisar 17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to User talk:Louisar. --Alecmconroy 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now this clear mistake is removed. Thanks. I will add a few words to your last version because it amounts to say that OD jurisdiction is not diocesan and territorial; but the way you say it, it may be interpreted in the "rather than" sense meaning the the member is not under the diocesan bishop jurisdiction. We must say the the jusridiction of the diocesan bishop is not cancelled, according to law.

By shared jurisdiction, I mean separate jurisdictions according to specific goals. Opus works is about formation and spirituality. You cannot baptized your kid there, you cannot marry nor have your funeral in the Opus residence chapel. If the bishop decides that you cannot teach catechesis because youre heretic or incompetent, the national vicar of OD cannot grant you the mission to teach, etc. etc. That's the main sense of "sharing". But there is more, below, in the rules: it seems that even in the sphere of the specific goals, the local bishop must have a say, in the sense that local dioceses have norms, and so the OD spiritual activities must take place inside thoses norms. If fact, these issues are resolved in an indirect and pragmatic fashion: OD cannot come in a diocese without the bishop invitation, so it's obvious that if a diocese asks OD to come, it's because OD spirituality can take place within its frame.

Relevant canons are (Canon law code):

Can. 294 Personal prelatures may be established by the Apostolic See after consultation with the Episcopal Conferences concerned. They are composed of deacons and priests of the secular clergy. Their purpose is to promote an appropriate distribution of priests, or to carry out special pastoral or missionary enterprises in different regions or for different social groups.

Can. 297 The statutes are likewise to define the relationships of the prelature with the local Ordinaries in whose particular Churches the prelature, with the prior consent of the diocesan Bishop, exercises or wishes to exercise its pastoral or missionary activity.

Then the pope says it's ok in a document like Ut sit. But before that, the Congregation of bishop gives more precision to the canon (it goes from law to rules) :

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS Declaration concerning Opus Dei

III. The jurisdiction of the prelate

a) the power of the prelate is an ordinary power of jurisdiction or government, limited to that which refers to the specific finality of the Prelature, and differs substantially, by reason of the matter involved, from the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops in the ordinary spiritual care of the faithful; ... d) the laity are under the jurisdiction of the prelate in regard to what has to do with the fulfillment of the specific ascetic formative and apostolic commitments which they have freely undertaken by means of the contractual bond dedicating them to the service of the aims of the Prelature.

IV. With reference to ecclesiastical territorial laws and to the legitimate rights of local ordinaries:

a) as established by law the members of the Prelature must observe the territorial norms which refer to general directives of a doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral nature, the laws concerning public order and, in the case of the priests, also the general discipline of the clergy;

b) the priests of the Prelature must obtain the ministerial faculties of the competent territorial authority, to exercise their ministry with people who do not form part of Opus Dei;

c) the laity incorporated in the Prelature Opus Dei continue to be faithful of the dioceses in which they have their domicile or quasidomicile and are, therefore, under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop in what the law lays down for all the ordinary faithful.

V. In regard to the pastoral coordination with local ordinaries, and the fruitful insertion of the Prelature Opus Dei in the local Churches, it is also established that:

a) the prior permission of the competent diocesan bishop is required for the erection of each center of the Prelature.

Opus Dei

Certainly, I'll take a look. (Radiant) 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction of OD

Hello Alec. Thanks for your reply. Here is what I have to say. I' ll comment also about the new version.

After Alec corrected a mistake he had added in his new version (the old one was ok on that score), saying “members fall under the direct jurisdiction of the Prelate of Opus Dei, rather than that of their local dioceses.”, I said that is was necessary to specify more precisely the nature of personal prelature: the "not territorial" (negative) aspect is not enough, because it implies that a prelature is a super diocese taking the place of a local diocese. Canon law says it's not the case. Alec now asks:

The reference to "specific spiritual mission"-- I don't know what that means in practice. Obviously, I know what Opus Dei's mission is, and I appreciate that Opus Dei's jurisdiction only extends to doing that mission-- it doesn't, for example, its jurisdiction doesn't cover running a for-profit lemonade stand, for example. I think this is obvious, but perhaps you're making a specific point I don't understand. In straightforward english, what exactly is it your trying to say with the "specific spiritual mission" statement? That OD doesn't conflict with diocese? that OD doesn't do things unrelated to spirituality? That OD is good, or that it has the sanction of the Holy See? If you tell me what point you want to make that you feel isn't being made in the article, maybe we can figure out a way to make it in ways that are verifiable, NPOV, and in encyclopedic tone. --Alecmconroy 11:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything i say on that is perfectly verifiable, because i refer to the statutes. The point is that the mission of OD, or of a personal prelature, is not the same as that of a diocese, and this is the main point, more important that the territorial aspect. It is BECAUSE of the specific mission that it is not territorial. So If you talk only about territory, you put what is second before what is first. The relevant canons are (Code of canon law):

TITLE IV: PERSONAL PRELATURES (Cann. 294 - 297)

Can. 294 Personal prelatures may be established by the Apostolic See after consultation with the Episcopal Conferences concerned. They are composed of deacons and priests of the secular clergy. Their purpose is to promote an appropriate distribution of priests, or to carry out special pastoral or missionary enterprises in different regions or for different social groups.

