User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/3

Hi - Brethren of the Free Spirit & other matters

Hi Kendrick. Thanks for your comments re the Brethren. You've read Marguerite Porete's book? What was it like? I've read a few extracts here and there and found them wonderful. I've just ordered it from the Paulist Press. Another one which might be worth looking at is Mechtild von Marburg's LIGHT STREAMING FROM THE GODHEAD. She was also a Beguine. Both of these women, like Hildegard von Bingen, are having their work only now brought to light. I find the intimacy of their vision awe-inspiring, and the inclusive, all-embracing nature of their faith. Much closer to the true spirit of Christianity (if one can say such a thing) than the established church's view. Good to find someone who is interested in these things.

Re the Brethren & sinning. Have you read Langland's PIERS PLOUGHMAN? He has a similar view - that not sinning comes from the development of Divine Love in the soul not from repressing oneself. His view is that as the Holy Spirit/Love of God fills the soul one simple doesn't sin. In other words, work on the inner self, the birth of the Spirit there, is where one should begin rather than just modfiying one's behaviour to conform to a set of external rules. Langland was a Lollard, a heretical English Christian movement which grew out of Waldensian/Cathar ideas. Like the Cathars, the Waldensians and the Brethren they ended up at the stake but not before they had left their mark on the English scene, ultimately inspiring Wycliffe and then Tyndale and probably the whole English Protestant movement.

A fascinating period... ThePeg 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kendrick

Just dropped this in response to your last post on my page:

If you haven't heard of Hildegard von Bingen then you have a treat in store for you. She was a truly remarkable woman and very much ahead of her time. An Abbess, at the age of 42 she had her first vision and, after a period of anxious consideration, she began to illustrate her visions in the most extraordinary way possible. You can get most of her amazing illuminations on the web. She also started writing mystical books which she claimed were narrated to her by her visions, composed music of the most unutterable beauty (the best CD is called Sequentia. I highly recommend it) as well as books of medicine, science, theology, poetry and drama. She was also an active campaigner for the reform of the Church. An amazing woman and very modern in her outlook. I haven't read much of Mechtild (I had only just heard of her the other day) but the extracts I have read are very special.

What interests me about these women is, as I say, the visionary intimacy of their spirituality and their readiness to absorb the New Testament into the personal world of love, sexuality (of an albeit rather otherwordly kind), intimacy and healing. In this their holistic vision is a wonderful corrective to the more masculine, intellectual vision of the male-dominated church. They side step the legalistic, salvation/damnation cosmology of Aquinas etc and embrace a much more direct, humane cosmology of the soul.

The fact that two of them were Beguines is revealing. I am very alienated from the established church's view and find the more guerilla, grass-roots approach of groups like the Begiunes, the Cathars and the Lollards much more attractive. A spirituality which is active, present and walks on the streets is a powerful one for me.

The Lollards are a fascinating movement in England with links to the Waldensians and Cathars (although probably more of the former). William Langland, who wrote the masterpiece Piers Ploughman, was almost certainly a Lollard. Like the Ws and Cs the Lollards preached a return to social Christianity, a rejection of the Church and a belief in the inner journey of Christ's message which was available to all. Their movement inspired Wycliffe who first translated the Bible into English. There is, therefore, a direct line from them through Wycliffe to Tyndale and eventually the English Reformation and the King James Edition of the Bible. There also seems to be a curious link to Shakespeare....

In brief, although I am not a Christian, I am attracted to all movements which believe in an inner soul journey. Thu movements like the Cathars, the Lollards and the Beguines as well as mystics like Eckhardt, St Francis and others interest me more than conventional theologians who want everyone to follow the rules. ThePeg 10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ThePeg"

