User talk:FaithF/archive1

Biblical Inspiration

I couldn't find a tag for {{extreme bias}}. See the intro

Biblical inspiration is the doctrine in Christian theology concerned with the divine origin of the Bible and what the Bible teaches about itself.

"Biblical" refers to, in the first instance, the Hebrew Bible, and yet, although the concept is derived from it, the origin is not acknowledged at all! In fact its the Divine Inspiration derived from Ruach HaKodesh in Hebrew, instead there is

the Greek word θεοπνευστος (theopneustos, literally, "God-breathed")

And

Those Christians who receive the Bible as authoritative generally think that the Bible is "breathed out by God"

However, it was not "breathed out" to Greeks, but translated by Jewish rabbis! Remember the Septuagint?

The entire article is quite simply anti-Semitic by virtual denial that Jews ever existed or that Christianity is derived from Judaism, but I have not had the time to refer it for review.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC) PS. pnein may mean "breath out" in Greek, but in Hebrew Peh Neen means "say to children". Kind of makes more sense in the Biblical context, what with God calling Israel His children all the time.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring and 3rr

My dear Faith, it's you who are doing the edit warring. The usual practice, when making an edit that's potentially controversial, is to try it out on the talk page first. You didn't do this. Even when I (very politely) told you that your proposal was controversial and you should discuss with other users, you persisted. I think dispute resolution is now the only option open. This is unfortunate of course, but you seem to be unable to refrain from imposing your views. Feel free to pick your own choice of admins to take it to. In the meantime, I'm reverting the article to the original wording, which is the normal way these things are done. PiCo (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(as I will post on PiCo's talk:) You never said the edit was "potentially controversial", as evidenced by the multiple times you stated it says "exactly the same thing" (only complaining about the verbosity): "says exactly what yours says, but less verbosely", "you're taking a lot more words to say exactly what was there already", "The two sentences actually say exactly the same thing"..." why, if the two sentences are saying the same thing". I disagree they say the same thing, and I did place the reasoning on talk; you simply chose to ignore it was there. Your fourth revert is a violation of 3RR, which has led to the unfortunate need to report the violation. Faith (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comments

See my talk page for reply. Marcus22 (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Ditto. Marcus22 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Edit-warring applies whether you're "right" or "wrong". Please stop. Enigma ^message 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Conversation from Enigmaman's talk: Also, warning the other user when you're directly involved in the dispute, was rather inappropriate. Please explain to me how it's 'inappropriate' when the 3RR noticeboard page states, "If you find yourself in a revert war, you should ensure that the "other side" is aware of the three-revert rule, especially if they are new, by leaving a warning about the rule on their talk page..."? Add that to the mandatory warning notice on the template for reporting the 3RR, and it appeared my warning of the disruptive editor was mandatory, regardless of my participation on the article. --Faith 21:33, 8 May 2008 // Edit-warring either way. You get the gist. --Enigmaman 01:45, 9 May 2008 // I don't know why you archived an active conversation, but I am replacing it so I can reply here rather than in your archive. Again, I'm kindly requesting you please explain, so if it's a mistake I won't make it again, how it's 'inappropriate' when the 3RR noticeboard page states to follow that method? --Faith 06:52, 9 May 2008 // I wasn't aware the noticeboard said that. Apparently, I was wrong. I'll redact that portion of the warning. --Enigmaman 06:59, 9 May 2008 // No worries, then. I'm glad I wasn't mistaken. --Faith 08:27, 9 May 2008)

Regardless of whatever has happened, you, FaithF, still edit warred on the Documentary hypothesis article. Please consider WP:1RR in the future. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(replied: The problem is PiCo kept reverting, saying my edit was saying exactly the same thing, when it wasn't. So now, no action has been taken, he or she hasn't responded again to talk because he/she reverted it again for the fourth time to retain his/her preferred version (which means it still contains the unsourced error). Faith (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Just noting that as an impartial third party, I believe both users in this incident were striving hard to conform to Wiki policy and deserve credit for that. Resolution was rapid. In my opinion the 3rr warning is regretable. At times, Wiki is a more difficult medium to work in than one might expect. I guess there's nothing new in saying that. Best regards to everyone. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Touch

Liked your rewording of the section in talk -- a very nice touch. All the best for you at Wiki! Alastair Haines (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Faith :)

Hope I was of some help. Your antagonist seems to have vanished. As far as I can tell, you succeeded in establishing your case before I arrived to make things more complicated, lol. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes! Now, who was it that said, Of the making of books there is no end and Much study wearies the body? ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internal consistency

Hi, wish I could help but this is not really my field of expertise. I won't mind cleaning up other aspects of the article though. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice quote from Luther, Faith. :D

Also really nice to see the team-work thing happening -- PiCo's great text, your great referencing! Woohoo!