Can. 295 §1 A personal prelature is governed by statutes laid down by the Apostolic See. It is presided over by a Prelate as its proper Ordinary. He has the right to establish a national or an international seminary, and to incardinate students and promote them to orders with the title of service of the prelature.

§2 The Prelate must provide both for the spiritual formation of those who are ordained with this title, and for their becoming support.

Can. 296 Lay people can dedicate themselves to the apostolic work of a personal prelature by way of agreements made with the prelature. The manner of this organic cooperation and the principal obligations and rights associated with it, are to be duly defined in the statutes.

Can. 297 The statutes are likewise to define the relationships of the prelature with the local Ordinaries in whose particular Churches the prelature, with the prior consent of the diocesan Bishop, exercises or wishes to exercise its pastoral or missionary activity.

We see that the non-territorial aspect (your "rather than") is not even mentioned; the special enterprises is what is really what a personal prelature is all about. So we must mention the mission BEFORE the territory, as it is BECAUSE of the mission that there is non territorial (or a non-diocesan bishop jurisdiction - and a partial one). Another example about the canonical meaning of "personal": In a U.S. diocese, you have some personal parishes, in the sense that one parish covers the whole diocese, but for Polish people: here the parish is personal rather than territorial , but in the language-cultural sense. Some parishes are tridentine, because they use the gregorian mass, so the difference is liturgical-spiritual. So the non-territorial aspect must be partial, because it is a nonsense for a catholic to be totally independant from his diocesan bishop, in the case of a personal prelature. So the point is not only that there is no conflict of jurisdiction with a diocese (this point is not the point anyway, because there is some sharing, probably); the important point, apart from simple truth and accuracy (mission before territory) , is that the jurisdiction doesn't take the whole place of the diocese (you must marry in a diocesan church etc.); the member is really not under the jurisdiction of the prelate RATHER THAN under that of his bishop.

There is another point: since I honestly think I'm more competent than you about those things, perhaps it would be better that I always ask you the reasons of all your editing, instead of you always asking me. Again, youre not the boss. Plus there were imperfections in the old version, but no clear mistakes that competent catholic canonists would see. Your new version added a clear mistake and now you fight for something that is less precise, if not ambiguous, over something that is more precise. It's tiring a little bit. The details I was adding should have been given the benefit of the doubt. Yours Louisar 17:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alec, see below. I didn' know about this rule. Let's discuss on the OD discussion page about the rather than, under OD jurisdiction. We may also cut the "prelature" word altogether. For the time being, you can restore the "wherever they are" version, because it's only inexact, not false. See you. Louisar 19:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Tropics has restored the bad version. I meant this one: "its jurisdiction covers the persons in Opus Dei wherever they are, rather than being defined by a specific geographic region like a diocese". I told him. See was must be done. The rather than remains false in the version restored by Doc. I'll think about another wording. Louisar

Possible path: the very accurate article on personal prelatures to which your version is referring says: "In the case of Opus Dei, the prelate is elected by members of the prelature and confirmed by the Pope, the laity and clergy of the prelature are still under the governance of the particular church where they live..." Particular church is a diocese. All we have to do is to find a way to give coherence between this reference and the "rather than" figuring in the same sentence of the Opus article. Suggestions, Alec? Louisar 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alec, my congratulations to you for your efforts with these articles, by the way, do you understand Spanish language? Why? well I think that the information about OD in that language is very useful, for your interest about the prelature. The enormous amount with very hight quality information from ex members, testimonies, deep analysis, books about controversial elements, internal OD documents, writings of the foundator, etc published by opuslibros are an excellent source..--Heavyrock 02:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Alec, you have reverted Opus Dei three times in eight hours. This means that you'll be in breach of the three-revert rule if you revert one more time within the next 16 hours. Don't do that, or you'll be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Good Article

