User talk:Unimpeder

Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Augustine of Hippo

Hello. I saw the information you added and removed from this article. If you feel it is relevant, and, at first glance, it looks like it is, you can add it to the further reading section. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the reference I thought of adding to note 83 in the article on Augustine of Hippo. But when I tried to edit ‘References’, I came up with a simple page containing References {Reflist|2} I put the proposed addition in as Reflist/83, and this produced a complete mess. Could you help me on this? You say perhaps add it to the ‘further reading section’; but I don’t see any such section. Thanks for your help. Unimpeder (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have added the title to the bibliography. You can see that it is the first title on the list. Sorry for the bum steer on the "further reading" section. I should have looked more closely before leaving the message. Thanks, too, for the link to Communio, which is going to be added to my regular reading list. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you in the future. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That was a good solution, though I’m still not clear on how one tries to edit footnotes. I’ll learn. However, I have not been able to get to Burke’s text through the Communio link (and in any case I think one has to pay for a copy). But one can get it on Burke’s website: at http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/355 Do you want to put the direct link - or shall I try it? I think I can manage that much! All the best. Unimpeder (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Communio link is not a direct link to the article, and there apparently isn't one. So, yes, I think the link to his page should be added. Go ahead and try to add it, and if you have trouble, let me know. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That turned out to be easy! I wish all Wiki editing were as easy. Thanks. Unimpeder (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Voluntary Poverty

I have added an interesting idea of Benedict XVI, on 'imposed' and 'chosen' povertyUnimpeder (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Femininity

Being interested in anthropology I have at times followed the development of this article. A year or so ago it seemed to be taking different POV into account. Now it has given way to an ideological approach, reducing "femininity" to simple physical "femaleness". This is blatantly one-sided, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Femininity, for most people, still suggests distinctive traits of character, ways of behaving, reaction towards others, etc. etc. that go deeper than what is merely physical. This idea is not an outdated cultural or religious prejudice that deserves little notice (here it gets none). It is an idea that has been present over the ages, permeating art and culture. In modern times it was defended by Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead, Virginia Woolfe, etc. not in the name of the Bible, etc. but in that of an objective understanding of the richness of having two distinctive human modes of expressing humanity: the masculine and the feminine. To ignore that viewpoint is the make a totally one-sided and prejudiced presentation. I would suggest a presentation that gives both A) the more 'traditional' view of femininity; and B) the more recent views that react from this concept and tend to reduce the term to a simple difference in body parts. I can write some of the first; and even outline aspects of the second (where I think I could do a better job than what is represented in the current article), and leave the completion of that to others. [Since this is a feeler, so as to see what people think, let me single out just two concrete points in the present article which reveal a narrowness of approach, verging on the ridiculous. 1) large breast size and cleavage are presented as a main parameter of femininity. But this is to talk about femaleness, not femininity. Audrey Hepburn is a classical example of a woman considered very feminine - even though her breasts were small and she had little cleavage. 2) Female body shape and Corset... Here the emphasis on femaleness is again clear. To highlight 'corset', etc. in an article on femininity, is indeed to corset the scope of an encyclopedia article.]Unimpeder (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

From the discussion page about ‘Femininity’, you seem to be one of those who have taken most part in developing this article. A week ago I posted the above on my talk-page, in the hope it might begin a discussion. I would be glad to have your reaction to my proposal, as I think the present article is one-sided and simply not worthy of Wikipedia. However, I see no point in working at a more comprehensive presentation of the theme - if someone is going to revert it each time. So I would like to talk first. A year ago, the article opened in a fairly balanced way: “Distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system, femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized. In traditional Western culture, such features include gentleness, patience, sensitivity and kindness.[citation needed]. Nursing certainly calls for such traits, which may well explain the fact that women are generally considered to make better nurses.” The last sentence about nursing was added by me at that time. I see now that this was removed by Uschick in April 2010, after someone had observed “In my experience this [that women are generally considered to make better nurses] is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.” If you want commonsense support of my statement, go out and ask the first ten men and women you meet. I think that the whole paragraph should be restored in the rewriting of the article; one supporting reference might be the following: ‘According to the U.S. Dept. Of Labor. “Women comprised 92.1 percent of RNs in 2003" (http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/qf-nursing.htm).’ The 92.1% says something to the point. [Might someone take this figure as indicating discrimination against women? Perhaps; but he would need good arguments and plenty of [non-biased] ‘supporting sources’] Looking forward to hearing what you think.Unimpeder (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Unempeder, I agree, this article is ridiculous and so is the one on Masculinity. Since this is an encyclopedia, a world view is much more appropriate than a Western View, which can be a section. There is nothing stopping you from editing the article, and you certainly don't need my permission. :) The reason I got involved originally, is because the article was extremely POV portraying femininity as the weaker sex to the point of anything feminine being helpless and in need of protection. And maybe that point of view needs its own section. I encourage you to edit this and any other article as long as you respect the subject matter and other editors and present a World View and not just some philosopher's ideas who happened to write about it at a particular time in history.