Love your work. God bless. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YB

Hi, just letting you know that I clarified some issues on Talk:Ypatingasis_būrys#RfC_comments. I hope it helps, M.K. (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballistics

Hi faith. I'm sincerely sorry if I hurt your feelings in any way. It wasn't intended - just my way with words. I do recognise your sincerity, and your commitment to wiki, and look forward to working together on any articles where we meet. PiCo (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

I'm going to take some distance from the BLP page. I thought I was asking some simple questions, and I'd get an answer in maybe an hour posting on the BLP talk page.

This morning, someone at NTWW chat decided to try and ask the same questions (in a quiet and neutral environment), and he got into exactly the same fix I did. Right down to exclamations of "No hey, wait up, no wait, I didn't mean that, I meant...". Because it was in a safe small group, the effect was actually quite fun to listen to.

At the same time, it does show that there's something really odd going on with those questions, and/or with the approach I used.

So I'm going to take a break and evaluate what happened. Thank you very much for your time. Please feel free to leave me a message anytime. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind replies.

I was limited to anecdotal evidence and admit to having been caught somewhat off-guard by your requests for statistics of a kind and quality that is currently not available to the wikipedia decision making process. Well, I did ask for it, didn't I?

Statistics haven't often been used in the wikipedia decision making processes, in part perhaps due to lack of ready availability. That's something that's certainly worth exploring further.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<grin> Actually, statistics has never been a requirement for editing policy before. I thought it'd be nice to introduce some actual rudimentary empirical data-gathering at least, (and I had enough data to cover me that far). Well... we know how that came off, %-)

Currently wikipedia isn't very strong in the statistics department, so it might be some time before folks can reliably use that approach. So I guess it's back to quick thinking, intuition, and rather more snappy application of BRD (only talk with a reverter ) for now. But I'm taking a break first. Nice talking with you! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Arbcom members only act as Arbcom when they are actually acting in the committee. Outside that they have their normal wikipedian duties. Note that Bobvlb and Uninvitedcompany have roughly the same "seniority" for whatever that's worth (they differ by only 6 months). In short, no appeals to authority here. (see also below, where you just told off an admin for basically the same thing? ;-)). --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I misread what you were saying. Changing policy is typically outside the remit of the arbcom, so it didn't occur to me that that might be what you meant. (unless I missed something and they tried to do it here...) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

It appears you have been warned before. I was going to write this off as a newbie mistake, since you have only been here for 15 days. However, I've noticed similar mentions on your talk page, so I wanted to leave you a note concerning edit warring. Have you had a chance to read WP:BRD? It is fine to make bold edits. However, if an editor, in good faith, reverts your bold edit (i.e. your new material is controversial or disputed, and thereby lacks consensus for inclusion) it is NEVER appropriate to re-insert the new material. What you need to do is instead go make a concrete proposal on the talk page making your case for inclusion, and then wait and discuss to see where the community consensus goes. On wikipedia, we all work together as a community. If one editor is trying to force their way by edit warning, it creates a hostile environment. When you re-inserted disputed new content that I removed, you began the steps of disruptive editing. I urge you to reconsider your editing tactics in the future. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(replied on Andrew's talk: "Thank you for your kind warning. However, if you are following BRD, then note the R, in that you have been reverted. I noticed you have followed D in BRD, and I've responded in kind. Your bold removal has been reverted for the reasons listed on talk. (Clarify, please note I refer to you making the bold move since your removal came after previous discussion related to this matter further up the talk page; Wallace information replaced a different quote objected to by two editors. Therefore, your warning was unwarranted as you walked in and changed an end result of a discussion, then warned me for reverting your BRD changes.).") Faith (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are (kindly) mistaken in your belief that re-inserting disputed material is justified. Edit warring is never justified and is always disruptive. You don't revert reverts. That's just the way it goes. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