I have nominated the Ebionites article for Good Article status [7]. Thanks for your oversight from RFC to get it there. Ovadyah 16:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

topical

well you have other articles which focus on specific aspects of peoples' lives such as Parables of Jesus/Miracles of Jesus, there's one about the Professional life of George W. Bush. none of them are immediately comparable to 'Muhammad as a diplomat/general' but it's just to show that as well as main bio articles you can have forks discussing a specific class of documented events if it reaches notability, in the same way that Muhammad as a general article was up since '04 without much concern. even then, i think a move to the suggested articles is reasonable but i'll confirm my stance on this tomorrow. ITAQALLAH 03:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I dont understand where you got the idea that a consensus is the result of a straw poll. And I dont understand why you continue to use a May poll and ignore the June poll which was 25-4 and occured after discussion had occured and not before. The actual consensus was posted here, [8], and was the result of an arduous discussion that lasted from April to July. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied to Talk:Iraq War --Alecmconroy 07:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Ebionites article passed GA. Thanks for all your great comments and for keeping the trolls under the bridge! We are having a 2nd round of peer review to get it ready for FA nomination. Your perspective on further changes needed to make it FA quality would be appreciated. Ovadyah 16:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New RFC

We need a new RFC on the Ebionites article. Do you want to continue in your current capacity or should I request a new one? Ovadyah 17:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your reply thanks. We need your input on a totallydisputed tag that was placed at the top of the page. Basically, the user that placed it totally disputes the idea that Jesus wasn't divine. I took it to AN/I but they threw it back for dispute resolution. Ovadyah 16:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alec, can you help us out with a few things? We have been discussing how to incorporate minority viewpoints and some suggestions for inline comments in the reference section. I set up two sub-sections for RFC comments, if you would be so kind as to lend us your expertise. Ovadyah 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your feedback. What about the proposal for the Panarion quotes of the Gospel of the Ebionites to appear in the reference strings themselves (so that the quotes are only visible in the reference section and do not intrude into the article text itself)? I'm not clear what you think about this. It seems a good idea to me, seems to have broad measure of consensus and be common practice elsewhere. Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PA/N

I have hauled NazireneMystic to the PA Noticeboard for the third time. You may want to drop by and comment this time, since you are being accused of fraud. Ovadyah 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John 1:1

Thanks for your comment. You may wish to clarify what you mean, as you've said "I support [the section's] deletion", but "We should have both sides of the debate". The user will likely see this last sentence as support for including the information. Thanks. BenC7 06:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

Thanks for the heads-up. At this time, the POV edit to the infobox has been removed by another editor. I left a second comment on the talk page and put it on my watchlist. --MaplePorter 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply from User_talk:Rangeley

"The text violates NPOV. Whether Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism is a conplex and controversial issue which must be discussed, rather than presenting one opinion as fact."

You misunderstand what the War on Terrorism is. Its not a war, its not a wider conflict. Its a military campaign, ie a superop. Much like operations can contain subops, Operations themselves can be contained within a campaign. The War on Terrorism is one such campaign, and it is the official designation under which other operations have been carried out. It is not a POV that the Iraq War began under this campaign, the authorization of war specifically states that it was authorized to "prosecute the war on terrorism." ~Rangeley (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In a New York Times poll, a majority of Americans said the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terrorism."

Never cite majority opinion when determining what is factual. Most people do not think it is a war against terrorists, but this is a seperate issue of whether it is part of the campaign, which is indisputable. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the talk page poll that was taken, a consensus of users opposed including the disputed text in the infobox."

Have you read this? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the talk page discussions, a consensus of users opposes your re-insertion of the disputed text into the info"

Have you read this? A consensus isnt reached by a majority or a super majority, and your insistence that it is violates wikipedia rules. A consensus is reached through discussion and weighing arguments, the 4 you have given are either false on the basis that they violate the rules or false on the basis that they view the War on Terrorism as a war. Please participate in discussion with valid arguments. ~Rangeley (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the issue. When people are asked whether the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror, they typically answer within the context of the beleif that the War on Terrorism is a conflict, a literal war. This is a point of view, one which you or I could hold, one which George Bush even holds. He has called it the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." Whether you or I agree with him there is a matter of opinion which doesnt really go here. When someone, like the Democratic party, argues that it is not a part of the War on Terror, they do so in this context - that it is not a part of the ideological struggle, that its a civil war wholly seperate from the issue of terrorism, or that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, or any other issue that they might raise.

But this is not the context under which we are acting. Wikipedia has not classified the War on Terror as an ideological conflict, or a conflict period. It has classified it as a campaign, like the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, or other "War on's" which were launched by the United States. The question you have to ask yourself is not whether the Iraq War is a part of the conflict against terrorists, which is a POV, but instead whether the Iraq War was begun under the United States campaign. That is an emphatic yes.

