Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:21, 17 January 2012

Apostolic succession

I wonder if you would take a quick look at the edit war underway at Catholic Church. User:Lloydbaltazar is insisting, among other things, that Catholic bishops are not the successors of all the apostles but just of Simon Peter. This seems wrong to me (and to the editors who are actively reverting Lloydbaltazar's edits). However, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to make a cogent refutation of Lloydbaltazar's assertion. Can you help? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"The Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles" (Gaudium et spes, 21); "The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles ..." (Gaudium et spes, 22); "The individual bishops, ... each of them, as a member of the episcopal college and legitimate successor of the apostles ..." (Gaudium et spes, 23); "Bishops, as successors of the apostles ..." (Gaudium et spes, 24); "The parallel between Peter and the rest of the Apostles on the one hand, and between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops on the other hand, does not imply the transmission of the Apostles' extraordinary power to their successors" (Gaudium et spes, Appendix). Enough?

I think I can leave it to others to deal with the insufficiently informed enthusiasm of newcomer Lloydbaltazar on the Catholic Church page. Esoglou (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (Added later: I see Lloydbaltazar is not the newcomer I imagined. It is only that Lloydbaltazar has recently become more widely and frequently active, displaying a conviction of having accurate personal knowledge on various matters. National interests indicate Lloydbaltazar's nationality, and edits made when not logged in show accurately where, in another country, Lloydbaltazar is living. Esoglou (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

Thank you. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So... Lloydbaltazar is claiming that Catholic bishops are successors to St. Peter while Orthodox bishops are successors to St. Andrew. Being the ignoramus that I am, I've never heard this distinction being drawn. My understanding is that Catholics/Orthodox/Anglican bishops are all valid bishops if the chain of apostolic succession has been unbroken. If I remember correctly, Catholics have issues with most Anglican bishops but some Anglicans can claim an unbroken chain of apostolic succession. If I understand correctly, Catholics have no issue with the apostolic succession of Orthodox bishops although Orthodox bishops might (?) have some issue with Catholic bishops (I am unclear on this last point).

Do you know which group draws this distinction between St. Peter and St. Andrew? Is it something that the Orthodox insist upon? (Seems doubtful to me.) I've never heard of this distinction being drawn by the Catholic Church. (But I admit to being quite the novice in this kind of thing.)

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is worth my time to check on what Lloydbaltazar says on the matter, since others are keeping an eye on his edits of the Catholic Church article, but I wonder if he has been misinterpreted. The see of Rome traces its origin to Peter. The see of Constantinople traces its origin (with far less historical evidence) to Peter's brother Andrew. This must be what underlies whatever Lloydbaltazar has said.

Perhaps it is not necessary at this point to speak of recognition by churches of apostolic succession in others. Esoglou (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Divine/human motherhood of Jesus/Christ

There's another question regarding Catholic Church that I could use some help on. I'm not confident of my thinking on the following question so I wanted to bounce it off you first before putting it on Talk:Catholic Church and making a fool of myself in front of all the editors of that page.

Somewhere along the line the text of the lead came to read "divine motherhood of Jesus Christ". Anglicanus modified this to read "human motherhood of Jesus Christ" (with this edit). I wonder whether we even need either "divine" or "human" here. I think both words only serve to confuse and introduce distinctions which are unnecessary and possibly even unjustified. The relevant concept seems to be that of Theotokos. Clearly, Mary was human and not divine but is it necessary or even useful to underline that by the phrase "human motherhood"? I interpret the original intent of the phrase "divine motherhood" to be trying to allude to the "Mother of God" concept but I can also see Anglicanus' objection that this could be read to suggest that Mary was divine. I think this whole mess can be sidestepped by just not using either "human" or "divine" to qualify "motherhood of Jesus Christ".

What do you think? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded on the article's talk page. Esoglou (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems settled now. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

38.121.23.173 etc.

FIY: 38.121.23.173 may well be the same as User talk:Lloydbaltazar. Mostly unsourced edits, on Immaculate Conception and Our Lady of Perpetual Help - even used to have his own images. Usually just needs a revert. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain he is the same, and have been for some time. Thanks for your interest. Esoglou (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Anway, I did an ANI and a sockpuppet notice, as on his talk page. This fellow is taking up too much time. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Marcel Lefebvre

Nice work. Can you find a better source than a Blog, though? I know what you are saying has to be published somewhere more suitable than a blog, regadless of how well it is written.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The blog was only for an English translation. The source was the newspaper Die Tagespost, no blog. Esoglou (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, cool...sorry, been on a "blog witch hunt" lately, I got confused!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Basilica

I would suggest to move the discussion about basilicas to the minor basilica page. It is a very fascinating topic that was approved canonically in 1917 but used for centuries. I will be glad to keeping improving the article. with you Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How about moving back to the lead the statements that Mary Major is one of the four major basilicas and was once called a patriarchal basilica? I wonder now if I was wrong to remove the reference to its being one of the seven (I should check on the number) papal basilicas. Esoglou (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the canonical distinction arose in the 18th century. The 1917 Code of Canon Law merely codified the existing legislation on the matter. Esoglou (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving this statement to lead is ok if it is kept short. The lead should also reflect the rest of the article

Which legislation do you have in mind besides the code of Canon law? Although the first title was granted, as an exception, to San Nicola al Tolentino in 1783, the recognition of the immemorial basilicas was given by the 1917 Canon law (Can. 1180. Nulla ecclesia potest basilicae titulo decorari, nisi ex apostolica concessione aut immemorabili consuetudine; cuiusque vero privilegia ex alterutro capite colligantur). Before, it was a more a marketing tool, with all due respect. Every priest, mostly Italians at that time, wanted his church to be special and called it a "basilica". The classification oratory- church-cathedral was too strict and/or ubersimple. Even today, you will notice that very few want their basilica to be called minor.

The title of Papal basilica has no canonical meaning. I am still looking for a Vatican source explaining the difference Pontifical and Papal churches. Add the Lateran Treaty to that and it becomes even more fuzzy. IMHO, all papal churches are pontifical churches, ie attached to or property of the Holy See/Vatican State. What makes Papal churches special is that they are also attached directly to the Pope himself. It is obvious for the Major basilicas but in the case of Assisi, it was a decision of BXVI to take over the sanctuary of Assisi, managed independently by the Franciscans until then. Official statement? Still looking...

Technically, Pope Benedict XVI did not formally abandon the title of Patriarch of the West. It has too many oecumenic implications. The title was just missing in the first Annuario Pontificio publish under BXVI and still missing today. This can always be changed by him or the next Pope. Nothing definitive here.

Major basilicas are the only that can use the adjective "sacrosanta" too.

Thank you far taking the time to discuss this with me.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have access to one of the editions of the 1917 Code of Canon Law that gave the sources of each canon? I don't. It would be very useful in the search for the origins of its canon 1180. I find it difficult to imagine that, before that Code came into effect, the churches that now enjoy the title of basilica "immemorabili consuetudine" were not considered canonically entitled to it, and that they acquired the title canonically only in 1918. After all, the present four major basilicas are themselves basilicas "immemorabili consuetudine". I suppose you are right in attributing the 18th-century (?) canonical limitation of the right to call a church a basilica to over-use of the label as "a marketing tool".

The limitation came in 1917. Following our interesting discussions, I found this reference on archive.org. I think it is what you are looking for: Commentary on the 1917 Canon. The pandora's box was open not in 1783 but in 1836 by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in its Lucerina of 27 August 1836 . See details in this book IMHO, It remained a mere honorary title until 1917.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How about this as a hypthesis for the distinction between "pontifical minor basilica" and "papal basilica"? The "pontifical minor basilicas", at least the four that GigaCatholic lists as such, are each under the care of a "pontifical delegate", who is or happens to be the local ordinary (head of the see or of the territorial prelature) except in the case of the basilica in Padua, which has a retired archbishop from outside in charge. The "papal" basilicas don't have a "pontifical delegate". The four major ones have "archpriests" (is that right? I haven't checked). The two Assisi basilicas have a "Legate" (Totius orbis of 9 November 2005, which I suppose is the Benedict XVI document you were looking for). The recent changes regarding the basilica of Saint Lawrence outside the Walls and the possibility that they have not yet been finalized discourage me from making any attempt to find out who has responsibility there, but I think it is unlikely to have been a "pontifical delegate", whatever about the future.

I agree with you this description. My text you removed from the page of S. Maria Maggiore tried to explain it: "The Basilica of Pompei is administered by a Territorial Prelate. The Lateran treaty ceded the property of the Basilicas of the Holy House at Loreto and of S. Antony at Padua to the Holy See. The basilica of Bari depends directly from the Secretariat of State of the Holy See." When you enter the basilica in Padua, you are welcomed by the same security forces tha in St Peter's. You are no longer in Italy...

Regarding Assisi, the same source explains that the Basilica of St Francis was made explicitly Patriarchal basilica in 1754 by Pope Benedict XIV "qua Basilica Assisiensis S. Francisci in Patriarchalem & Cappellam Papalem erigitur, cum aliis gratiis, privilegiis, & indultis". Pope Pius X gave an equivalent status to S. Maria degli Angeli in 1909.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As for "pontifical basilica", as distinct from "pontifical minor basilica", I think it has no significance whatever in this field. There are many colleges, universities and other institutions that bear the title "pontifical". I suppose that in general this means no more than the title "royal" in such British institutions as the Royal Automobile Club, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children or the Royal Society. I take it that these have been given charters by the sovereign, as cities and the like are given charters, but that they are not administered by the British Crown or its agents. And the basilica in Naples that is a recognized minor basilica and that is both pontifical and royal surely shows that these adjectives in its name have origins distinct from the granting to it of the title of minor basilica.

I agree. Pontifical basilica has no special meaning. Only the 5 basilicas and colleges or universities ( can. 815-821 ) directly administered by the Holy See are entitled to use the adjective "pontifical". They are also listed in the Annuario Pontificio.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I recently read somewhere on the Internet that a papal basilica has a throne and an altar reserved for the Pope. Is that what distinguishes a papal basilica from other basilicas?