("You did not "revert"; you removed text you disagreed with. There is a big difference, sorry. The text existed as the result of a discussion you didn't participate in, so it was your bold move to take it out, which was reverted once and discussion was responded to with reasons for the revert. Thank you." --Faith (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You are also mistaken about "end result" and talk page consensus. An editor voiced an opinion that we shouldn't cite "fringe" sources like Daryl Wingerd. In an attempt to address this concern, instead of discussing further or making a proposal on the talk page, YOU ARE THE ONE who made a bold edit, by boldly changing Wingerd to Wallace. There was no prior talk page discussion for that specific change. Sure you were trying to address concerns, boldly. And I found that the content was problematic, so I reverted (and discussed). Anyway, this is not going to be fruitful going in circles like this. I'll continue discussing article content on the article's talk page. I hope you learn from this "warning". If you add content, and another editor removes it, don't put it back in the article without a fuller discussion.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

("::I'm sorry, but this is my final reply to you on this subject. You did not participate in any discussion regarding any sort of addition or removal of that part of the article until you removed the text that was already in place. I performed a Wikipedia:1RR#One-revert_rule of that removal, a single revert to your bold removal of the text. Therefore, you did B, I did R, and we are both doing D on the talk page. Now, further discussion on the talk page is not only acceptable, it's necessary and I'll be happy to discuss further the changes you propose to the article. However, I don't appreciate the false warning, and continued debate, so any further discussion on that matter will have to involve an administrator. Thank you --Faith (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)")[reply]

You mean an admin other than me :) I'm totally open to self examination or external criticism. Call another admin if you want. I said I wasn't going to argue in circles with you, and I'm not going to.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

("Yes, exactly; as you are involved in the situation, your admin title has no bearing as you are acting as just another editor in this particular situation. You could hardly pass censure against yourself, unless you are into self-flagellation, which presents far worse concerns than need to be addressed here :) I think you simply misunderstood and misrepresented the situation; discussion is revealing we are basically on the same page, or can at least meet in the middle. --Faith (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)")[reply]

Tone

I really don't understand your tone. It seems harsh. Why couldn't this have been discussed dispassionately? I was sincere. I questioned some of your comments because to me they weren't obvious applications of policy. I asked for a clear consensus because you were really the only one who had been clear, and I felt it was important enough to hear from others after I'd made my comments, especially since DGG was ambivalent and Hiding didn't really explain. TimidGuy (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responded: I don't know why you assume my tone is/was harsh, but I respectfully suggest you are reading your own frustrations into my words because you have become emotionally involved with adding some positive spin to the article. I have no involvement in the subject at all, except as a responder to the BLP concern on the noticeboard, and as such, have no emotional attachment to either side of the disagreement. I'm simply replying with reasons why your suggested inclusions violate BLP. --Faith (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Seemed harsh to me, such as the excessive markup. I'm not feeling frustrated. Just trying to write a good encyclopedia and follow the policies -- and clearly understand whether and why this is a BLP violation. I do wish you would have given someone else a chance to respond. The thread has gone on so long now it's unlikely anyone will. Anyway, I do appreciate your input, and as I said, I'm inclined to agree with you. TimidGuy (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responded: Perhaps frustrated was the incorrect word, but an emotional attachment to the subject seems obvious by the responses. For example, you responded multiple times on the BLP/N, then dismissively stated "Orlady is a party to the dispute". I'd respectfully point out that you are also a party to the dispute. Again, my tone was not harsh; I can't help that you read something into it that just isn't there. As for the multiple responses, please note that I did not intend to answer again, yet you kept questioning me by name, and I thought it rude to not respond. If you do not want multiple replies, perhaps not responding/justifying/questioning is the way to go, as you would have gotten a single comment from me, and then comments from others, possibly. Best, --Faith (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Science and the Bible

You really need to stop trying to spin the article into suggesting the "Bible" is "teaching" anything about cosmology. This is about the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), not "the Bible", whatever that is precisely, and your insinuations that the matter "has been addressed" (by a 1907 apology of Biblical literalism) is disingenious. By your own admission, you do not believe that the "Bible is teaching cosmology" any more than Dickens is. The fact of the matter is that a flat Earth cosmology was the default in the Iron Age Levant. If you want to present good sources to the contrary, you may do so at History of astronomy and/or Babylonian astronomy. Yes, a spherical Earth was widely assumed following Aristotle, some 300 or 400 years after the compilation of the Pentateuch and Isaiah. dab (𒁳) 06:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, one can not just accept one and only fact of the matter is that a flat Earth cosmology was the default in the Iron Age Levant, as there could be sources that dispute this fact. As long as WP:RS are used, you should stop calling anything that does not fit in the set pre-disposition as a WP:FRINGE. It is disingenuous in my view and judgmental. Wikidās -ॐ 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a literalist interpretation fringe?