You raised the 20 year point before, and I addressed it before. We arent using a crystal ball here and asking what people will see this as in 20 years, we are in the here and now. There is a campaign being led by the USA, and within this campaign was begun the Iraq War.

If you truly think I have made worthwhile edits here, I do tend to think that this point should be actually looked at. You really havent acknowledged the difference, every time I say this you state the same old line that a significant portion dont consider the Iraq War a part. You need to acknowledge that the context in which they state this is not the same context in which we state this. The article at the War on Terrorism speaks of a campaign, not a "decisive ideological struggle," not of a broad war on the scope of WW3. These are views which we have yet to adopt. Heres where the 20 years come in - maybe then we will consider it a war. But in the here and now, we do not.

I have read the 3 revert rule, and I have not exceeded it since perhaps May 2006 when I was far less experienced (or various times in the Israel-Lebanon conflict when there were tons of vandals.) I have been discussing this issue since April. I have done many other things within this time, but this has been raised by so many people and my lines have been said so many times that it is nearly effortless. What you have been saying is nothing new, it comes from a misunderstanding of context. Reading the WoT article in reality should be enough to make clear what we are talking about, but to give extra help I and others compromised in allowing a citation, quotes, the addition of "US," which all should make it easier for people. It is not a violation of NPOV to state, it is a violation the principles of Wikipedia to not state. This is an encyclopedia of verifiable information. This is what this is. And that is why it must be said. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think we could easilly make headway and see eye to eye. It begins with recognizing several points. The first is that I have never said that a crystal ball has any application here. Never. You have persistently thrown this in and then debated against it, wholly misrepresenting what I have said. I dont know what it will take to get it through your head, I have outright denied that what people think 20 years from now matters at all to this issue. Yet here you go again, and casually throw it in as if it was a point of mine. You can stop that. Its not helpful.

Second, I have to take a moment to admire some of your tactics. In making vague references to some of my points, it would make the casual onlooker assume that you are responding to my points. But in reality, you arent. You just take some of my words to make it look that way. For instance, what I said was that here at Wikipedia, we do not recognize the War on Terror to be a war, the article only sees it as a campaign. What you or I beleive, or what we beleive 20 years from now - or what Bush beleives about it being the decisive ideological struggle of the century - doesnt matter. What matters is what the Wikipedia article is. This is the context we operate under. The article describes it, as you know, having read the opening yourself, as "an ongoing campaign with the stated goal of 'ending international terrorism.'" Now what you have done is mention a few key words, like "context," and turned this into me personally deciding what the War on Terrorism is. Its like you cut out the core, took the shell, and then complained that the shell didnt taste good. Well ofcourse it wont, you left out the juicy part. In this case the juicy part is that the context we operate isnt mine or yours, its the context of Wikipedia. And again, this means that when we say War on Terrorism, we arent talking about an ideological struggle, we arent talking about WW3, we are talking about a campaign. Its the name of the campaign. Thats all we see it as.

And again, you have said that when 90% of people say X isnt part of Y, we cant say it is. This is false. Not only is the context incorrect, but majorities dont decide facts. Were you to ask people if the Iraq War is designated by the US military under the same campaign as the Afghanistan War, people would probably say it was, simply because this puts them into the same context that we are operating under. If you were to ask them if the Iraq War was a part of the same war as Afghanistan, most would say no. One doesnt have a definitive source which can claim it to be part, thats the issue of whether its part of the same war. Public opinion is the "author" of that, to an extent. We cannot say the the Iraq War is part of the same war as the Afghanistan war, its simply too controversial and too mixed in views. But get this, are you ready? We arent! Surprised? Because you should be, the way you have been talking to me. Your jaw should be hanging down to your knees in total awe at this statement. No? Didnt think so. This is the key breaking point that you dont seem to want to acknowledge. We are not saying its part of the same war. Thats not what we are saying. We are not saying its part of the same war. We are not classifying it as the same war. We have not taken the steps to state it as the same war. A consensus will not easilly arise deciding its the same war. We are not saying its part of the same war. Public oppinion is mixed whether its the same war. We cant say its part of the same war. We arent saying its part of the same war.

Now that thats out of the way, what are we saying, you might ask. What we are saying is that it is part of the US led campaign. This has an author which decides, and thats the US government. Its not public opinion. If the public is actually asked within the same context we are in, and 90% say that it is not part of the campaign, they are wrong. Why are they wrong? For the same reason that someone would be wrong for saying that Harry Potter book 6 is not part of the Harry Potter series because they dont like the book. Lets say the 6th book bombed, noone liked it, everyone disowns it and says they dont like it, it shouldnt have been written, its not part of the series. They might be right about the first two points, but as to whether its part of the series or not, that is decided by good ole JK Rowling, not public opinion. She is the creator of the series, she can put books in it. The United States is the creator of its campaign, it can add initiatives and operations to it as it wishes. Regardless of public opinion.