The only Papal throne I know in Rome, beside the throne of St Peter, is the one in the Lateran basilica but correct me if am wrong. However, it is correct that all of them do have a Papal chapel (not to be confused with the one of the body of the Papal Household ;-)).--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that, while "Patriarch of the West" has not been abandoned "definitively" in the sense of "absolutely irrevocably", it has certainly been abandoned decisively. It has been "renounced" (Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity), not just "omitted". The official change in the denomination of the major basilicas and, in connection with that, the change in the denomination of the Assisi basilica of Saint Francis, show that the abandonment is intended to be definitive in the sense of "will in fact never be revoked, even if in the abstract it could be". Esoglou (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the source.

Thanks again. It is time to improve the corresponding pages.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The edition of the 1917 Code that I had in mind and that must surely be available still not only in seminaries but also in diocesan chanceries was in no sense a commentary: it merely gave, along with the text of the canons given also in the much more common and cheaper edition, references, without quotations, to the sources that the canons were based on. (Some of these lists of sources were quite lengthy, but I think someone commented that no source could be cited for canon 329 §2: "(Episcopos) libere nominat Romanus Pontifex.") The works you kindly provided on canon 1180 in no way suggest that before that Code there was no canonical regulation about use of the title of basilica. The title was being granted before 1800: "Ancora nel XVIII secolo, come attesta il Ferraris (...) godevano il titolo di basilica solamente alcune chiese «maiores, principaliores ac digniores». Piuttosto rari, invero – almeno nel Magnum Bullarium romanum – sono i provvedimenti apostolici di concessione di siffatta qualifica onorifica e la situazione non era mutata nella prima metà del XIX secolo ..." Doesn't that indicate clearly that already in the 18th century there were papal grants of the title of basilica, and that these privileges were rare, as they remained rare also in the first half of the 19th century? This is given in the footnote precisely to point a contrast to the later situation in which grants became numerous. The 1836 decree of the Congregation for Rites didn't create the institute of minor basilicas: it only legislated that the general effect of receiving the title was only the right to the conopeo etc. – exactly as it remained until the recent document that chose to omit all reference to these material trimmings. The 1917 Code said that the privileges of a basilica (without distinguishing between major and minor) are derived from whatever is the source of the title (either an apostolica concessio or an immemorabilis consuetudo). Since the apostolicae concessiones and, even more, the immemorabiles consuetudines clearly predate 1917, I don't see how it can be maintained that the Code established something new in their regard. Or that until then there was no limitation on declaring your church a basilica ("The limitation came in 1917") – in that case, why were they applying to Rome for a grant of the title? Or that the title of basilica was changed in 1917 from "a mere honorary title" (which it still is, like the title of "Monsignor") to something else ("It remained a mere honorary title until 1917") – what else is it now or then but an honorary title?

I'll see if I can find one. The title is more than honorary IMHO since 1836 but first in 1968 then in 1989 the norms were clearly specified by Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disicipline of the Scacraments: Domus ecclesiae: Norms for the Granting of the Title of Minor Basilica. It also details their privileges. See also: Footnote 58-59-Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

2. Rather than "removing" your comment on the Pompei basilica, I "moved" it, giving it a sourced form, to Minor basilica.

OK thanks.

3. About the title of "patriarchal basilica" granted to the St Francis basilica in Assisi – that is already in the article. The source you give is unclear (saying only "analoga") with regard to the other Assisi basilica; but I don't think this other basilica was ever called a patriarchal basilica, only perhaps a major basilica.

It is in the 2009 constitutions of the OFMs at the occasion of its 100 anniversary see Acta Ordinis Fratrum Minorum p. 429. Both are Patriarchal basilica.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

4. Forgive me if I do not agree that "only the 5 basilicas (what five?) and colleges or universities ... directly administered by the Holy See are entitled to use the adjective 'pontifical'". I don't see the relevance of the reference to canons 815-821, in which I have not found the word "pontifical". And I don't believe that the Holy See directly administers the Pontifici Collegi Americano del Nord, Armeno, Beda, Belga, Etiopico, Francese, Germanico-Ungarico, Greco, Irlandese, Internazionale «Maria Mater Ecclesiae», Romeno, Russo, Scozzese, Svedese. I don't see in what way these colleges are supposedly "directly administered by the Holy See", while the Alma Collegio Capranica and the Venerabile Collegio Irlaeandese are supposedly not "directly administered by the Holy See. What does seem to hold true is, as I said, that in the list of recognized basilicas "pontifical" is found added to "minor basilica" only for the four that are headed by a "pontifical delegate".

I had in mind universities outside Rome. The Collegium Romanum are ecclesiastical colleges ruled by Canon 815-821. Ex . Other Pontifical colleges institutes in Rome also have the extra-territoriality. I do admit that administered by the Holy See is a little bit strong. An US college like Pontifical College Josephinum asked that "it be placed under the protection of the Holy See. Pope Leo XIII granted the request in 1892, thus making the Pontifical College Josephinum the only pontifical seminary outside of Italy". (sic) Instead of "administered by" it is more correct to say "placed under the protection of the Holy See"--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The fifth is Madrid. IMHO gcatholic.com is not correct in stating that it depends from the Archdiocese of Madrid. It belongs to the Nunciature to Spain and Andorra. But I won't fight about this. Next time I end up in Madrid, I will pay them a visit --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

5. I don't feel like researching about papal thrones, which perhaps nobody really spoke of. But maybe you could research about papal altars, to see if there are now altars reserved to the pope not only in the four major basilicas (of which I think there is no doubt) but also in the other "papal" basilicas. I don't know whether it is so or not. Esoglou (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Papal altars in patriarchal basilicas are for the exclusive use of the Pope, in my understanding too. There is one in each basilica in Assisi. See --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So do you think that a papal altar (an altar reserved for the pope) is what makes a basilica a "papal basilica"? Of course, to put that idea in Misplaced Pages, you need to cite a source that says so, or at least you must cite a source or sources that say, in the case of every papal basilica or every group of them, that they have a papal altar. Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, I did an ANI on our silent friend, Richard commented too, and hopefully there will be calm on that page now. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Email me

Eso, I would email something pertinent to our convo, but your email is turned off. If you are interested, contact me via email.---Balloonman 00:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that the discussion is over, I have less interest than before in learning more, even at the slight cost of setting an e-mail contact in Misplaced Pages for the first time. Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Birth

I would be very interested to know your views as to whether or not it is worth mentioning Leslie Weatherhead's suggestion regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus. That was included in my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Virgin_birth_of_Jesus&diff=446053315&oldid=442209340 ... but my contribution was reverted yesterday (21 August) by Wiki-Editor "History2007".--DLMcN (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

While I would not have taken the initiative of deleting it, I think the article is better without what is, History2007 says, an idea seemingly put forward by a single writer as tentative speculation (I don't have access to the book). It seems quite far-fetched to present Jesus as the son of old Zacharias (who was not high priest), rather than of Joseph. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Side note

FYI: Xulon press is beginning to get objections on various pages, and rightly so. It is a self-published press, and there are a few others appearing too. So Xulon-based refs will not stand up to being WP:RS even if the statements in the books are 100% correct. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The book you referred to was not the solitary source cited for the statement. Esoglou (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. But in the long term it will actually reduce the weight of the argument, just by the appearance of being self-pub, so we will probably do better without Xulons, or would do better with alternatives. History2007 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you remove it for me, please? I have been away and do not feel up to searching for a substitute at this moment, when I have difficulty even in remembering the context clearly. Esoglou (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will do. I did not want to play with it without asking you. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

About your POV and stalking

While it's fine to have checks and balances, especially on somewhat controversial or sensitive articles, so no obvious tilts or slants one way or the other happen, we need to all be careful. It's been obvious for months that you have certain POV biases and problems. You've engaged in POV-pushing, because of prejudices against terms, facts, issues, names, etc. And being inconsistent, in certain listings, or edits, because of the POV bias. You even accused me of something I never even did, but was done by some other editor way back, where I responded, and I notice you never replied back. So now you follow many of my edits around, because of obvious resentment or personal bias, because of my changing some obvious POV edits that you did (and that others noticed too). Now you follow me and disrupt or remove edits I made in other articles that you were never even involved in, checking out my recent edits. Because of bias or hostility. Not cool. And against Misplaced Pages policy. (WP:Hounding, WP:EditWarring etc) I never followed you around though. That was an article I was interested in from the start. So now you feel the need to check my history and second-guess some valid accurate things I put in, simply because it was I who did it and because they go against your long-held POV. This will be your first and last warning. If you do it again, I go to the notice board, report you, and all your POV examples and edits and bias-pushing will be pasted and on display, and I'll ask Jeffro to join in to give his take. Your POV and obvious biases are showing again, and there was no reason to remove those things from those edits, they were valid and accurate. Don't follow me around...for real. I don't check your history and look at the articles you've edited, so kindly don't do it with me. Don't war, don't hound, don't follow, don't bully, don't revert, don't disrespect, don't remove things because of your obvious "I Don't Like It" reasons. Because that's a violation. And because then it could happen to you, and I'm sure wouldn't like it. And also, you'll get reported if you continue it. And I'm sure you wouldn't like that either. Do it again, and that's what'll happen. Stay away from me. I'm serious. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton of Books, let's just stick to verifiable facts and avoid personal animosity. Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no big problem leaving it as "Lord", but that's not all you removed. Anyway, the reason I put that in is to elaborate a bit more (per usage in ASV and other translations) what the term "Lord" was referring to. Because technically it's not Angel of the "Lord" in the original Hebrew, but rather "Angel of Jehovah" or "Angel of Yehowah". (From YHWH or YHVH or JHVH). NOT "Adonai". Hence why the need to maybe have both terms in the article, for clarity and elaboration. You notice that I did not remove all terms "Lord" in the article. (Plus, that's not even the point, as it doesn't speak to the issue of unwarranted following-me-around, and how you never even replied back again on the other article talk page, about your erroneous assumption that I put the NEB listing in that section, etc.) Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I raised no difficulty against your statement that it was not you who originally inserted the "e.g. ..." NEB list - I didn't want a quarrel. That's why I did not riposte that you did reinsert the list (twice, I think), and in this way made it yours. May we now pause? Esoglou (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine (as far as the NEB situation). But again, the reversions you made on recent articles that I edited were not all that necessary, or warranted (even if you didn't do it from checking my history which you obviously did), but just showed (again) your POV bias against the established Anglicized form. Check it. There are scholars on BOTH sides of the issue. Some for, some against, and some in-between. By the way, I also put the form "Yehowah" in articles to give more of a Hebraic flavor, in certain contexts. I try to be careful. Because I don't want slants or unsourced things put in, whether I agree with them or not. But also because "Yehowah" is an established and accepted transliteration. But "Jehovah" is more so in the "J" pronunciation in the English. Regardless, though, how was it supposed to make me feel that you actually checked my edit history, went to some articles I contributed to recently, because of obvious hostility (because what other reason is there?), and undid many elaborations and accurate established things I put in? No one on WP likes to be followed around or hounded by hostile or unfriendly editors. I would never do that with someone, because that's not how I am. You did not bother with these articles before, until you saw (from my history) that I recently edited them. That's arguably hounding. And I would appreciate you not do that. That's all I'm saying. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