No. It is just an interpretation. Unfortunately, when dealing with subjects of science in the bible, if you don't take a literalist interpretation then there is nothing to discuss. A case could be made for deleting the article wholesale for this reason. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(cross posted to User talk:ScienceApologist)

From time to time, users come on to Wikipedia after hearing a sermon from their pastor on why their particular church doesn't believe in a "literal reading" of the Bible but rather in a "plain reading" of the Bible. These people object to the term biblical literalism and instead prefer biblical inerrancy. Their argument is that when someone in the Bible says "Wash me and I will be whiter than snow" nobody believes that they will literally be whiter than snow. However, this is just a strawman. A "literal interpretation" is synonymous with a "inerrant interpretation" for all intents and purposes. Generally, an inerrancy position means taking a lot of the Bible for which we have contradictory evidence to be fact in spite of the contradiction. Always giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt is another way to put it. For example, it is known that Herod was not ruling at the same time as Quirinius was governor of Syria. Most Historians say that Luke was just in error. Most biblical literalists (or inerrants) say that the Word of God can contain no error, therefore it is the historians who are wrong. This is how you can tell when someone is a literalist/inerrant. So, I'll ask you, Faith, was Luke right in anchoring Quirinius as governor of Syria at the same time Herod was in power? If you say no, then you are probably as you claim to be, not someone who takes the Bible literally. If you say yes then it looks like you may have been engaging in obfuscation with regards to our discussions and in fact do take much of the Bible literally (though I'll grant you don't take the poetic metaphors literally -- no one does). ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra and Nehemiah

Thanks for this well sourced and flowing prose.

There is a fundamental difficulty with Wikipedia being neutral in issues like this.

Apparant discrepancies exist in a number of places in the Bible. That is, the plain or literal meanings appear at face value to be out of step. Some cases are more profound than others, but in all cases, the discrepencies are much easier to perceive than to resolve.

The problem arises because of two main factors. Firstly, editors are volunteers with differing ideological commitments and levels of patience. The second arises because some readers can be reasonably supposed to be like editors who think they are already being generous to the Bible to even consider its consistency, which is something none of us really expect of ancient literature unless we have a prior commitment to divine inspiration.

Such people will occasionally say, but probably more often think, "You say the Bible is perfect. OK, we've heard you and take you seriously. But here's a short, sweet, counterexample from your own literature." As far as they are concerned, religious people started the discussion by making an extraordinary claim, short enough and sweet enough to be understood and considered. The thing is, though, many are not really interested in the topic beyond a very short discussion, and the longer an explanation resolving a discrepency, the more it looks tenuous -- too many additional sources and arguments are adduced, any of which could be wrong, and their reliability is hard for ordinary people to assess.

In fact, this issue of human impatience is one of the reasons doctrines like inerrancy are widely cited even to believers. Believers too often want something simple. The difference is only that believers are willing to trust discrepencies have resolutions.

I think it is absolutely essential that Wiki document scholarship that resolves discrepencies, it is plainly biased if it doesn't. However, I think we need to be sensitive to the nature of the encyclopedic medium. Ezra-Nehemiah takes half a screen to resolve, and would take about two screens or more to cover more thoroughly. In other words, it deserves its own article, and, by definition, those who arrive at it are there to think through the details.

I will protect your work as best I can, those willing to write up apologetic scholarship fairly are few and far between. Wiki needs contributors like you. (You source and write quality contributions.) I'm writing to thank and encourage you. Also, though, I wanted to explain my own strategy, which is very long term. I usually pester away reminding people that there is a very considerable Christian literature of scholastic, not simply evangelistic style, and that Wiki needs to allow space for it.

Very frequently, what this comes down to is seeking to ensure articles do not make conclusions contrary to Christian scholarship, while rarely arguing that conclusions line up with it. Hypothetically, were they to comprehensively cover it, and have better sources that refute it, conclusions contrary to Christianity would be legitimately NPOV. For example, if Christians argue that many miracles could be explained scientifically, and others could be if we only had more science, I think it is quite reasonable to quote Christian as well as other sources that suggest this is an unreasonable position. Virgins don't have baby boys and crucified people do not come back from the dead after 24 hours in a tomb. Not every opinion Christians hold in defence of their faith actually consitutes a good argument. (As I'm sure you know.) It is actually helpful for Christians to base their faith on good arguments rather than bad ones, and unbelievers are often helpful in this.