As to your veiled threats of an RFC, I havent reverted now have I. Stop harping about it and address the points. I dont care if 90% say something, I care whether they are right. This is your chance to prove them right, or admit they are wrong. Its up to you whether we can see eye to eye or not. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you have a point there, if the only sources we had were secondary sources such as Amazon.com or book stores and they classified it differently, we would not be able to use these as reliable sources. But if JK Rowling herself came out and said it was part, that would be that. Thats the situation we are in, even if we had multiple secondary sources stating various things about whether it was begun under a seperate campaign, which we dont, it would be cleared up by going straight to the source and straight to the authority on the issue. Even though we do not need them in this case as there is no confusion amongst sources as to whether it began under the campaign, we do indeed have the authority on record stating it as a part of the campaign. The authorization of war uses the language, the defense department website puts Iraq under its WoT section to show that it still is classified this way to this day. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, matters of description do not have an author monopoly on them. If that were true authors would just describe their books as #1 Bestsellers and must reads, and would all be trillionaires. But we arent talking about matters of description, we are talking about a relatively limited scope which the author does have a monopoly over. They can create a series, and they can put books in their series, as thats something they have total control over. The same could be said about a comic strip, like Peanuts. Some might say that the earlier Peanut's comics didnt look like the later ones so they cant be part of the series, but that would be incorrect. The early ones were still Peanut's comic strips as designated by Charles Shultz. He was only one that could determine what is and what is not part of the strip. He couldnt have said "this one is the best one" and have that be accepted as fact, as that isnt a matter that he has control over. He can have an opinion, but thats it.

If JK Rowling said that book 6 was part, which she has, that makes any source which states otherwise inherently unreliable, as she is the sole authority. Were she to call it a true story, this is an issue that she is not the authority on, as it has left the realm of control that an author or creator has.

If the US Government called this the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century," that is merely their opinion. This is a matter of description. What is not a matter of description is whether its part of a wider campaign. Just like an author with a series, the government is the creator of the campaign and it does have the ability to determine what is and what is not in it. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really see now as a timely point to cease discussion. You have more or less conceded that the Iraq War was authorized under the campaign, the disagreement which still exists seems to be that because reliable sources exist stating it to not be a part we cannot say it is. This is a problem that comes about when things are named a certain way. I will bring back another analogy which I may or may not have used in discussion with you. Lets say that there was a series called the "War on Christmas." In it there are various different books by various different people. One such book is released in this series, but all the reviewers say it is not part of the "War on Christmas" in the sense that it does not attack Christmas but defends it instead. This is the sticky situation we are in here, where there is a series, as well as a concept which carry the same name. Its true that it is part of the "War on Christmas" series, but its also true that most do not see it as part of the literal "War on Christmas." How we would handle this sticky situation, in an ideal world, would be to have two articles, one for the concept, one for the series. The books are definitely a part of the series, they are not necessarilly a part of the concept. We would state it as a part of the series, because this is verifiable. Even if 90% do not think it is part of the concept.

You said this is an issue I would have to take up with the pollsters, but I do not really see it this way. Common sense says that the poll would be dealing with the only area where people can have valid opinions and differing views, and it would not be dealing with the somewhat semantic issue of the series. Its not debatable which series it was released under, while it is debatable whether it fits under the broader concept, and therefore the poll most certainly was dealing with that aspect. If it was dealing with the other, it would be a rather silly poll where there is actually a wrong answer as its not an opinion question. Its a possibility, I just dont think its a big one, and even if it was the poll would not keep us from stating the truth.