When it comes to the definition of: femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized – any time you say "generally regarded" and "better suited" according to whom? That's blatant POV, and for every documented opinion, there's a differing documented opinion, so this is clearly not the right approach. As far as "common sense support" when it comes to a subject matter that has endured from the beginning of time, common sense shifts from one extreme to the other over time and place, so that's not a very good measure in this case. Maybe that's something worth mentioning in the introduction as well.

This is a tough subject matter, and that's why I refrained from getting involved in the Masculinity article, because I didn't want to open an entirely new can of worms, especially with male editors who can claim "expertise" on the subject. :) USchick (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

USchick: Thanks, those are very useful comment and suggestions. I take note. Yes, as you say, this is a tough topic. I will take my time (not too much to spare) in trying to make some sort of broader and balanced presentation. This article really takes from the tone of objectivity normally found in Wikipedia. All the best.Unimpeder (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You have my support. While I have the page on my watchlist, feel free to email me if you need some backup and want me to chime in on an on going discussion. (I check my email more often then my watchlist)

Dave3457 (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457. Been busy - that's always the catch. But your remarks of Mar 19 are both encouraging and very helpful. I’m a Catholic, but I agree that one does not have to be religious - just clear-thinking - to realize that, unless one sees masculinity-femininity as complementary, society will become less and less human.

Many thanks. This month I hope to find a bit more time to work on the matter.Unimpeder (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn’t get into the debate of the last few months which has resulted in the article becoming somewhat more balanced. But it still gives little space to more ‘traditional’ views, as if they were completely out - or of no interest to anyone. I have come across an article - The Quest for Feminine Identity - which is ‘traditional’ in a rather original way; and have just put it in where the “socialization versus in-born” issue is mentioned. I hope the reaction is balanced.Unimpeder (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Personalism

Christian personalism, as developed particularly by Karol Wojtyla, deserves a section here. I have put it after Emmanuel Mounier’s Personalism.Unimpeder (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Heaven (Christianity)

have added 'Seeing God as He is...' as, I think, the most distinctive NT revelation about heavenUnimpeder (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

John Paul II, in the discourse quoted, is tracing the development from the Old to the New Testament of the notion of heaven. To quote his references to 'metaphors' about heaven, or heaven as 'an image of God', is to miss the substance of the New Testament revelation which he goes on to present. I have substituted the later part of his address of July 21, 1999 for the earlier passage. Old Text: "The Bible uses a metaphorical image of heaven as part of the physical universe: "Metaphorically speaking, heaven is understood as the dwelling-place of God ... The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God is joined with that of the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts of Enoch and Elijah. Thus heaven becomes an image of life in God. In this sense Jesus speaks of a 'reward in heaven' and urges people to 'lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven'." New text: "The New Testament amplifies the idea of heaven in relation to the mystery of Christ. To show that the Redeemer's sacrifice acquires perfect and definitive value, the Letter to the Hebrews says that Jesus "passed through the heavens" (Heb 4:14), and "entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself" (ibid., 9:24). Since believers are loved in a special way by the Father, they are raised with Christ and made citizens of heaven... After the course of our earthly life, participation in complete intimacy with the Father thus comes through our insertion into Christ's paschal mystery..."Unimpeder (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

added paragraph to bring out development from Old Testament to New, in concept of heaven as 'seeing' God face to face. Unimpeder (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Gender stereotypes

I have added a quote from Virginia Woolf, and a ref. to how Carol Gilligan, in the 1980s, was to show the underlying reason for the (up to then) commonly held psycological opinion that women did not measure up to men, in terms of human maturity.Unimpeder (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Family

In "Sociological views", I have added some brief ideas of Margaret Mead which I feel add breadth and balance to the presentation. Unimpeder (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Annulment (Catholic Church) Grounds for Nullity

I have edited the last paragraph of the section "Grounds for Nullity", since it uses wrong terminology (a declaration of annulment is not a 'dispensation'), gives an inaccurate account of the position of Benedict XVI (suggesting that it is an ideological stance when it simply corresponds to the exact requirements of canon 1095), makes unsupported hypotheses about the possible influence of Archbishop Raymond Burke in the matter; and, not least, because its main source (as appears from its note 12) is an interview with an ex-priest on an Australian radio program. It is not true that Benedict and John Paul II before him have been "critical of dispensations for purely psychological reasons". They have criticized annulments based on the supposition of some simple immaturity at consent; and have called for a proper interpretation of canon 1095 as given in the 1983 Code. Canon 1095 allows for declarations of nullity based on psychological grounds, but specifies that the psychic defect involved at consent must have been grave and must have related to the essential rights and obligations of marriage.Unimpeder (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Temptation of Christ

I have added an interpretation of Benedict XVIUnimpeder (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Douay-Rheims Bible

No reason given for removal of 'you' version. I have restored it, since for many people it facilates reading the the D-R version Unimpeder (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wareh, July 22, removed all the online links to the text, simply saying "You are restoring at least 3 links that were only here b/c I added them, & they're now obsolete".