On insertions of "Yehowah"/"Jehovah" or undoing of them, let consensus among editors decide. OK? Esoglou (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you have not addressed once the main matter of you checking my edit history, following-me-around, and the stalking issue. You keep dodging that, and focusing only on the matter of "Yehowah/Jehovah", and not caring about the disruptions you made on edits that I recently made, by hounding me, by checking my history. Why did you do that? Of course you keep evading that point because you know that that's what you did, and you can't really defend it much. Again, regardless of the matter of POV or what belongs where and "consensus" (which is not infallible, but generally should be respected), you were wrong and out of line and annoying for checking my history, neurotically, and molesting my edits because you had personal bias and resentment. That's something I would never put up with. So in that sense, it doesn't really matter that much about the "Jehovah/Yehowah" issue on "Angel of the Lord" or anywhere else, or whatever consensus says.

You were uncool for looking up my edit history and intruding and disrupting that way. Stalking is never a wise thing to do, and will always cause more problems, more animosity, and can turn ugly. That was my overall point here. Don't hound me. Or anyone else. It's wrong. And also because I never do that nonsense to anyone.

I never thought to look at your edit history (even though I know you have bias issues, and that you have been reverted over and over again on the "Jehovah" article for your nonsense and POV-pushing), I never bothered looking at your other edits on other pages, because I'm not uncool like that. You dig? I'm being blunt now, because you never even apologized, owned up, or addressed the point of your obvious stalking. (Whether other editors choose to see it that way is irrelevant, because you did check my edit history, and you did disrupt my recent edits, because of bias or whatever reason (valid or not), right after that recent thing on the talk page of "Jehovah". That's just a fact.) The point again, simply, is don't stalk, don't hound. It's a violation, and it's not really necessary.

And by the way, did you ever do that with Jeffro? I mean, he has reverted you way more many times, over similar issues, than I ever did. He has had major problems with you. Did you ever think to follow him around? Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:HA. I have not violated the norms. I refrain from remarking on whether you have. Esoglou (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My point though is that you started to do it (and there's no question that you checked my edit history, in order to go on those recently edited articles etc, and there's no question that you did it right after that thing on the "Jehovah" talk page, etc,) and I waned to nip any hounding nonsense that you were doing in the bud. Yes, you were following, and yes that's a violation.

Remember too, Eso. You were the one who was reverted and corrected many times (not just by me, and not even mostly by me), on that other article. The bias was proven to be more with you, than with anyone else. The problem (with that inconsistent listing, and loaded wordings, and POV-pushing and blatant edits on "Jehovah") was with you. That was already proven there. And I was merely questioning your inconsistent stuff on things like "NEB", and POV insistence, because of your hang-up against the established Anglicized form "Jehovah". (Some "scholars" of course share your view, but obviously not all...many don't. That's whatever.)

The point is that you have not acknowledged that you went into my edit history because of issues on the other article that we recently had, and then went to a number of (religious) articles that I contributed to, decided to second-guess them, (partly because you knew that Jeffro was not there to challenge anything, as I'm not always on WP to begin with). As I said, I wanted to nip it in the bud, your obvious hounding and following-around. I would not do that with you just because I don't like your position or attitude on certain things. I don't roll like that, even though I know some editors do. Maybe for legitimate reasons sometimes, but I stay away from doing that to any editor, because I like minding my own business, not the business of others. And you decided to mind mine. And that aint cool (or warranted). And I did not want it to continue.

Because if it went on, it would be definitely WP:Hounding. And that's definitely a violation. My point is that no one is perfect every second or every syllable. I'm not, and you definitely are not. Just being frank. It's a matter of taking the good with the bad. But we gotta be careful with the long-held biases and POV. I have personal problems with the form "Yahweh" (wrongly two syllables instead of correctly three, wrongly "Y" instead of more correctly English "J" as in "Jeremiah" etc), but you don't see me disturbing or adding my POV to the "Yahweh" article. Nor do I go and change every article on WP that has "Yahweh" in it, since I know it's a sourced term and a common term. Nor do I follow anyone around who is so pro-"Yahweh" or so anti-"Jehovah" in every article. I try hard to be careful, yet also demonstrating what else is sourced and established. It's that simple. We all need to be careful. Peace out. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As you know, WP:Hounding redirects to a part of WP:HA. Perhaps you have misunderstood "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles". It is for the community to decide matters such as whether your insertions of "Jehovah" into various articles should be kept. If we want to join the work of Misplaced Pages, you and I can and should make proposals and point out problems that seem to require attention. We should then accept the community's decision: Misplaced Pages belongs to neither of us. Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line is that checking someone's edit history that you had issues or disagreements with on another article, (where you were reverted by others as well, for POV pushing, bias, and loaded edits and wordings), snooping into a person's history and edits and articles, is NOT COOL. And is disrespectful, and is hounding, and is a violation. I wouldn't do that to you (though I can see someone doing it to you for your obvious bias)...so please don't do it others. I'll say it again: CHECKING SOMEONE'S EDIT HISTORY BECAUSE YOU LOST A DISPUTE IN ANOTHER ARTICLE, WHERE YOU WERE RIGHTLY REVERTED BY A NUMBER OF OTHER EDITORS, AND THEN SNOOPING AND DISRUPTING THE USER'S EDITS, OUT OF MALICE, AND BIAS, AND MINDING SOMEONE ELSE'S BUSINESS, IN ARTICLES THAT YOU NEVER BOTHERED WITH BEFORE, BUT ONLY TO MESS WITH THE EDITS OF A USER WHO UNDID YOUR POV, CHECKING SOMEONE'S HISTORY AND GOING TO THEIR PREVIOUS EDITS, BLATANTLY PEERING INTO THEIR HISTORY TO TRY TO DISRUPT STUFF THAT "YOU DON'T LIKE", is just plain neurotic, uncool, jerky, rude, and disrespectful...and is the start of stalking behavior. Don't do it. Period. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I can sympathize with the pain you feel at having your efforts to insert "Jehovah" into various articles frustrated by other editors, including me. Your pain is evident from your SHOUTING here and your devoting 88 of your 91 edits between 17:17 on 31 August and 21:10 on 1 September to your feelings on the matter, with almost half of them, 43, on this talk page alone. I am glad that time may already be healing your hurt, since from 23:53 on 1 September you have found other interests, even if most of these most recent edits of yours were about a disagreement you have with another editor. Esoglou (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Were you in pain when you got defeated by me and Jeffro repeatedly on the "Jehovah" article? Because of your neurotic efforts to disparage the form "Jehovah". And that your idiotic edits, and your illogical disruptions were summarily and swiftly reverted all the time? So now you whine about some caps (done only for strong emphasis, because you're obviously slow in getting the point), and me trying to make the comments on your talk correct and fixing it, because it's kind of important, and harp on petty junk like that, and read more into that then there is?

Anyway, Eso... so was that pay-back for getting undone (rightly so) on the Jehovah article and talk page? Obviously...attempted payback, your neurotic hounding and silly following? I tried to reason with you to some degree, even though I basically knew from the beginning that with someone like you it was a waste of time and effort. As for me, no, it's not pain, but anger, at neurotic stalkish behavior. My only "interest" in you is warning you clearly to not stalk me and to stay the hell way from me, son. Other than that, I couldn't care less. Like I said, not "pain" but understandable anger at your rude stalkish POV nonsense. (I'm funny like that, to be annoyed with that crap.) And obvious POV-pushing habits, by someone who has obvious uptight soap-box hang-ups and problems with the form "Jehovah", and neurotically crusades against it, even on the Jehovah article itself, which you really have no business in if you're that biased, and obviously is pained himself that he got defeated on the "Jehovah" article, who gets reverted all the time, by me and other editors, so now feels the pathetic need to stalk one of the editors to hound and disturb valid edits, simply because "you don't like it". You got problems, kid. Stay away from me, or you'll get reported, and will risk being blocked.

Also, by the way, Eso, I got a message from someone else who has had the displeasure of dealing with your issues in recent months. You show your compulsive edit warring and POV by violating agreements, because I got an interesting note on my talk page from "LoveMonkey", another fellow you've annoyed with your nonsense, and he (lol) had some very interesting things (and links) to give me on my talk...that I relayed recently to an Admin. (See what LoveMonkey wrote me right here). And also check here. I think it's wise to not feed the fires here, and just let this go. Believe me. It's not easy to take the high road with someone like you. You're not to be reasoned with. But you don't want this escalating. For real.