In an ideal world, we would have two articles, one for the campaign WoT, one for the conflict. But I have floated this idea before and had it really get nowhere, with most opting out of the almost certain controversy it would create. Instead, I prefer working around these parameters, where things do have certainty, rather then attempting to deal with a conflict and all the uncertainty that would bring. But until one such article appears, the only article using the War on Terrorism namespace is the campaign, and therefore its where we link to when we state things to be a part of it. I would like to think that if we had (campaign) and (concept) in the names of the articles it would make things clear to people, but just from my experience here I know that there is no silver bullet which makes everyone happy. Thats why, again, I have come to see compromise as a necessity. In a world where everyone understands everything, stating it as a part of the campaign would not be problematic. But we dont live in a world like that, we live in a world where it needs to be adorned with extra things to help clarify. I am willing to accept these things and these compromises because they allow for added clarification without the removal of facts. This is what I have been working for for the greater part of a year. Ultimately it has put me against a great many people, as well as put me with a great many people. They havent really stuck around as long as me, the only person who remains from April is Csloat, who really hasnt presented an argument outside of "there is a consensus against it" since then. Some people have left, some have been banned for sockpuppeteering in removing it, some have been banned for sockpupeteering in replacing it. The reason I have stuck around through all of this is because I dont know that there are other people out there to make this case without becoming a "casualty" of the whole experience. I strongly beleive it to be important to state, because I strongly beleive that people need to understand the width and size of what America is doing with its allies under its campaign. Its not just freezing money assets, its not just fighting the Taliban, its all over the place. One needs to understand the entire scope of something before they actually have full knowledge of it. Maybe someone will look at its full scope and say, man, these guys are crazy for doing all that. Maybe they will look at it and decide its good afterall. There are millions of possible reactions, just like there are tons of reactions when you see the full scope of anything. Taken bit by bit, it might seem like Germany had isolated cases of antisemitism - taken together its a holocaust. Whatever peoples reactions to things, its important that their reaction is to the accurate picture of what happened, not to an inaccurate picture. The Iraq War was begun under this campaign, as was Afghanistan, as was action in Somalia, as was action in the Philippines, and as were many other things. They must be taken together because they are together. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, heres the thing. You keep telling me that there are reliable sources saying that the Iraq War is not part of the campaign, but I highly doubt this. This gets back to the very lengthy comment I made before this, where there is the concept, and there is the campaign. Its unlikely that anyone would say its not part of the campaign, and if they did they would be blatently wrong because the sole arbitrator of what is and is not in a campaign is its creator. The issue is not merely that the authorization mentioned it, its that the authorization authorized the war under the campaign - and therefore its part of the campaign.

I have never said noone understands my argument, its very easy to understand my argument, and further its very easy to understand what the War on Terror is according to Wikipedia. There have been many people who have even agreed with me, as unthinkable as that may sound to you. There have even been months at a time where the infobox remained largely untouched, with removals met with people enforcing the consensus. GTBacchus, an administrator even helped put together the consensus this summer, and found it to be reasonable.

I dont really care how many words it takes, if there are people confused, I am willing to talk to them. At this point, I could have said nothing at all on this issue, saved myself countless minutes or hours, and really there would be no difference - its not in the infobox currently, it wouldnt have been without me either. But I wouldnt take any of this time, or any of these words back because what you have said - that it was authorized under the War on Terrorism, makes it a part of the War on Terrorism. Its like the difference between saying "JK Rowling stated this as a part of the series" and "it is a part of the series." Her act of saying it is part of it makes it a part of it. By leaving it at merely her saying it, it makes it look as though its in oppinion when in reality it is fact, because she is the sole individual who can determine it. When she determines it, its a fact. When war was authorized under the WoT campaign, it became fact. Stating that they said this or that makes it seem as though its a debatable view when it is not.

To those who think I am not being truthful or whatever, this would be quite the charade indeed. I cant really prove to people what I am thinking, so all I can really say to that is look at what I am saying and ask yourself whether I am here saying its my way or the highway, or instead justifying at every turn and presenting a line of reasoning in attempt to explain, and indeed convince people who do not agree with me. In the lack of the existence of a simple way of stating the fact, I have no problem working with people, even when it takes several thousand words to do. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, when the author says its a part, its a part, and it belongs in the "part of" section. The article doesnt talk about the concept, the article talks about the campaign, as you have certainly read. I offered up the suggestion of having two articles, one on the concept, and one on the campaign, as at this moment we have none on the concept. The Iraq War is a part of the same campaign as Afghanistan in the same sense that money sent to France post ww2 is under the same campaign - the Marshall Plan, as money sent to the UK was. You might not see it as important to state them as part of the same thing, but as they are true, I see it as an inherently necessary task. The Iraq War, Afghan war, and stuff in other places are under the campaign, thus they must be stated as so. If it takes a move to War on Terrorism (campaign) then so be it. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very dissappointed with you. When you contacted the various people who had disagreed with me in the past, but not others, via talk pages in attempt to "stack" discussion against me I had an inkling that you didnt want to see eye to eye, but now that you have dropped all pretenses and dont even bother addressing anything I say, its good to see what this has boiled down to. Whats wrong with splitting articles and even adding "campaign" in? Anything? If not, dont just go away and pretend that you didnt just waste my time on a useless discussion, you are going to end what you began and come to a conclusion besides that of another veiled threat aimed at me. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current article would merely be moved to the new location. And as it stands, the current article does deal with the entire campaign, not just the military aspects. The move would be carried out because people such as yourself show great difficulty in reading past the title. The average person reads the article when they dont know right away what something is when they see the title. Its what I do, and I really do think its what anyone acting to acquire further knowledge does. But this step isnt for the average Joe, its for the people who are so opposed to seeing that the Iraq War can be a part of anything which carries the name "WoT" that they will remove it on sight, regardless of what this thing is. They dont care to read what the WoT is that we are talking about. I honestly dont know that you care what its about anymore, you only care about the name - and think that if something is named that, it doesnt matter what it is, the Iraq War cannot be a part of it.

