User talk:Jaimehy

Welcome!

Hello, Jaimehy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Hi Jaimehy, you've probably got the hang of most of the above, but it is traditional to welcome new users with this information.

Anyway, thanks for commenting at the GAR for Opus Dei. As you will have seen, I agree with your position, but we have to give other reviewers the chance to respond to my arguments to see if there is consensus for delisting the article. I appreciate your impatience with such a blatant breach of neutral point of view. It may be some reassurance to you to know that the GA process is not intended as an endorsement of the article (for readers), but a mechanism for editors to monitor article quality and facilitate article improvement. Indeed GA cannot be viewed as a reliable endorsement, because of the very flexible way in which articles can be listed or delisted by any wikipedian. Geometry guy 15:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Much obliged for the welcome, geometry guy, and it's always good to hear that someone agrees with me (at least on this one thing). As a newbie here, I'll probably make some mistakes in my efforts to contribute, but I'll probably only be an occasional editor, so hopefully I'll won't do too much damage. Jaimehy (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to do any damage, because all mistakes can be fixed, and so editors are encouraged to be bold when editing articles. In short: if you think something needs to be done, try doing it. Someone may object and undo your action, but that is not a problem: then you can discuss it. Geometry guy 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McDermott's and John Allen

I'm glad you sent me Mcdermott's essay. Not a journalistic report I'd say!

He doesn't question why an obscure cleric would be honored in this way. Mcdermott never heard of fama de santidad.

The Opus ministers, though, were authoritarian in their outlook, believing that a complex modern society was incompatible with democratic rule. McDermott has not read contemporary history.

Allen says that the Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Giovanni Benelli asked Escriva to throw his group's weight behind a new Christian Democratic Party. That the latter refused is offered as evidence that he was somehow above politics. In fact, Opus Dei, always regarded to the right of Christian Democracy, was refusing to give up on the regime. Allen whom he calls respected offers proof. McDermott imposes his dogma sans proof.

Google John Allen Jr and you'll find plenty of hits. Google Peter McDermott and you'll find a painter. Arturo Cruz (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ;)[reply]

John Toland (Philosoph)

Hi, I'm replying here because my English is much better than my German! Thanks, I am always happy to point out people of Irish origin on Wikipedia. Interesting to hear you live in Pankow ... my wife is from Lichtenberg. Have you read anything by Hugo Hamilton? He has a very interesting take on Irish / German attitudes.

Good luck with Opus Dei. I can see how that could get interesting. I am planning to write some more on Toland soon, but only in English!

--Rbreen (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

By a funny coincidence, I've just started "A speckled People".

I'm a bit of a Toland fan, and think it doesn't reflect well on contemporary "post-catholic" Ireland that he's so ignored there (compare Catholic Italy's reverence for Giordano Bruno, for example). I'm also hoping to add some entries on Toland in the English version.

I even have a close friend who's expressed an interest in doing a radio show on him. Jaimehy (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed NPOV tag (Opus Dei)

All Jaimehy's things have been addressed, except his suggestion to include all criticisms on Opus Dei, a non-practicable and inappropriate suggestion. All the doctrines of the Opus Dei and the Catholic Church are not in the doctrine section. All the activities of Opus Dei are not in the activities section. All bibliography on Opus Dei is not in the bibliography section. There is a reason why: Wikipedia is a summary of the most important things. Sub-articles can go into details.

There are now three sections in controversy section. The third sub-section "Other Views" neutralizes the other two. Even if you don't like the Supporting Views, that is what neutrality is all about. Moreso if writers are prominent experts. That's non-negotiable Wikipedia:NPOV to give importance to prominent writers. Please read the policy. Cheers! Pradeshkava (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undid remove NPOV tag in Opus Dei

If the upshot of your argument is that there is now a concensus that the Opus Dei article is now neutral and encyclopaedic in nature, I can only respectfully suggest that you have not read the issues brought up in the various debates on the merits of the article (the GA reassessment would have been a good place to start).

Allow me by the way to quote you: "All Jaimehy's things have been addressed, except his suggestion to include all criticisms on Opus Dei, a non-practicable and inappropriate suggestion." Could you tell me where I made that suggestion?

As for your implicit view that John L. Allen's viewpoint on Opus Dei is more worthy of aaccentuation (and respectful tone) because of his alleged greater prominence than such writers as Michael Walsh or even María del Carmen Tapia (as a former national leader of the Venezuelan women's section of Opus, it would be difficult to see how she could be a more prominent commentator without being at the very top of the world organisation - or indeed, given Opus's power structure, in the men's section). Even the characterisation of the same John L. Allen's view is skewed, leaving out as it does the several criticisms that Allen makes about Opus' past and indeed present in his book.

I think my personal page is an inappropriate place to post this controversy, so I am copying it to the Talk:Opus Dei page. Jaimehy (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pio of Pietrelcina

Please do not undo properly formatted sources. I'm working on improving this article and removing unreferenced citations, etc. I appreciate the help, but please be careful...these web sources need more than just a hyperlink and in some cases need to be removed entirely. Thanks--Mike Searson (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! That has the potential to be a good article once the sources are cleaned up, small POV isues addessed, and a minor rewrite of some areas.--Mike Searson (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for removing the NPOV tag without further discussion. I was internally referring to Pradeshkava's posts/arguments, but forgot that other people like you might expecting a discussion of my own view. I've lately put some comments supporting both Baccyak4H and Pradeshkava. Again, sorry for the omission. Lafem (talk) 07:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei controversy section

Thanks for comments regarding this. If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Kindly comment on this. Thanks. Marax (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too!

Hi Jaimehy, :) First, let me thank you for all the work you've done and your helpful comments at the Opus Dei article. I also see the helpfulness of the nuanced edits you have made lately. I could sense that you are sincerely after NPOV and it is part of the wonder of Wikipedia that articles improve due to the many critical eyes trained on these articles. Thank you too for your comments at my talk page, supporting the work done so far. I was thinking of requesting you to allow me to copy your comments at the talk page. I think it would be good to get the editors to see a clear agreement has been reached on the present state of the article's neutrality. That said, we will continue with tweaks and edits to bring up the article to GA and later to FA. Thanks again! Marax (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]