And like I said, just to correct your silly assumptions. I felt no "pain" at all, I mean, there are other neurotic editors on WP besides you, we know, and that's life, but at least they don't stalk me, like you did, so again, just anger at your stalking and POV insanity, because no one on WP likes to be hounded or followed around by a POV pushing neurotic, who is doing so out of malice for being "pained" himself on some other article. (I'm sure you were in deep pain or resentment over that, so hence your reactionary stalking behavior). And the fact that you make a comment about my recent activity dealing with some other matter shows that you neurotically checked my history again (people such as you can't help themselves I know, OCD and all), and can't just mind your own business. I warned you about that, that was it. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum

Look what others said to you in recent months...
One editor said:
"Esoglou you are going to get into a world of hurt by blatantly breaching your editing restrictions in this way, especially so soon after the restrictions were enforced. Do not edit this material, even if you think it's wrong and even if you think LM has failed to uphold the restriction. Bringing perceived breaches of the agreement to Ed's attention is the right thing to do; "correcting" them yourself is not. For the record I see no breach by LM here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)" ******
also another one here:
Another said: "At any rate, Esoglou, you technically should not even be discussing this material on the talk page (if I'm reading the editing restrictions correctly), let alone editing it.--Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)"*******
It seems that you've gotten into neurotic issues and problems with many others on Misplaced Pages, and in typical obsessive compulsive fashion, can't help yourself when you violate agreements, Wiki etiquette, NPOV maintenance, etc. No one's perfect. No one. I'm not the easiest person either. But I try hard to only put things that are established, sourced, and valid. While leaving things that I may not like or agree with alone, as long as they're sourced and established...(hence why I do NOT go around removing "Yahweh" from every WP article I see it with...unlike you with "Jehovah"...lol) But I already had your number months ago, and from looking at more past edit history pages on the "Jehovah" article, as well as on just about any other religious article out there, you've been a big problem on Misplaced Pages. Not my words, but the words of others, waaayyy more established or experienced than I am. But you never own up or admit anything, because that's just how you are. Anyway, again, I'm not saying I'm perfect every second or syllable. Nobody is. I try to take the good with the bad, in people. I don't agree with everything Jeffro has said or done, for example, but I respect him from what I've seen. Nor do I agree with LoveMonkey on everything. Etc. Either in style or substance. I'm just saying that even aside from your constant POV-pushing and disruptions that you do, going one step further into actual checking and stalking of someone is way crossing the line, and I would never put up with it. And neither does Misplaced Pages policy. "WP:Hound" which you love to deny you do. (Rarely does a WP stalker ever admit that he's a WP stalker, so that's no big surprise.) bye Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Biblical refs

Hi, I have cleaned up the historical parts of the perpetual virginity article, and now the Analysis of Biblical passages section remains. But much of it needs to be deleted due to duplication. Given that you know the topic better than myself, when you have a chance, could you please trim that section if you like? All that needs to be done is the removal of what would be "peripheral arguments", and the keeping of the main arguments, you would recognize those better. Then I will add references, once you decide what needs to remain as key points. I would suggest a 70% reduction of that section. Then that page should be stable, by and large. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Done as well as I can. Esoglou (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty nicely done in fact. I will just copy something from above about Behold your son and we should be done. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ecumenical Councils

I noticed the edit where you added that the Catholic position is that regardless of who summoned it, a council's not ecumenical until accepted by the Pope.

Do you know when that position began?

Montalban (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it has always been the position of the Church of Rome. For upholders of the theory of the Pentarchy also, acceptance by all five patriarchs, including the Bishop of Rome, is required. There are of course some odd people who held and perhaps hold the emperor's (or empress's) summoning to be necessary: that means that, unless the Roman Empire, perhaps with Constantinople again as capital, is reestablished, there can be no successor to the seven ecumenical councils. Esoglou (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I found this via Google Search. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the emperor's sacra was necessary - the first Ecumenical Council was called without the Pope knowing of it. The rtforum.org site says at best there's no evidence to this fact, but knows for certain that the Pope just must have known about it. The fact the council was called AFTER the pope had condemned Arius is also important to note. However, getting back to the sacra the Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431) saw the Emperor favour Nestorius but his sister favoured Cyril (Patriarch of Alexandria). see McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, NY). You should read about the opening of that council and the reading of the sacra. Two rival groups had met in the city but it was only the group that had the sacra read out to it was considered the 'Council'. Montalban (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added a new section to illustrate this point http://en.wikipedia.org/Ecumenical_council#What_made_the_Council_Ecumenical.3F Montalban (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to take a position for or against either the view expressed in Pseudo-Richard's source or the view that Montalban expresses (perhaps by a Misplaced Pages-excluded synthesis) with regard to the ecumenical councils that he recognizes. Lumen gentium, quoted in Pseudo-Richard's source, says firstly (like the Pentarchists) that there "never" is an ecumenical council unless the Bishop of Rome confirms or at least (without actually/expressly confirming it) recognizes it. It says secondly that it is (now) the prerogative of the Pope to convoke, preside over and confirm (not merely "recognize", as previously) ecumenical councils, a decision reached at the time of the Conciliar Movement, in condemnation of the view that bishops could hold a Pope-less (and patriarch-less) council that would be superior to the Pope. Lumen gentium does not actually say that the earliest councils were in fact convoked, presided over or even confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. The use of the term "recognize" seems to me to include the possibility of an ecumenical council having been held without even the knowledge of the Pope, provided that he merely recognized it afterwards, thereby making it ecumenical. Montalban's view might seem to support the opinion that, for lack of an emperor, no ecumenical council could be held at present, but I presume he does not actually maintain that opinion. That, at least, is how I see it. Hence I don't need to take sides. Esoglou (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

well the first ecumenical council 'was' an ecumenical council without the Pope. The second ecumenical council read into its minutes the proceedings of the first. The second was headed by a man not in communion with the pope, and after he died, by a man that the pope thought was invalid. That's not even counting the fact that the popes condemned certain heretics, such as Nestorius and the councils were still convened to decide for themselves after the pope had made his decision. However, I'll say no more about it here 'cause it's not a debate site. What I will say is that I re-edited to show what made an council 'ecumenical'.

Montalban (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You can have your opinion and I can have mine, the source Pseudo-Richard quoted can have his and Pseudo-Richard himself can have his. As I said, I have no intention of discussion any of these opinions. On the other hand, edits to Misplaced Pages must conform to Misplaced Pages rules, in particular WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I am prepared to discuss on the appropriate Talk page - not here - the breaking of those rules. Esoglou (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added to the discussion on the talk page. I invite you to discuss what I have written there Montalban (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Expressing concerns by bracketing the text

This edit of yours puts some material from the Ecumenical council article inside HTML comment brackets, thus making it invisible. This suggests you have a difference of opinion with other editors. It also suggests a clash between Catholic and Orthodox views of this material. I recommend that you not make further edits about the status or validity of Ecumenical councils unless consensus is obtained on the talk page. Otherwise we may get into a situation where neither you nor LoveMonkey is allowed to edit the material. The restrictions could prevent either of you from revising it. This deadlock could be avoided if agreement between the two sides can be found. If you think waiting for agreement is too constraining, I recommend that you take a break from the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

May I point out firstly (as a decidedly minor matter) that what you call my "hiding" the text was not done sneakily. In my edit summary I drew attention to my action and to the reason for doing it. User:Montalban kept replacing the text without either remedying the lack of citations or else discussing the question on Talk. My action was intended to get Montalban to respond in the way in which, fortunately, he has now begun to act.

In relation to the complaint made to you by, of course, LoveMonkey, please look again at the edit in question. In the text that, for the purpose I have mentioned, I commented out, the Eastern Orthodox Church was not mentioned. The text made absolute statements, unsourced and largely unfounded personal ones, about ecumenical councils. My edit was thus not "regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice". If I had been free to make edits "regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice", I would have tried to edit the text to make it express sourced Eastern Orthodox views. But I am not free. I had to wait for Laurel Lodged to do something on those lines, as he did with this edit. I immediately expressed my gratitude for his action. Technically, I should have stopped editing at that point, but I trust you will understand my continuing the discussion with Laurel a little longer. From now on, I can only make comments on the Talk page about that part of that section of the article.

It is fortunate that nobody is trying to prevent me from citing sources about Anglican views :-).

Thank you for your interest. Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The word 'hiding' was only intended in a technical HTML sense. Sorry for the poor choice of words on my part. Your reply seems to take care of this matter. As you know you are not restricted from commenting on Orthodox matters on talk pages, or from adding things to articles about the Anglican Church. I suggest that you not add 'citation needed' tags to Orthodox passages, but you can ask others to do so. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. Adding citation-needed tags to Eastern Orthodox passages would be a form of editing. Only on Talk pages (articles or users) can I request citations for statements on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice. My tagging in the discussion with Laurel was only to indicate the lack that I pointed out to him. And I acknowledge that technically I really ought to have stopped sooner. Esoglou (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If I could put in my two bits, I have also noticed and been perturbed by the addition of text by User:Montalban that asserts the EO point-of-view as if it were fact rather than representing it as the EO POV. I think it would be insufficient to add citations to the text. The assertions need to be attributed inline to specific sources who are identified as EO sources if that is what they are. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think many of Montalban's statements are no more than personal ideas of his, not views of Eastern Orthodox theologians and historians and so not even EO POV. Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

Montalban has been adding significant text to Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Current constraints on my time restrict my ability to review and critique all the new text. Can you review the additional text and assess its suitability? It seems to me that there is a lot of text and that it may be disproportionately long but, as I said, I haven't had time to give it a close read. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just can't open up another front, especially when I may not directly edit the text. Apart from the defects of the content, it is, as you say, quite disproportionate. The constant activity on it must be discouraging other editors from intervening. When the ardour of the active editor cools down - which may take quite some time - someone will surely cut the text down to size and hopefully make it more objective. Until then, at least for my part, patience. Esoglou (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been holding back for exactly the reasons that you mentioned. My time has been spent improving First Council of Ephesus. Please a look and see if there are any areas that I should polish up before moving on to another project. I think I will be coming back to work on Ecumenical council once the RFC period has expired (7 days). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a few retouches. Would you remove the commented-out text? Esoglou (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Catholic religious order

History2007 has asked me to look at Catholic religious order, making this request on my Talk Page. Please take a look at his request and at the article and give me your thoughts. Broad comments about general directions to improve the article would be adequate. My Misplaced Pages and non-Misplaced Pages plates are quite full so I won't be able to work on this article right away but I'd like to hear your thoughts on what areas I should be researching. My initial thought is that the article doesn't make it clear enough to the reader that the Catholic religious orders have been crucial in the formation and organization of Catholic clergy and religious for most of the history of the Church. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My only comment is that it would be better to move the history part to the religious institute article, where it belongs, and then reduce the Catholic religious order article further.