The bottom line is that immense patience is required, especially at Wiki. However, Wiki does allow quality sources to be written up. Eventually, quality Christian sources will stand on Wiki pages, it's just a matter of time, and the willingness of Christians to put time into negotiating them into place.

When I lose patience (and I reasonably frequently do, I'm afraid), I tend to work on new articles that help other debates, and don't require much negotiation. List of New Testament papyri was something I started, because it's uncontroversially sourced (we can even link to photographs of many ancient manuscripts), and helps people realise things about Christians they often didn't know -- like the fact that they actually do have good reason to believe they have text extremely close to the original documents.

When starting new articles, the only really important thing is demonstrating that there are sufficient scholastic sources that reliable content can be extracted without original research "filling gaps".

It's great to have you around, your boldness is particularly important, your diplomacy is also important. Your text is outstanding. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good comments from you Faith, thanks. To be quite honest I think setting yourself a project of writing up Post exilic census would be a great idea. The name could be changed by moving the article at any time. It would serve both the current article, and Ezra, and Nehemiah, and a few other articles I can think of.

You are right on the money, sometimes a lake of ink is spilled on a topic because it needs that lake. Postage stamp treatments simply cannot be neutral on some topics. The Census of Quirinius has an article of its own, there's a mandate for similar treatment of the Census of Ezra-Nehemiah. ;)

Start the article with existing material, draw on Book of Ezra and Book of Nehemiah, and use the See also sections of those articles to give yourself four or more citations right from the word go. ;)

I'll back you with notability and being encyclopedic etc. if needed (so would many others). Ultimately, Wiki should probably have articles on almost every Bible chapter. Imagine that, a Wiki bible commentary, lol, it couldn't compete with cutting edge resources, but if well done, it could be a unique resource. A free Bible commentary available all around the world.

I wouldn't remove the existing text, just copy it. Once you're happy with your article, the link can go in place. My first article took me a month to write, a little bit at a time. I just wrote one (Popper and After) over a weekend. I need to go back to it sometime, but it'll do for now.

I start with gathering online resources, then draft a framework, then check the best resources at theological or university libraries if necessary.

Don't wear yourself out, but if you're up to it, go for it. It's very rewarding. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dez Skinn

Could you do me a favor and run through this article for me. I've tagged it up, but the problem is I know a lot about Skinn and am probably a little too close to be completely impartial. For instance, I know some of the material is true, but am not sure how relevant or sourcable it is. I'd rather have someone neutral take it apart, and then I can work out how to put it back together. For example, the stuff from The Comics Journal I can verify, I have the issue in question, but the stuff regarding Marvelman likewise I know to be likely, but I no longer have issues of Warrior where it was likely recorded to check we have it balance right. Appreciate any time you can find. Hiding T 10:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of copies of Warrior to hand if need be. I agree this needs hacking back - in particular there is a lot of commented out material that needs to go, along with more... gossipy and unsourced claims. (Emperor (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Considering how much of the article is uncited, I'd be more than tempted to cut it back to barebones. My problem is I know nothing about the person. Is it common knowledge, for example, when he was born, where he first started work, etc.? Bio's should be heavily cited to RS, and should never include statements like the first part of the controversy section about "alleged on gossip websites". Gossip websites are never RS. I'll remove those bits, but still more needs to be removed asap, IMO. --Faith (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I removed the entire controversy section, as the cited bits needed the uncited bits to make any sort of sense, but the uncited bits had to go immediately as uncited and gossip. I left a talk page comment to this effect, and will leave it to more informed editors to clean up the rest of the mess after those BLP concerns have been removed. --Faith (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hack it back when I can. Not much of the bio can be well sourced to be honest. While I've got you, I'm running into trouble at Pat Lee again. Would you care to take a look? Hiding T 23:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, commented. The lack of respectful dialogue there is distressing. When this issue is resolved, someone should really archive the talk page for BLP reasons. --Faith (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Blue

FYI, BenBurch also seems to have added a redirect from Wendi_Sullivan_Blue to Violet Blue (author). KathrynA (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will need an admin, I think, to delete that. I marked it for speedy delete. --Faith (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W. Davis