Thats all that this has boiled down to, and this is why we do not see eye to eye. I look past the name and realize that what we are saying it is a part of, is something it truly is a part of. These concessions, such as adding (campaign) to the name, are concessions that would remove any possibility of a good faith opposition. I can understand the view some might think it was the concept. Thats why we state it, even in the title, explicitly as being the campaign. If we explicitly state it as a campaign in the article, and in the title, noone can honestly claim it to be wrong to state the Iraq War as a part of it, being that its verifiable. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest post shows your elaborate inability, and perhaps unwillingness to read the many instances to which I have outright denied parts of what you claim to be my argument. Are my responses too long, too short? Does the message get lost? I dont know how I can talk to you, I even tried repeating in about 7 different ways that the "WoT" is not a war.

For one, lets go with your argument, shall we. You are saying that if 90% of people say X is not part of Y, we cannot say that X is part of Y. In creating a working formula, in the math world or otherwise, we have to test it - plug in values. Lets do that. If 90% of people say that the (sun) is part of the {earth's orbital neighborhood), does it now become fact that the sun orbits the earth? Nope. People can be wrong, majorities can be wrong. The publics view is important sometimes, but in deciding facts your little formula doesnt work.

For two, your formula hits another roadblock because the way you are using it, it is moreso "If 90% of people say X is not a part of Y, anything which also carries the name Y cannot encompass X." Its like the distributive theory on crack. Or a really bad dating situation. Lets say there are two boys named James, and a girl named Margot. Margot had been dating James 1 for a week, but they broke up after creative differences. She declares defiantly, she will never date James again. Does this mean that she will never date James 2, because his name is also James afterall. Or any other James, the James 3, 4, 5's in this world? Herein lies the impreciseness of this world, different things can have the same name, but get this, still be different.

Your formula is even more incorrect before, because multiple things have carried the name "WoT" and they were not all the same thing. For simplicity sake, your mathmatical formula comes down to Y = (1,2) X=/=1, therefore X=/=Y, therefore X=/=2. Or, 90% of people say that its not part of something which carries the name "WoT," therefore it cannot be part of anything which carries the name "WoT," therefore it cannot be a part of a campaign called the "WoT." As you should know in math, you cant try one variable and know that all others are wrong. Therefore your argument is wrong on both the factual basis, and the mathematical basis. We have to take a look at 2, which in this case is the campaign. Can popular opinion determine what is and is not part of a campaign? Nope. (You said you have reliable sources saying it wasnt part of the campaign, I asked you before, produce them now.)

And here we get back to you saying I cannot choose the context. And here we have me saying "I wasnt, infact I outright denied I could choose the context." Now that this is out of the way, I can say the next line, "when we say that it is part of the War on Terror, the context depends entirely on what we have at the namespace of what I just linked to." Thats the context of Wikipedia. The article, which I have in good faith assumed you have checked out, clearly states it to be a campaign - not solely a military one, it does include other initiatives. It also doesnt say it to be a war, because we have not here at Wikipedia decided that a war even exists. All we have decided is that the USA has launched the WoT and a great many things under it. When saying something is a part of another thing, it depends entirely on what that other thing is, not what that other thing is named. In this case that other thing is a campaign, which we have documentation stating the first thing to have begun under. No amount of public opinion matters when we have this authoritative information.

As to the possible rename, I see your objection as just for the sake of objecting. A campaign doesnt have to be solely military, it can involve various elements. It would make it clear that we are not talking about the war or the concept, is this really something you dont want? ~Rangeley (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you concede that polls do not matter - sources do. This is a step forward. Now show that 90% of sources are infact saying that it is not a part of the campaign. Or really, show one. I have shown you the direct language of the authorization, I have told you to look at the defense department website where it puts Iraq under its War on Terrorism section. Do you actually have something that trumps this? Are you implying that the authorization's language was edited after the fact to state it was authorized to prosecute the campaign? Because this needs a source. You need to provide sources which would back this claim should you wish to make it.