If you think the following too complicated, just ignore it.

I think that by "religious order" you understand (Catholic) "religious institute", which in turn is a category of institute of consecrated life. For an oversight of categories and subcategories, see this list of headings.

The term "religious institute" came into use only in the middle of the 20th century, when recognition was first given to secular institutes. There were no secular institutes at the time of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. So it did not distinguish between between religious institutes (the term didn't exist) and secular institutes (the institutes and so the term didn't exist). It did distinguish between "religious orders" and "congregations" and laid down different effects of membership in one category or the other. The current (1983) Code of Law does not differentiate between them, neither in name nor in practical terms. So the religious order/congregation distinction is of course of historical interest, but today it has no practical consequences whatsoever in law or life. But some claim the distinction is still valid and not just a matter of history.

A difficulty is that the distinction is no longer clear. In 1917 it was simple: religious orders took solemn vows, congregations did not. But in the mid-20th century some congregations of women got authorization to take solemn vows or at least to take a solemn vow of poverty while taking simple vows of chastity and obedience. Did those "congregations" become "orders" or did they not? The 1983 Code is no help: it says nothing whatever about "orders" or "congregations" (in that sense).

The Annuario Pontificio still publishes a list of institutes of consecrated life in much the same form as before the 1983 Code, with the distinction, for Latin-Rite men only, between "orders" and "congregations". It divided them up in that way in the mid-1960s: before that it simply listed them in the alphabetical order of the names in Latin. Since 1976, when the 1983 Code was already taking shape, the Annuario Pontificio decided to call the list a "historical-juridical list". It has never divided women's institutes into "orders" and "congregations", and so it cannot be used to see if solemn vows (or at least one solemn vow out of three?) still distinguishes "orders" from "congregations".

Not all institutes that were classified as "orders" have the word "order" in their name, not all institutes that were classified as "congregations" have the word "congregation" in their name – most of them don't. I presume that, when speaking technically, they would now generally describe themselves as "religious institutes", the only class term recognized in the present canon law, or at least that the "congregations" would do so – maybe some of the "orders" would prefer to use that name as a title of honour. Esoglou (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh lord, I'm almost sorry that I asked... that was a lot more than I expected and a whole area that I knew nothing about. I will try to do the above justice some day but it won't be very soon because I will have to try to wrap my brain around it first. Thanks. I value your extensive knowledge. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I happened to see this now, as I was leaving a message. The reason I thought of you Richard was that I remembered how we talked about women in "religious orders" made a big difference in Medieval times. That article grew well in time, and I was hoping you could do similar things, on the devotional angle on religous orders in general. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And, I appreciate the vote of confidence. However, as you might tell from my recent contributions list, I am up to my eyeballs with First Council of Ephesus, Ecumenical council, Papal infallibility and Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. I'll try to get back to Catholic religious order in due course but it may take a while. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. The Church is 2,000 years old. There is nothing "incorrect" in that article, it just needs a few plants here and there, some nice wallpaper, etc. to brighten it up. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Papal infallibility

Thanks for keeping a watch on that article. It is indeed hard to keep up with multiple fronts. I have discovered that there is more to write on the First Council of Ephesus. Specifically, too many sources stop with the description of Cyril's one-day session and suggest to the reader that it was all over by that point. In fact, it seems there were two additional sessions and so it turns out I'm not done with that article yet. I tell you this in order to explain why I am unable to do much with Papal infallibility at the moment. That said, I'm curious to understand what your thoughts are about Montalban's reversion of one of your edits. What is going on here? It seems that you are asserting that Irish and English Catholics rejected papal infallibility only shortly before Vatican I whereas Montalban is insisting that there is documented evidence that they were rejecting it much earlier. Have I captured the essence of the dispute correctly?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather, ask Montalban why he keeps deleting what I there again restored. I was certainly not suggesting, still less asserting, that this was the first denial of papal infallibility by Irish and English Catholics. This is a clear, unambiguous and sourced denial of papal infallibility, unlike some of Montalban's assertions, which I have not denied. In their regard I have only asked Montalban to clarify and verify his assertions. He refuses to do so. I also inserted, with a link to the document itself, the exact words of the denial of infallibility in the Declaration and Protestation signed by English Catholics in 1789, twelve years before the union of Britain and Ireland into a single kingdom. Montalban removed both the quotation and the link. Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Theological advice

A few users have asked a few questions on eternal life, e.g. in the Catholic context. The history of that article was no flower garden, and I actually wish I had never started it, given the situation now. But now that it is there, it might as well be correct. I am not going to expand it, because it is not my topic really, I only built it because it used to point to Eternal Life (song). But given the many perspectives there, if you see some errors and have pointers and links to the issue of "those who do not receive it" which seems to be missing, e.g. the Oblivion comment etc. that will be good. The article is protected now so there is no battle, but a few comments from a theologically aware user such as yourself will be nice. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can do anything to help. I haven't had the appetite to try to find out what exactly the dispute was about. (I have enough trouble trying to get someone else to specify what is his dispute on account of which he keeps deleting my edits.) I doubt if there is anything to say about the subject in a specifically "Catholic context". I think most Biblical exegetes would consider that the phrase has different meanings or at least different nuances for the different evangelists etc. All I can do is to indicate the sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that, according to the index of one edition, relate to "eternal life": "679 (Christ and eternal life); 1020 (death as entrance into eternal life); 33 (of soul);1023 (vision of the divine being); see also Resurrection of the dead." Esoglou (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the dispute was over via an indefinite block before I left you a message. I was not asking for body-guard protection so to speak, but general theological advice because the user OldWambat brought up the Catholic angle that would lead to purgatory, etc. Anyway, no worries if it is not on your path to edit. It is a topic I wish I had not even started, as I said, but one that needs to be done eventually. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned

Your name has been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#More Esoglou edit warring. One option is to consider that both you and LoveMonkey are banned from discussing the early Ecumenical councils, since they predate the split between the eastern and western churches. You can add your own comment on my talk page if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It was obvious who did the "mentioning". In my comment, I said: "Perhaps it is time to treat LoveMonkey's complaints as what they are and as his expressions show them to be. Just because he chooses to intervene in an already existing discussion in which I am involved is no reason for suddenly banning me from that discussion." Esoglou (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian views on poverty and wealth

It strikes me that some version of the text that you wrote about the Franciscan doctrine of apostolic poverty for Papal infallibility would be appropriate for the article on Christian views on poverty and wealth. I don't think we should use the text in toto but I think a concise summary would be relevant. Would you look at Christian views on poverty and wealth and give me your thoughts about how best to present the topic? (NB: This is NOT the article that I proposed linking to from Papal infallibility. I think we need a separate, new article that focuses on just this one controversy.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent to writing the above, I found the articles titled Franciscan and Apostolic poverty. I noticed you fixed up my edits to those articles which I made using the text that you originally inserted into Papal infallibility.

Concerning Christian views on poverty and wealth, all I'm looking for is a "hook" sentence on which to hang a link to Apostolic poverty. Or perhaps we need to have a separate article on Vows of poverty in religious institutes which then references Apostolic poverty. The problem here is that my ignorance on this topic is so abject that I don't really know enough to even determine what articles are needed. Can you help? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now looked up what you get in Misplaced Pages if you search for vow of poverty and evangelical counsels. I have been under too much pressure on and off Misplaced Pages recently to have any appetite for making improvements to either. Esoglou (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't think I can be of help with regard to your wide-ranging article on Christian views on poverty and wealth. I would have liked to distinguish "apostolic poverty" from other forms of "religious poverty" - "religious" in the sense of vowed within a religious institute; but the two terms are treated as synonymous in many sources. If they could be distinguished, one term could be reserved for the idea upheld by the Franciscan Spirituals, as opposed to the poverty vowed by Carmelites, Dominicans, Jesuits ... Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... now, I'm intrigued. What is the distinction that you are trying to draw here? I'm guessing that the religious orders other than the Franciscan Spirituals admit the possibility of owning property in common while the Franciscan Spirituals eschewed even the holding of property in common. Are you saying that no reliable source draws this distinction? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the distinction that I would have liked to be able to draw, but if you Google for both terms together, you find several sources that treat them as synonymous. That discouraged me from looking for any source that may perhaps make the distinction. Esoglou (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism

Please take a look at my recent comment on Anti-clericalism. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits in the article seem quite justified. Your comment on Talk:Anti-clericalism also, except that the word "anti-clericalism", strictly speaking, applies only to an attitude regarding clergy (in the Catholic Church until 1972 those who had received clerical tonsure, since then those who have been ordained at least to the diaconate), not to (non-clerical) religious male or female. Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, this is more or less the concern that I expressed on that Talk Page. However, my sense is that, outside the Catholic Church, these distinctions are not drawn and that anti-clericalism historically has been targeted against anybody who was not a lay Catholic. Thus, my feeling is that the article should cover anti-clericalism as it is defined in the non-Catholic world despite the fact that it is broader than the technical definition of "clerical" in the Catholic world. There is, after all, no other term to describe the phenomenon of targeting non-clerical Catholic religious. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that define "anti-clericalism" in that way? Perhaps too it is best not to bring in "the non-Catholic world": is "anti-clericalism" used except in regard to an attitude or supposed attitude of people who are at least nominally Catholic? Esoglou (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Debate site

There's a debate site you might be interested here

http://www.christianforums.com/t7602448/#post58824649

for discussion on Papal Primacy Montalban (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, by no means. I am not at all interested in responding to more coat trailing than is already done on Misplaced Pages. Esoglou (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

EAST WEST SCHISM MAP

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Was_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary_Catholic.2C_Orthodox_or_both_in_1054.3F

"Now, we can have a debate about a question how many Orthodox Christians lived there an in which territory. There are other sources that confirming presence of Vlachs (Romanians) and South Slavs (Serbs, Bulgarians) in the territories that were administered by the Kingdom of Hungary around 11th century." Be more concret: Please name at least 5 orthodox or orthodox built churches (or their ruins) in the territory Great Hungarian plain or 5 orthodox or orthodox built churches (or their ruins) in Transylvania from the 11th century.