Feel free to email me direct via the E-mail this user thing in future. Its a bit laborious moving from one Talk Page to another all the time. ThePeg 15:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kendrick, just replied to your question about Shakespeare... ThePeg 23:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again and thanks for your flattery! Just replied again. ThePeg 16:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got my Marguerite Porete book. Will let you know how I get on. Looks pretty amazing. ThePeg 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things are hotting up on the Brethren of the Free Spirit discussion page. A very irate poster has taken umbrage about the idea its NPOV and based on a decidedly Catholic viewpoint. Be interesting to know what you think. :-) ThePeg 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A curious thing, Kendrick. You know I'm looking to enlarge the Brethren of the Free Spirit article? Well as I work my way through the Porete and the Sister Catherine manuscript I'm finding huge verbal echoes of things from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Even the story about the Beghards conducting masses naked has a precedent in Thomas, to whit: "(37) His disciples said: 'When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?' Jesus said, 'When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son of the living one and will not be afraid" Now this is probably meant metaphorically, the 'garment' being the body, I imagine, but you know how literal people can be. :-) There are loads of other echoes, almost to a word. From what I know we didn't get hold of a copy of this Gospel until the Nag Hammadi find happened but is it possible that these sayings were circulating in Europe at the time? They may have arrived via the Bogomils and thence via the Cathars to Western Europe. I don't know. Its very strange. ThePeg 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Good to know I'm not alone in noticing that. Have just replied with poss explanation. ThePeg 15:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kendrick. Just started rewriting the Brethren page. I'd be interested in your views. I've only done the intro so far but will work my way through. Its going to be interesting putting both points of view. I've also rewritten the Porete page. Nearly finished her book. Have Mechtilde and Tauler lined up for after. What a rock'n'roll life I lead! ThePeg 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FInished the Brethren edit. Let me know your thoughts. ThePeg 12:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just started an article on The Mirror Of Simple Souls. Only done the intro, which is a little slapdash and will be rewritten anyway but I was wondering if you could put that image of the book onto it for me? Did you have a chance to look at the Brethren site? ThePeg 17:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of any images which might liven up the Brethren of the Free Spirit article? Although it feels quite comprehensive it could do with a nice pic here and there. ThePeg 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further interesting discoveries. You know we were struck by the parallels between Porete & the Gospel of Thomas? Well the Valentinian Gospel of Philip has them too (I've put all this in the article). They must have got these through the Cathars, mustn't they? If you look at the maps of where the Cathars flourished outside the Languedoc their northern European centres are bang where the Free Spirits kicked off - Flanders, Koln, the Rhineland. I don't think they necesarrily had the texts extant (although they might have done, we don't know what they might have got from the Bogomils) but the ideas must have been flying about. I don't think anyone has looked into this connection. What do you think?

Also, any ideas for images? I found this one: http://www.beloit.edu/~hist190/heresy1.jpg If you think its appopriate do you want to put it on? ThePeg 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval heresy on the back burner? How can this be? Are you telling me you have a life???!!! :-) Good to hear from you. Which concepts do you challenge? I've tried to keep the anti-Brethren stuff in there for balance and where I've speculated I've said so. I look forward to your thoughts. ThePeg 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Was only joking about the life. :-) Let me know what you want to change before you do. I'd like to have a chance to defend myself. ;-) ThePeg 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR?

For an editor who was blocked for violating policy you are quite quick to accuse of others of vandalism, without explanation. At least explain how that gibberish i removed is valid information. Mnemonic2 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Judaism

Forking?? crz crztalk 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude - that's your own edit summary! crz crztalk 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious antisemitism

Please stop creating forks. You wrote on my page that: "I'm rather conviced these two terms have distinct meanings. By wikipedia's own definition, anti-Semetism [sic] 'can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.' Anti-Judaism, as a theological position, has nothing to do with any of that." Can you please produce scholarly sources for that position, and if you find any, please add them to Religious antisemitism. But stop forming your own views based on no reading. It's pointless and unencyclopedic, and you've been doing it for months, causing significant disruption across multiple articles to do with Jews. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry, I'm not wikistressing too much :) I stressed a bit the first time, but mostly then because I had no idea how the system worked; now I at least have some small idea. I'll appreciate your contributions, though, whenever you provide them. Mackan79 06:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrubberies again

Since you asked, I thought you might like to know that there is now a {{shrubbery}} template. May come in handy! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

You have been unblocked as per discussion on WP:AN3. However, I would strongly recommend that you stop revert-warring with other users and discuss on the talk page of the articles. Warm regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the block, it's clear to me that you violated 3RR and have a history of doing so. Use the time to reconsider your method. FeloniousMonk 02:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Judaism and Religious anti-Semitism

If you require any assistance in dealing with these people I am more than happy to assist. KazakhPol 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Anti-Judaism and Religious Antisemitism

Hey, did you go on wikibreak? Question for when you get back: from all the comments on Religious Antisemitism and Anti-Judaism, I'm kind of reaching a conclusion here that they should be merged, but that it should simply be an article about anti-Judaism. Is that how it once was? At this point it's mostly incomprehensible -- we have an article supposedly on religious antisemitism, but which on inspection really appears to be about anti-Judaism. Then we have other oddities: the article doesn't actually cite any sources on "religious antisemitism," but purely sources on either anti-Judaism, or simple antisemitism (with OR in the sources explaining why...). Then you do an Amazon or Google books search, and find that there actually aren't any books anywhere on "Religious Antisemitism," but many many books on anti-Judaism. So what's the deal here? Is this a neologism superceding a much more established concept? It seems to me there should be an article on anti-Judaism, which discusses its history and relationship to the development of antisemitism, and any continuing the relationship they have, but then also the distinctions, etc. Always appreciate your thoughts, Mackan79 16:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin

You're kidding, I hope? I wasn't intending that as an accusation. I'll clarify it if it's unclear though. Best, Mackan79 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok -- I think that rule is somewhat suspended, though, when you're actually talking about antisemitism, isn't it? Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure in that case the rule is actually reversed [1] (First three paragraphs). Thanks, though, for the heads up, Mackan79 14:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, feel free to check out Talk:Religious antisemitism for additional sources I could find. One thing I noticed: Langmuir's update in 1996 refers to "people" rather than "men." You might want to switch that out. Best, Mackan79 06:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Thompson

Sorry to bother you, but I noticed you edited the article Ben Thompson. There is a bit of a dispute going on with the article, and I cant seem to find anyone who is able to portray an unbiased view. I have added information, and user BMT is continually removing it despite it being accurately sourced. It might be slightly unencyclopedicaly written, but that it can be reworded without removing the sourced and chancing the tone of the whole section. BMT is welcome to add another POV if there is a significant one. Anyway, if you are interested in helping to try and settle this then it would be great. If you do, please read all the discussion. I'm so sure that I have made it clear, but nobody is reading it other than user BMT. thanks!--TheEditor20 17:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About: List of Lebanese People:

Dear Kendrick7:

I have been on Wikipedia for not quite long as an editor now, having been a long time user and reader... (and I remember some weeks ago you yourself welcomed me and noted having edited one of my first editions that is still there on my myTalk ^talk page). I would like to report to you a slight form of dispute (as I have noticed you do intercept with a rather unbiased view), and this is becoming too personal so much that I am afraid it would take a lot of my time and destroy my constructive efforts and I really have a lot of better things to do than to drag my edits down to a personal fight with other editors lacking an open mind to discuss things and accept to see their material boldly edited, as mentionned in the Simplified Ruleset.
On the page entitled List_of_Lebanese_people, an editor that calls him/her-self "Lcnj" has been trying, and it looks to me very clear now, to control the content of the page, very subjectively let me add, with a policy of the "Winner gets to right history". He/she has been patronizing me ever since I tried to edit and cleanse that page and has also threatened me to be banned (and I don't understand where he/she got it or how he/she clames to have that power anyhow)
Further more, I have noticed on the discussion page for that same article that there has been a previous unsolved dispute with another user (and I am afraid the latter has been banned!).. but now seeing the tone of his/her messages and the way he/she is talking as somebody upholding the ultimate light of knowledge, I feel like the one that should have been banned is Lcnj ...
Anyway, I am not here to judge, neither am I considered as an administrator at this point (although I promise you I am interfering from a very objective and neutral standpoint). What I would like you to note should you have the time to interfer (because I will not answer to Lcnj's attacks anymore, of whom I am really getting weary), are the following points:

He/she is now aware that the word nonsense is a wikiepdia term and takes it very personal (nonsense)
He/she keeps calling me by the name Jaber: obviously still traumatised by another dispute with that user, now banned (although I can easily prove we are not the same person, either by IP address or by any other means possible and traceable by Wikipedia). This is why I am pledging to get your help actually, because it seems that Lcnj is trying to monopolize this page as if it were called: "Famous Lebanese Poeple known/liked by Lcnj". Anyway with this tone and the way he/she thinks he/she can run things, it wouldn't surprise me if this user had a long history of fights with other users and if I find out he/she does not have many friends..
The page contains a lot of immature material. It also contains some material that I'd say is "very difficult to verify" and of which I highly dispute the credibility. Without any references, Lcnj is protecting that material, and in my discussion of late last night, I have elaborated why I have suggested the changes he/she had (twice up till now!) reverted. (Now that I have read more on the subject, do you think I should just add the tag { { nonsense } } to the fishy material in the article? )
I don't understand still how the reverting works, but I don't think (and please correct me and guide me if I am wrong) that any user has the right to revert good edits if he/she doesn't like them. I thought edits were supposed to develop in a spiral model where each new content added is subject to discussion, not deletion. Am I supposed to take anybody's permission before editing content I find vague, fishy or lacking objectivity?

Kindly advise, and you are welcome to interfer asap on the discussion page of the article in dispute. Also see my user page Jix^talk to see the tone by which I was addressed by (twice up till now) Lcnj as if he/she was my boss! I don't have to take this kind of subjective egoistic paranoid behavior from anybody. All, or most of us at least, are volunteers and good-will messengers ... :o)

Thanks for your time and attention Kendrick7!