If not, what is your objection? Its a clear cut issue, a campaign is definable by its maker, the maker defined it in a certain way, all the sources I have found carry identical language. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no reliable source which carries a copy of the resolution which differs from the one I provided, and you provided no reliable source which makes the claim that the authorization was edited after the fact to make it look as though it was authorized under the campaign.

Again, a campaign is not a war, nor is it a neutral set of wars to be determined by public opinion. A campaign is an initiative, a series of actions if you will, which in this case is being carried out by the USA and its willing allies. It is comprised both of military actions, and of domestic actions, such as freezing assets. This isnt just my opinion of it, this is right from the War on Terrorism article.

Lets say Nancy Pelosi really was saying that the Iraq War wasnt a part of the campaign, and that she really is talking about the same thing which carries the name as we are. This in itself is not a reliable source, just because she is well known does not make her word carry as much weight as an official authorization. Bush stating it is part of the War on Terrorism, were he to be talking about the campaign, does not carry weight on itself either. If any other well known person came on and said it was not - even if they were talking about the same thing as us - it would not carry as much weight. They need to say why, make a claim. If Nancy Pelosi came on and said it is not a part of the War on Terrorism because the language of the authorization did not do so under the umbrella of the initiative known as the "WoT," that is getting into the realm of a source we could use. We could state that some dispute the claim, were a dispute to exist. But you have yet to provide a single source which shows any sort of dispute exists over the language of the authorization. The only source we have is that of the authorization, from multiple sites, with identical language on each. They all authorize it under the War on Terrorism.

There is not a dispute over this, and you can either play cute and try to pre-empt what I will say, or you can provide a response that addresses what I have actually said. I will ask you a fourth time, provide sources which show a dispute exists over the language. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, you have moved on from cuteness to sarcasm. Do not fall into the linguistic trap which I outlined above. Different things can carry the same name, and still be different. This is why I suggested that there be two articles, one on the "war," "conflict," or what have you, the other on the campaign. In its most simple sense, this question is not whether the Iraq War is part of the same war as Afghanistan, but whether the United States government carried out these actions under the same program as they did with Afghanistan. Its the difference between whether the arrest of 5 men will help to lower drug use, and whether they were arrested under a police program which is aiming to target drug dealers. There is a literal "war on drugs," which things become a part if the actions are actually fighting drug use, and then there is the program called the "war on drugs," under which legislation, arrests, and etc are included. Nancy Pelosi could come out and say that the arrest of these people does not fight drugs and is not a part of the war on drugs, and this is a valid view which applies to the literal "war on drugs." She could dispute whether it was part of the program, and accuse the police of acting outside of their orders in arresting them. This would be relevent to the program, and whether or not they were arrested under it. Were this case to be a big one, worthy of an article, we would have no problem stating it to be done under, lets say, the San Fran PD's "War on Drugs" program, should the only objections be that it does not lower drug use. We would note Nancy Pelosi argued that the police's actions were counterproductive to the stated goals of the program, and that she does not beleive it will help curtail drug use. We would even note she does not think that the actions are a part of the wider war on drugs. But this is all seperate to whether it was done under the program. In order for this to be disputed, she would have to bring into question, again, whether the actions were actually within the program. If she did, we would note the dispute. Should official documents arise showing it to be really a part of the program, chances are she would drop her claim, and even if not, chances are we would go with the official source over her personal opinion.

The situation we have here is similar in some ways. We have a literal war on terrorism, in which actions literally strike terrorist networks, lower terrorist threats, and do things one would assume would be included in a war against terrorists. This, like the literal war on drugs, is a subjective sort of thing. There isnt a consensus on it at this point. Were Nancy Pelosi to state she does not think that the Iraq War is part of the War on Terror because its a civil war, this is dealing with the literal war. We can note she disputes that the war is actually fighting terrorism, that it is acheiving any of our stated goals, and even go so far as to say its helping terrorists by providing them with a tangible threat upon which to rally people to their cause. And we would note all of this. But whether it is part of the program, named the "War on Terrorism," is another issue entirely. She could accuse the government of carrying it out outside of the campaign, in the same sense police act outside of their program. But she hasnt. She could say that she doesnt beleive it was authorized under the campaign. But she hasnt. She has not made these claims, and no source you have provided shows anyone making these claims. These are the claims which are relevent to whether it is a part of the program. Unless you can back your claims, you have no basis upon which you are arguing. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting controversy and conflict

I've started a new article called Scouting controversy and conflict. Its scope is all of Scouting (not just the BSA). --Jagz 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing Loremaster

Someone with as many edits as you have should enable email.---Alecmconroy 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I have enabled email. PS. You should check out the Ebionites/wip page. --Loremaster 07:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]