MATERIAL PROOFS, ARCHEOLOGY: There are no proofs for the existence of Serbs in the territory of Hungary before the Ottoman attacks of Serbia. There weren't Southern slavic population in the territory of Kingdom of Hungary before the era of Ottoman attacks. Before the Hungarian conquest there were only western Slavic population in present-day viovodina. Don't confuse the western slavic people with southern-slavic people. Ancient western slavic people had different folk arts in archaeological founds, and they have so very different biological genetical bacground (Y and mt DNA markers.) that they weren't in the same genetic cluster! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/genmap1.jpg Forexample Serbian historians mention very rarely that the exclusively western slavic archeological founds in whole territory of kingdom of Hungary, in most cases they remained silent:-) For Bulgaria, the bulgarian semi nomadic state conquered the territory of transylvania, but there weren't southern slavic cultural archeological founds there were only western slavic folk archelogical founds before the Hungarian conquest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.170.246 (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that there is more than one view: your view and the view you attack. I have no personal opinion, and the quotation above, "Now, we can have ..." was not written by me. Esoglou (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Raccolta

Hi, Off hand, sans research, do you know if The Raccolta changes dramatically over the years as in Talk:Rosary_of_the_Seven_Sorrows? The older versions and the new one seem pretty different. Do indulgences change over time? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the seriously out-of-date article on the historic Raccolta and left a short (too short?) comment on the talk page you mentioned. Esoglou (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped. I started a quick page for Enchiridion Indulgentiarum anyway. What is not clear yet in the three articles (3rd being Indulgentiarum Doctrina) is whether the contracts (so to speak) of the previous Popes were invalidated, e.g. if someone prays the Chaplet of the 7 Sorrows tomorrow, on the day of reckoning will they be told "sorry, that indulgence became invalid in 1967, you are out of luck" or are the indulgences still attached but not listed? History2007 (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that grants (not "contracts") of indulgences are not irrevocable. See the supplementary norms of Indulgentiarum doctrina which gave religious institutes and the like one year to seek confirmation for the grants of plenary indulgences previously made to them and decreed that any grants not confirmed would be null and void two years after Indulgentiarum doctrina. Discussions of whether a grant of partial indulgence was for the equivalent of 100 days or 1 year or whatever of canonical penance no longer have any sense: Indulgentiarum doctrina explicitly says that "the former determination of days and years" is "abolished". The chaplet you speak of is indulgenced, not on the basis of some grant by a Pope of the past, but in virtue of the current general grant of a partial indulgence for "raising the mind to God with humble trust while performing one's duties and bearing life's difficulties, and adding, at least mentally, some pious invocation", and the value (for remission of temporal punishment) of that partial indulgence is not a matter of whatever number of days of canonical penance but is instead a doubling of the value that the person reciting the chaplet puts into it (Norm 4).

I'm afraid I fail to see how Indulgentiarum doctrina and Enchiridion Indulgentiarum can require individual Misplaced Pages articles. I think they can be understood only in a wider context. I hope you don't mind if I turn at least the Indulgentiarum doctrina article into a redirect to the article on indulgences. The need to turn the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum article into a redirect is perhaps less obvious, but even for that I think a redirect, either to Indulgence#Present discipline or to Raccolta, would be better. Esoglou (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. You know more about this topic, so please fix it as needed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hey, you may be interested in this thread I posted. Nightw 06:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I strongly doubt that it will be necessary for me to intervene. Esoglou (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Meletian schism

As you know, I have been working on providing a fuller description of the context of the First Council of Constantinople. I think I have done an adequate job of doing so with the exception of the discussion of the Meletian schism. I have not been able to come to a good understanding of what the schism was about. Can you help me understand what the schism was about? I gather that there came to be a point where the theological basis of the schism had been resolved (although I have not fully grasped what the issues were) and that the only problem was how to rejoin the two sides. Apparently, there was an agreement that whoever died first would recognize the other thus rejoining the two sides. Somehow, however, the deal came apart (I think because the successor refused to recognize the survivor). I do not feel sufficiently in grasp of all the details to tell this story yet. If you are more familiar with this schism than I am, perhaps you could help me understand it better. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't find anything helpful on the Internet, although it probably is there for the finding. All I can do is to transcribe what Philip Hughes wrote in Volume I, pp. 224-225 of his History of the Church, first published in 1934 by Sheed and Ward: "Antioch, ever since Eusebius of Nicomedia had procured the deposition of its Catholic bishop of 330, had been ruled by Arians of one school or another. When the see fell vacant in 360, by the translation of its Arian titular to Constantinople, the bishops in whose hands the election lay, chose as his successor Meletius, Bishop of Sebaste, a Homoiousian of the school of Basil of Ancyra. It was a brave demonstration of Nicene sympathy to make on the morrow of Rimini; and within a month Constantius II had expelled the new bishop, exiled him, and installed an Arian of satisfying type in his place ... f his first eighteen years as Bishop of Antioch, Meletius spent twelve in exile for the faith of Nicea. Whence, throughout the East, he won a great name as a confessor ... Unhappily not all Catholics would acknowledge him as Bishop of Antioch; many, despite St. Basil's guarantees of his perfect Nicene orthodoxy, continued to suspect him - the elect of bishops themselves none too orthodox - as an Arian. The chief of these anti-Meletians was the Bishop of Alexandria, first St. Athanasius, and then, and with even greater zeal, his successor Peter (373-383). A more serious consequence still was that, in this matter, Alexandria influenced Rome; and for the popes too, Liberius and Damasus I (366-384), Meletius, to whom the Catholic East, St. Basil at its head, looked as to its primate, was simply an heretical intruder."

Hughes then recounts the uncanonical consecration as Bishop of Antioch of Paulinus, a priest who considered Meletius an Arian.

On page 228 Hughes says of the 381 council: "Within a few days Meletius himself died and it now lay within the council's power to end the schism by electing Paulinus in his place. Such would have been the solution preferred by St. Gregory, now the council's president. But the anti-western spirit was too strong. If the East had returned to the faith which the West had never lost, it still preferred to settle matters of discipline as though the West did not exist. So St. Gregory notes and laments. The council left the election to the bishops of the civil diocese whose capital Antioch was. They chose, to succeed Meletius, one of his priests, Flavian."

On pages 231-232, after telling of the election to the see of Constantinople in 398 of John Chrysostom, who had been ordained priest by Flavian, "The new bishop was to secure from Rome recognition of the successor of Meletius. The succession of Paulinus had died out. His followers had accepted Flavian; and St. John's intervention removed the last trace of the long unhappy schism. Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, the three chief sees, were once more in communion - the first time for nearly seventy years."

I hope that is enough. Hughes does acknowledge in a footnote that there is a very different account, according to which Meletius had allied himself with the more political type of Arians and his conduct and choice of allies gave good reason for suspicion. Esoglou (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed that you had responded to my request. It wasn't until today that I noticed the response. Thank you for this. It is exactly what I needed. I knew many of the parts but I hadn't understood until now the bit about Meletius being a Homouisian and thus being distrusted by the Nicene Christians. The story makes a lot more sense to me now. Does Hughes give a source for the "very different account"? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Histoire de l'Église depuis les origines jusqu'à nos jours, publiée sous la direction de Augustin Fliche et Victor Martin, vol. III, pp. 173-174 (the two pages are only a summary of the much longer treatment). Esoglou (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this for real?

I just saw the page Serviam. I did searches and it seems to be just incorrect and may even need an Afd. Before I say that, had you ever even heard of this? The page has no WP: sources and Gbooks search shows nothing real except a self published book, probably lifted from Misplaced Pages. Had you ever heard of this along with Quis ut Deus? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems not to be baseless. That the one-word prayer is a morning offering of Opus Dei is shown by this news story and is perhaps indicated also by this Opus Dei site and other sites that can be found by Googling "serviam opus dei". Googling "serviam ursuline" gives ample proof that "Serviam" is a motto associated with the Ursulines. Googling "Serviam Foundation" seems to indicate that the article correctly associates the motto with Cardinal Sin. Esoglou (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I still seems obscure, given that it does not appear in any of the well known books on Catholic teachings, but I asked the user who wrote the page to fix it, and I will not Afd it based on what you said. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned again

See User talk:EdJohnston#Esoglou editing in Eastern Orthodoxy section again. Whether a certain expression occurs in the text of the New Testament is surely a simply factual question that doesn't require a citation to an Orthodox theologian. If the two of you still disagree about how Filoque should present this material please work it out on the talk page. You and LM are free to discuss it there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Excommunication

You and I both seem to be trying to accomplish the same goal on the Excommunication article, and neither of us is having any particular success. That IP user (and I've looked up all the IPs used - I'm pretty sure it's the same person on all of them) seems determined to push that "sermonaudio" Web site. I went and looked at the site, and it is totally irrelevant. It does have the item he mentions, but I don't see how that bears enough significance to be mentioned in the article rather than external links. I believe it's just a spam link. (Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here.)