- This user is none other than Jaber that was banned... He is still using the exact same words and mean remarks jaber used, and he is still engaging in Personal Attacks... Although I quickly offered him a friendly dispute and actually added most of his additions and delitions, he continues now right on your Talk page with condescending attacks such as "egoistic paranoid behavior" and "I find out he/she does not have many friends..". Please either suspend him or issue a final warning as I do not have time for such negative energy. I must focus on bringing good content to the main Lebanon article that with the help of CG, George and Lestat, managed to receive a good article label. I have little time, so, please help me get Jaber off my back. Thank you. Lcnj 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so, time (and the WP:CHECK) has revealed that Jix avius is not whom some accuse him to be. It's good that there are some decent people in this Wiki community who give the upper hand to science and not to their feelings and emotions. I am really tired of people who think they are smart and pretend they are know-it-all as they condescend to others overproudly and take too little trouble to cultivate the acquaintance of people who do not particularly appeal to or agree with them, you know Kendrick...? Life is full of them already.. I think you know what I mean.. I am thru with this. Paranoia and self-praise, are not, as is the case with some, going to be my daily bread... Take care.

--Jix avius 14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's new

Long time no talk. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Have we spoken before? lol MetsFan76 08:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kendrick. Actually I didn't have an issue with the article itself. I had a problem with Humus sapiens deleting a large section without discussing it on the talk page first. When I reverted, he told me to use the talk page lol. So it went back and forth (not surprising). Anyway, I saw your comment on the Messianic Judaism template discussion going on. It was nice to see someone point out the obvious. Cheers! MetsFan76 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Church

What's the story with The Church? It currently redirects to The Church (band). I can't find a history for The Church which presumably would describe the abstract concept of "the Christian church" as distinct from any one church or denomination.

--Richard 19:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be Civil

Reference is made to your remarks on [2]. Please adhere to WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Lcnj 07:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poker tables

I replied on my talk page. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Dowling

Thanks for your interest. To save me the trouble of searching, would you please give me the exact Google Books address of the book in question. The other link that you have given me says nothing of an oath taken by Popes whether at the start of their ministry or at any other time. Lima 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also please give me the page number of the mention of an oath taken by Popes? Lima 05:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page 140 only speaks of an oath taken by Boniface, not by a Pope.

It took me some time to work out the pun of "ubi ..." I am one of those who distinguish the pronunciation of "where" from that of "wear". And "worry", in the intransitive sense, corresponds to "vexari", not "vexare". Lima 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

While I'm sure most anyone finds major highways in their area notable, that doesn't establish it for purposes of inclusion here. What does that is the inclusion of the subject in reliable sources to show notability. Our content must be verifiable to all readers, not just those who have access to a Bostonian to ask. (By the way, your message was perfectly civil, you didn't need to leave it in my vandalism box. Polite but critical messages are always welcome on my talk page.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look back over the article, and did decide to change to a keep as several secondary sources are now provided in it (which was not the case at the beginning of the AfD.) Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line breaks

The line breaks split apart the paragraph too much; it's like reading something and having to turn several pages because someone hit the enter key a bunch of times for no reason. --NE2 05:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite book

I'm also a big fan of using {{LCCN}} to link to the Library of Congress entry for a book. Adds another level of credibility and ease of finding a reference, IMO. Thanks again for the idea! -- Avi 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Timothy Noah AfD

First, thanks for adding the banner to the talk page; I always forget to put that thing up there. I hope you understand where I was coming from closing the AfD; I've seen a lot of controversial cases involving interplay between the media and the project, and feel that providing a forum to debate precisely what a pundit has just issued a call to arms about would be a significant headache. I think there's enough notable information about Mr. Noah out there to turn this into yet another opportunity to demonstrate just how adept we are at gathering and synthesizing information, and showing the impressive dynamism and growth that only a wiki-based project can allow, and that would be lost in the shuffle in an IP-vote-filled yelling match about whether this guy should have an article (which would almost definitely be kept, btw). Truly, JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding Timothy Noah, I note that you recently made your third revert to the article in less than 12 hours. Just to remind you, one more revert will be a violation of WP:3RR. Also, the 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. Please attempt to resolve disputes through the talk page. Reverting should be a last resort. I note that you have not discussed this with either of the people you reverted, and that only one of your three reverts contained a meaningful edit summary. I hope that in the future, you could (if you must revert) use a constructive summary, such as "please refer to talk page - noah's piece on notability not relevant to article". Thanks, and happy editing! Johnleemk | Talk 09:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, didn't notice that first one was removing vandalism. Sorry! Johnleemk | Talk 10:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Noah mentioned you by (screen) name

Hey, you probably have already seen it but since no one's mentioned it on your talk page I thought I'd let you know that Timothy Noah has written a second article about AfDs on Wikipedia and mentioned you specifically in the article. The article is here: http://www.slate.com/id/2160644/ --The Way 08:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]