I would point out that the Village Voice Media blog source is written by Tony Ortega, the same person that writes for The Village Voice itself, and that the source is posted on the same website at which The Village Voice is published. This should be considered a WP:RS, and it certainly satisfies WP:V. Please consider restoring the information sourced to this source Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ortega is also editor-in-chief of The Village Voice:

Press Release, Village Voice Media (March 5, 2007). "Tony Ortega Named Village Voice Editor-in-Chief". The Village Voice. {{cite web}}: Check |first= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

Cirt (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from talk page: BLP/N response:The Village Voice is a tabloid, not a newspaper, from what I can see, and the material came from a tabloid blog. As such, it's my opinion that it's no more than gossip and needs to remain out of the article. I'm not an interested party to either side, but IMO that's not a RS and it's a BLPvio (WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid"). The rest you'll have to come to consensus on, as it's all cited to respectable newspapers, as far as I could see. --Faith (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Reply to FaithF: - Respectfully, there is zero source provided, so far as I can see, to show that The Village Voice is anything other than a respectable newspaper. Unless you can provide a third-party source for your assessment of "tabloid" ? And as for Tony Ortega, he is a Livingston Award and Eugene S. Pulliam Award finalist, and is a recipient of the Virg Hill Arizona Journalist of the Year Award, the Los Angeles Press Club Award for best news story, the 2002 Unity Award and the 2005 Association of Alternative Newsweeklies award for best column. This source is most certainly WP:RS. Respectfully request that you please reconsider your assessment of The Village Voice and Village Voice Media. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox on The Village Voice, before your edit, stated it's a tabloid. Revert that edit back to consensus format, and this is my last reply on this subject as I've given my opinion from BLP/N and do not intend to continue arguing the matter. --Faith (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where was consensus established? Wikipedia in and of itself is not the best source for determining whether or not something is considered a "tabloid", or in fact an award-winning and highly respectable media publication. Did you see the sources I have provided at WP:BLPN? Did you see that I provided sourced info that The Village Voice has been recognized with multiple highly prestigious awards including (3) Pulitzer Prize awards and the George Polk Award? I respectfully ask you again to reconsider your opinion that The Village Voice is a tabloid. On the one hand, we have the infobox of a Wikipedia article prior to my edit, and on the other hand we have a mountain of highly prestigious journalism awards from multiple different institutions. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least take a moment to review the sources I have provided re: the awards received by The Village Voice, and please undo your edit to that article. This media publication is most certainly not a tabloid. Thank you for taking the time to consider this. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bringing this to my talk page. The VV calls itself a tabloid, and has won awards for being a tabloid (http://www.villagevoicemedia.com/awards/view/2008/950). Your changes are not acceptable. --Faith (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but that refers to the word "tabloid" in reference to the style of format of the printed version of the media, no? I am sure that it does not refer to the quality of the journalism represented in the publication itself, or else The Village Voice would not have that on its website. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my talk page is not the place to make these arguments. They belong on the talk page of the relevant article. Thank you. --Faith (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susana A. Herrera Quezada (2nd nomination)

Faith, Maybe it would be better to discuss this issue here... I would really like to know on which grounds do you say that this architect is a well-known one, or that her work is notable, apart from reading what she puts in her article. I reviewed her work, her webpage, and her work is not relevant. The publications she cites are not high-impact reviews, but ones oriented mainly to non-architectural audiences. This is my field (architecture critique) and I can tell you that this is nothing more than a personal auto-promotion. Trust me. maxat (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not the appropriate place to discuss this; that is what the AFD page is for. --Faith (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Renouf

The MoS states "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics." What do you find confusing? Lady is a title (permitted), an example of an honourific is The Hon., The Rt. Hon., &c. These are not used in opening paragraphs, Lady, however, is. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

As you can see from Wikipedia:Talk page, in bold letters: Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Furthermore, you can see from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments that "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" is an acceptable practice. You can view the history of many high profile articles, like Talk:Evolution to see many examples of this (such as [2] and [3]). It is fairly common for new users to come along and find a talk page and spout off their opinion on the topic. And it is equally as common for other users to remove such unproductive comments from talk pages. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and users have the ability to regulate that be removing inappropriate posts from talk pages. Therefore, I disagree that all comments need to be archived instead of deleted. I hope you see my side! Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. --Faith (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]