Unfortunately, his edits are on an IP address and are just infrequent enough to prevent warnings from doing any good. I doubt he's even checking the page edit histories or the talk pages, to be honest. Maybe one of us should add some hidden text to the article - or is it possible that this article is a candidate for semi-protection? I don't really know - I'm still somewhat new to Misplaced Pages, so I'm not wanting to overstep. Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you should be issuing warnings to each of these editors, and if you are reasonably sure that it is the same person on a changeable IP address, you may consider escalating warning levels each time. Once four warnings have been issued, you can make a report at WP:AIV as well as WP:RFPP which would be appropriate in this matter. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to know what level to use. Has the editor been warned as yet only to level 1? The edits are, I think, infrequent enough for us to do no more than revert them patiently as soon as we notice them. I think it would not be appropriate to block a whole range of IP addresses on their account. If they were more frequent and on a single page, it would indeed be appropriate to have that page protected. But my optimistic nature makes me believe that the editor will not persist forever. Esoglou (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your optimism, good sir, and I think it you're right in that semi-protection may be a bit drastic. I do, however, think that it may be prudent to insert a hidden text note there - I think (also being optimistic) it may be a case of he sees that it keeps getting reverted, but he hasn't looked at the edit history. All he knows is that the text he keeps adding just keeps disappearing. Unless you have any objections, I will go ahead and do that. Regards. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. I raise no objection whatever to having such a note. Esoglou (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Papal Coronation

Hello Esoglou, I've just converted the list into table, and I'd appreciate it if you could give it a once-over to make sure that I didn't introduce any mistakes in the process. I'm quite unfamiliar with this subject... hbdragon88 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on the subject. I have only made some retouches in spelling and format. Esoglou (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

RSN info

In case you haven't seen it you many want to look at WP:RSN.Marauder40 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a comment. Esoglou (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

There appears to be an issue with the Christmas article with some POV de-Christianized pushing. I know very little in the matters of theology, and i noted your involvement and knowledge in this subject so i brought this to your attention to ensure accuracy on the matter. Thanks. Chryed (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of theology but of usage. Even if the usage ought not to be what it is, it is what it is. Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New nativity image in Infobox at Christmas

Hi Esoglou... first off I wanted to thank you for working together with me and others in the past few days to help make the Christmas article as neutral and informative as possible. There's much work to go, but we are making great improvements and I think it's great that we've both refrained from reverting each others' edits, and have instead merely added to them or changed them appropriately. I see that you've recently replaced the long-standing Infobox image of a nativity scene and background greenery decorations with one depicting the nativity only. I don't personally have any problem with this, and I think the new image is a rather nice-looking replacement. However, browsing through the archives I see that there had been consensus to retain an image there that reflected both the secular and religious elements of Christmas, hence the reason the image you've replaced had Christmas greenery like trees and poinsettias in the background. If you could join discussion at a new section I've created, Talk:Christmas#Regarding the new picture in Infobox, that'd be great. Have a nice day — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 13:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My change was for purely artistic reasons. I'm new to this article. I didn't know that there were ideological reasons for preferring the other. And I have no desire to join a discussion about them. Esoglou (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Contemplation, etc.

Hi, I have now finished the fixes to Prayer in Christianity (moved as well), and a few of the related articles such as lectio, etc. and they are in good shape. I am going to take a break on meditative issues and work on computing items to take a break. I will come back to Christian prayer, contemplation, NT, etc. in a few weeks or months. In the meantime if you want to play with those, please do. Else I will try in a few months. I need to retouch Nativity a little now that the season is here. In the meantime, on Eucharist I had to prove that alcohol is not good for alcoholics... the depth of Misplaced Pages sometimes amazes me.... History2007 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you planning at any point to explain your other edits?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Primacy of the Roman pontiff

Primacy of the Roman Pontiff has just been moved to Primacy of the Roman pontiff. Now, I grant that there are many more significant issues in Misplaced Pages than the difference between "Pontiff" and "pontiff" but I figured I'd bounce this off you for a reaction. The rationale for "pontiff" is that there isn't just one pontiff but many and so "pontiff" is a common noun not a proper one as it would be if we were talking about a title. However, I think we are talking about a title although I suspect the title is not "Roman Pontiff". I know there is "Supreme Pontiff" (Pontifex Maxiumus) but what exactly is the formal title that corresponds to "Roman Pontiff"? How much do you care about this title change? Is it worth squawking about? IMO, the article should be Papal primacy anyway so it's hard for me to get worked up about whether or not "pontiff" is capitalized or not.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Papacy/papacy ; Pope/pope

What's going on? One or more editors are running around turning "Papacy" and "Pope" into their lowercase versions, claiming WP:MOS as their justification. All I know is that George W. Bush was President of the United States; he is one of three living former presidents of the U.S. and the current president is President Barack Obama. I'm not so sure how this capitalization stuff works with popes and papacy but someone who does know had best get over to WP:MOS and get this clarified or there will be a lot more reversion work to do on a bunch of Catholic Church-related articles.

Can you help?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have little time available today, but I have tried to do something about both your queries here. I'll see this evening what progress has been made. Esoglou (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My emotional response was to agree that it should be "the Pope" or capitalize when speaking about specific popes, but I did some research. According to the LA Archdiocese it should only be capitalized when used as a title, Archdiocese of Milwaukee, University of Loyola "Lowercase unless it immediately precedes the name of the individual who holds the position", etc

Secular sources go into more detail Grammarly, US Customs Today, the associated press explicitly states "When the title stands alone, spell out the title and DO NOT capitalize it", etc

Basically, what I discovered is that I was wrong in my interpretation. I always thought pope should be capitalized if it was in reference to a specific individual. Similarly I thought governor/president should be capitalized when referencing speciifc individuals. E.g. if referencing President Obama, I thought, then the President was correct. It isn't. The only time job/roles of a person, even when speaking of a specific individual filling a specific role, is when the title immediately preceeds the users name (and is not separated via a comma/period... E.g. 'Pope Benedict' is correct but 'Pope, Benedict' is not.)---Balloonman 16:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting... sounds like I was similarly misinformed. However, I suspect that there is a disconnect between formal style and actual usage. I'll bet there are lots of published pieces that use the phrase "the Pope" when according to what you wrote above, they should write "the pope".

But what does what you wrote mean vis-a-vis "papacy"? When, if ever, would we capitalize the word "papacy"?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

About p/Pope, I actually stumbled upon it because of this thread... I was looking for examples where we referred to the president as the President or a specific governor as the Governor, thinking to show that those terms when used to denote specific individuals were capitalized. I was surprised when I failed to find them... or more accurately, when I found that the perponderance of usage had them lowercased. So I looked into it and discovered that the proper usage was lowercase for them. But that got me thinking, maybe for religious leaders its different, but again was surprised to find Catholic sources saying otherwise. As for disconnect between what is proper and what is practice, yes there does seem to be some... especially if you look at blogs and other sources that don't have proper editorial oversight. When dealing with sources that have editors, there is less disconnect between what is proper and what is reality.

As for papacy, my guess (based upon what I read earlier today) would be that it should be lowercase unless at the start of a sentence ;-)

As for cases like the Roman Pontiff... I'm not sure. I would argue that in that context, pontiff is being used as part of a specific title. But even so, based on my research earlier today, it should still be lower case unless used before a specific pontiff name. The secular parallels would all be lowercase (E.g. Texas governor, US president, Denver mayor) unless used before the persons name (Governor Rick Perry, President Obama, Mayor Hickenlooper.) Thus, my inclination would be that Roman pontiff would similarly be lowercase---but I'm honestly not 100% confident of that interpretation.---Balloonman 18:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK... so what I wrote in the section above about "Roman Pontiff" not being a title now appears to have been ignorant. A Google Books search for "Roman Pontiff" finds James Coriden telling us that "In the Code, the preferred title for the pope is "Roman Pontiff". Coriden also tells us that the other title for the pope is "Supreme Pontiff". (that one I did know about). Read it here. Obviously, Misplaced Pages would have NPOV problems with an article titled Primacy of the Supreme Pontiff so Primacy of the Roman Pontiff is preferable. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is best to transfer the discussion to the Talk:Pope and Talk:Primacy of the Roman Pontiff pages. Neither question is one on which I would dig my heels in. I think the case for "Roman Pontiff" - "Roman pontiff" is far too ambiguous - is stronger than for "Pope". In both cases it is strange to see "pope" and "Roman pontiff" mixed in with frequent capitalizations of "College of Cardinals" and the like. I have not the time to go checking now, but I am quite surprised at the suggestion that in United States constitutional terms we should, when speaking of the office, write of the relations between the "president" and the "Congress" - or should it be "congress"?

I don't think anyone suggests that "papacy" should be capitalized. Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Article titles

Hi, re the two article titles where you've objected to the move on the grounds of the English not being perfect, that's fine. It's always possible in a RM to define the term, please suggest a better English term. Cheers. (PS - articles should usually present eras in chronological order) In ictu oculi (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have raised no objection to changing the Latin "actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica" to "formal act of defection from the Catholic Church" - only to replacing it with "formal act of defection" - from what? As for the other phrase, I don't see how the Latin can be replaced by any English phrase, since it doesn't correspond to any one of them, but in some sense or other to all of them, and so no single one of them can take the place of the Latin phrase. Esoglou (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Americanism (heresy)

An anon IP has deleted some sourced text which I'm pretty sure I wrote quite a long time ago. Would you review the text and restore it if you believe it is appropriate? I'm pretty sure the text should be restored but I figured I'd take the opportunity to get a second opinion. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I must first find out what was meant by "Americanism". Rightly or wrongly I at present understand it to have been a European interpretation of one man's writing and that, at least in some interpretations, it was not American at all. Esoglou (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A European interpretation of a biography of one man, rather. I think that the information given in the Misplaced Pages article Isaac Hecker#Hecker and Americanism is far superior to the confusing information in the "Americanism (heresy)" article. I think too that the paragraph that was removed should not be restored, at least in the form in which it stood. It said: "The Americanist heresy is characterized as an insistence upon individual initiative which the Vatican judged to be incompatible with what was considered to be a fundamental principle of Catholicism: obedience to authority". What I find in the source is "The insistence upon individual initiative was judged to be incompatible with the fundamental principle of Catholicism, obedience to authority." Judged by whom? Not by the Vatican, but by POV "conservative" circles in France. And this statement was in the lead, where one would expect an objective view of what was meant by "Americanism". But even without that paragraph, the article is a mess. The lead is a mess, and the completely unsourced "background" section that follows makes things yet worse. The whole article is a mess and should be replaced. Well, you did ask for my opinion. I am sorry that it is so harsh. And maybe you will tell me that I should study it less superficially.