I have left this note on his Talk page: "I will certainly restore all of those links unless you can give some good reason why you consider them "obsolete". The second one (veritasbible.com) might be considered already covered by the first (which may be grounds for omitting it). But the others (which have been there at least for the past year) are definitely helpful to anyone interested in the topic. So is Cormac Burke's version, which is certainly new. I don't follow your argument that the others are obsolete on the grounds that they "were only here b/c I added them". You did well to add them; why should they now be removed because you decide they are "obsolete"?"Unimpeder (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Eternal Life (Christianity)

Added a quote from Benedict XVI which summarizes the positive content of eternal life.Unimpeder (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Peace

Added a short consideration of Benedict XVI that gives further depth to the topicUnimpeder (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, and welcome. I think you are making pretty good edits over all. History2007 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. And thanks for your Descartes joke. which I had never heard before. One beer or two, we better keep thinkingUnimpeder (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you do, never think. Never think in this day and age... will drive you crazy... But jokes aside I think what he said about the study of books is along those lines. History2007 (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Article on Death

To: History2007

My entry "Fear of Death" got a sudden axe from OhNOitsJamie, as contravening the guidelines of "No Original Research". I modified my entry to take out whatever might possibly fall under that heading; and reinserted the new version, free - I think - of any NOR. Immediately an automatic warning: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Death, you may be blocked from editing". I put my comments in reply on OhNO's Talk Page, with a request that he justify his action; but there was no answer. Today in fact I see that he has deleted all of that from his T-Page. It seems to me a serious refusal to enter into dialogue. If that is Wiki's way, I think I can have no alternative but to stop collaborating. But I cannot think that it is. You will find it all on my Talk Page. If you can spare a moment, I would be grateful to have your comments, not on the substance of the article but on possible procedures. I have no desire to say Goodbye to Wiki. But the reaction in this case seems to me highhanded in the extreme and irrational.Unimpeder (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To: Ohnoitsjamie|OhNoitsJamie

I must strongly challenge your suggestion that my entry on "Fear of Death" contravenes the guideline of No Original Research. Wiki guidelines says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Do you maintain that the remarks cited from James Boswell, Samuel Johnson or Benedict XVI are not "reliable, published sources", or are not "directly related to the topic of the article", or that I am quoting them "in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say"?

Nor do I think "Neutral Point of View" can mean NO point of view. The Wiki articles on "Shakespeare authorship question", or "Conspiracy theories" regarding the assassination of John F Kennedy, for instance, offer contrasting (not "neutral") points of view - as one would expect.

I am certainly not in a position to offer "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" on the topic of Fear of Death; that is precisely why I added the note that this "is a rich topic, and my entry can certainly be expanded". Surely Wiki is a collaborative effort? I do expect that my entry will attract contrasting and significant views, also giving published and reliable sources. Do you hold that "Fear of Death" is not a human phenomenon or not worth mentioning? Might I suggest that "People fear death" is as obvious as "Paris is the capital of France"?

I am reinserting the section, with some modifications. While I would maintain that the first paragraph of my contribution is simply factual, and not OR, I bend to your opinion and have taken it out. The section on suicide seems relevant and also factual. I don't think removing it is justified; but if you do so I will not object further.

However, regarding the passages from Boswell, Johnson and Benedict XVI, I refer you back to what I say in my first paragraph above. They are "reliable, published sources", and are "directly related to the topic of the article". In particular, I am not quoting them "in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say". They do say it explicitly, taking the fear of death as a universal human phenomenon. Please do not take the new version out without showing, not simply affirming, that the entry now violates Wiki rules.

[Incidentally, there being hundreds of editions of Boswell’s Life of Johnson, the reference to the date he gives of Johnson’s remarks makes its verifiability much easier than reference to a particular edition.]

P.S. I had to take a break of s couple of hourse, after reinserting my re-edited contribution and before I had time to send the above to you. Now I find that, within seconds of the reinsertion it has been removed, with a robotized warning “Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Death, you may be blocked from editing. Pass a Method talk 10:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC).”

I can only presume that someone had marked my entry as to be automatically removed, with this censorship threat, if I made any attempt to reword it - and that before I could dialog with you. If such highhanded censorship is in fact official Wiki policy (which would have to be verified), I will indeed regretfully have to withdraw my participation. Please give a reasoned answer to the points I make above. If you do not, I will certainly re-enter my contribution. If this results in my being automatically and robotically “blocked”, then I will have to conclude that Wikipedia watchdogs (I accept there must be some) have been given the power to unilaterally censor absolutely any contribution they personally may not like, and that they refuse to enter into dialog about it.Unimpeder (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

One glaring omission in the treatment of this topic is Fear of Death. This is not a religious issue, but rather a universal human experience. I have introduced a new section under this title. It is a rich topic, and my entry can certainly be expanded.Unimpeder (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Death, you may be blocked from editing. Pass a Method talk 10:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Article on Shame

under "Social Aspects", added an interesting comment from Roger ScrutonUnimpeder (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cheap Jack

Added section "In literature", with ref. to Dickens' short story, "Doctor Marigold" Unimpeder (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Grub Street

Filled in a 'citation needed'Unimpeder (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Gender roles

added some words to avoid wrong idea of how the Catholic Church understands the expression, "Mother of God"Unimpeder (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)