Books that deal with the question include this, pp. 45-47. Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the harsh judgment, even if the text of the article was written by me, just as long as the judgment is accurate. However, as it turns out, I was wrong; in reviewing the article history, I found that most of the article text isn't mine and my small contribution two years ago was to copy text over from Isaac Hecker#Hecker and Americanism.

My primary involvement two years ago was a side project associated with my building out what is now List of heresies in Catholicism.

I'm not sure how much of the "mess" was there two years ago and how much has been introduced in the intervening period; I don't think it is terribly important to determine whose fault the mess is. The question is how to cleanup the mess and improve the article. The link to the book by Lester Kurtz is helpful and I will work to incorporate that material as time permits.

My understanding is that "Americanism" was a term used by conservative French clerics to attack the ideas of some enthusiastic young French clerics. Paulist father Walter Elliott wrote a biography of Isaac Hecker which was later translated into French and Hecker became a hero of the liberal French clergy. The conservative French clergy opposed the ideas attributed to Hecker and Abbe Maignan wrote a polemic against what he perceived to be Hecker's teaching. The conservative French clergy also appealed to Leo XIII who wrote first an encyclical and then a pastoral letter saying, effectively, "if you Americans are doing any of this, you should stop it"; to which James Cardinal Gibbons replied "But, Your Holiness, nobody here does any of that". Thus, the "Americanism heresy" was more a French controversy based on French views of what the American Isaac Hecker believed than about anything that the American Catholics were actually espousing or doing. If the article doesn't communicate these points, then we need to fix it so that it does.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding is also mine, and what you have written here, if put in more formal language, would be a good lead. I don't think the present article conveys that understanding at all. Esoglou (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

History2007 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Final warning

This is your last warning. Further BLP violations will see you reported. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate a kind indication of what BLP violations you believe I have been guilty of. Esoglou (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

In the hope of getting clarity on this complaint of yours, I have myself raised the question at the BLP noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had the notice template right here a minute ago, but I don't know where it is now. Please head to WP:AE, where I've brought up your history of poor conduct with regard to abortion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How did it happen?

You did it in your first edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but I believed (wrongly, it appears), that I had only edited the "In the United States" section. Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Computers never make mistakes. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Only those who use them, or those who program them.  :-) Esoglou (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

AE Report Result

Per this AE Report] I advise the following:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Abortion. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Given the controversial matter of the subject area special care is needed in editing these articles. Pushing a particular point of view easily causes disruption in this topic area. Ample discussion of substantive changes are needed in order to ensure harmonious editing. Please review the case decision and relevant issue as future instances could lead to sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Esoglou (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, someone else is monopolizing my time and I missed your question. I think you should do an RfC on the article. There definitely is a lot of ownership being displayed but there are a lot of sources being cited as well. I don't want to get into the content dispute and the merit of the article but maybe at an RfC you would get some. --WGFinley (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder is it worthwhile swimming against such a torrent of words and editing. Esoglou (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

— Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 07:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanked on her talk page. Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation

I thank you for improving the edit I made last night which methought at the time to be clumsy, but fearing that I'd never get to editing it better were it to go onto my queue, I nonetheless saved it. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I was happy to help. Please keep up the good work. Esoglou (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Care to give your thoughts on the subject here? --ChristianHistory (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As yet, I haven't been involved in creating or modifying categories. Perhaps partly for that reason I have difficulty in understanding the question clearly. I don't see why some existing members of Category:Roman Catholic missionaries could not simply be grouped as a subcategory headed Category:Roman Catholic missionary saints. That would be a more modest action than proposing the creation of a new category with an implicit intention to populate the new category abundantly. As for the Roman Catholic/Catholic problem, I am highly reluctant to get involved in any way other than to correct unfounded statements that "Roman Catholic" means the same as "Latin Catholic". I argued that in Misplaced Pages "Roman Catholic Church" was more appropriate than "Catholic Church" as an article title, but my reasons were smothered by the majority of the restricted group discussing the matter and also by the two who were supposed to act as arbitrators. Complaints by other editors about their attitude of these two led to the elimination of the discussion even from the page history. I don't want to revive it. Esoglou (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically my proposition was that Catholic missionary saints should be given their own category, or more appropriately their own sub-category within the already existing Category:Roman Catholic missionaries. That category only has a few saints in it, mainly from the 16th-19th centuries. I felt Catholic missionary saints like St. Samson and St. Willibald deserved to be in the Catholic missionary category, but didn't deserve to be lumped in with the 300+ random non-saint priests already in that category; hence the sub category. That category seems like it should more appropriately be called "Portuguese, Spanish, and French Roman Catholic priests of the 16th-19th century who went to the new world". That seems to have been the intention of whoever made that category.

I agree regarding the title of Roman Catholic; it's not limited to the Latin Church. Many (thought not all) Eastern Catholics have a definite schismatic mentality. Many are under the delusion that they are autonomous, or even autocephalous independent Churches who can have their own doctrines, their own councils, and ignore the popes teachings of the last 1,000 years. I find this to be the case especially among Melkites. Many act as though they were their own Church who merely communes with Rome for the sake of "unity". The fact of the matter is that they are merely Rites within the Church, not distinct capital C churches. They're supposed to have the same faith, be in the same Church, but use a different liturgy and have varying disciplines. Like a religious order.--ChristianHistory (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't work up enthusiasm for or against any proposal regarding categories in this field. The discussion now seems to be edging towards an agreement on subcategories by century rather than by canonization. Seems OK. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice sought

Hello Esoglou, I've been impressed by your work on Misplaced Pages and come here for some advice. I'm currently in a debate with an editor about acceptable sources. We're talking about Catholic teaching on birth control. The other editor has found a news source that says that the Church banned birth control in the 1930's. Obviously, we know this to be incorrect, and that contraception was always viewed as wrong. My problem is that any source I provide she claims to be biased or having an agenda because these sources usually are Catholic- which to her makes them biased. I saddens me that we waste such time on Wikipeida with something that is essentially common knowledge, but I thought you might have some advice. Thank you. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded on the article page. Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I thought that, rather than enter into a discussion with the editor who wanted the innuendo-filled insertion kept, it would be more effective to build on it, so that the editor herself would wish it removed. Another editor has happily done the removing and I am confident that it will not be restored. Esoglou (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help and advice. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Esoglou: One should be careful in using tactics like that and especially careful of openly admitting having had such an agenda as it is a violation of WP:POINT. On the other hand, the editor who wanted to keep the text did seem to have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Hopefully, this issue is now laid to rest and we can all turn our attention to more productive work. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks four your advice, Pseudo-Richard. I contacted this user because he seemed to know a good deal about Christianity and was familiar with the page. Is that the violation? I didn't really have an agenda, I merely noticed something that I believed to be incorrect and thus worked to have it removed. Isn't that what the entire 'doing bold edits' thing is all about? And yes, it was a lot of work for the removal of half a sentence, and when I originally made the edit I never thought it would take the amount of debate that it did.

I apologize for any mistakes I'm making in the whole editing process, I'm pretty new on here and just learning. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... my comment wasn't directed toward you. You've generally been OK except for violating the 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles, a restriction you would likely not know about unless someone told you. Roscelese should have warned you first instead of reporting you but emotions run high sometimes. Observing 1RR at all times is a good practice. I try to do that but I don't always succed. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Richard's interpretation of my action. The purpose was not to make a point, but to ensure that the off-topic mention of views on contraception was removed, in spite of the seeming reluctance. And it worked. Esoglou (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not worth getting into an extended debate on this. It is your prerogative to dismiss my advice. My comment was meant solely as friendly advice since you periodically get into tussles with other editors and this kind of behavior does not reflect well on you in such situations. WP:POINT does not specifically address your behavior. The closest analog to your behavior that I could find at WP:POINT was: "If you feel that a particular source does not meet Misplaced Pages standards...

• do express your concerns on the talk pages of articles which cite it, or at the reliable sources noticeboard
• do not add even more references to the source, with hopes of provoking opposition to its use."

In your case, the injunction should read "If you feel that a particular sentence or clause in a sentence does not belong in Misplaced Pages because it is incorrect or irrelevant, do not add make the sentence or paragraph unwieldy by adding corrective text with the hopes of convincing others to truncate the text that you do not like. Do express your concerns on the Talk Page or follow the dispute resolution procedure." In brief, it is disruptive to make an article worse in the hopes of convincing others to make it better by giving in to your perspective.

We have worked together well on a number of occasions so I trust you will take my advice in the amicable spirit in which it is offered. My sole intent is to suggest that this kind of behavior contributes to the sort of contentious atmosphere that you periodically wind up in. I value your contributions to Misplaced Pages and I would hate to see them curtailed by the various editors who have their knives sharpened for you.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I accept your good intentions and will not enter an extended debate on applicability. Esoglou (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I admit I shouldn't have got into this, especially when I wasn't feeling well. Esoglou (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

John 10:11

Hi, a quick question on John 10:11. Warren Wiersbe says that the Good Shepherd pericope should be understood in the context of the Jewish shepherds of the time, which did not tend sheep to be slaughtered (except as sacrifices) but for milk, wool and lambs. Refs are here and here.

But he seems to be the only one who says that. If the Jews did not eat lamb, I wonder where the meal at the last supper came from, etc. Do you know if Wiersbe is right? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems nonsense to me. So the sheep died of old age, in which case they couldn't be eaten, because the blood would not have been drained from them? Even a claim that a lamb is not a sheep does not save the statement. The 120,000 sheep that Solomon sacrificed (2 Chronicles 7:5) had not been raised by shepherds? And so for the other sheep that were offered in sacrifice (Exodus 20:24; Deuteronomy 17:1, 18:3; 1 Samuel 15:15, 21)? Leaving aside, of course, the sacrificed lambs and rams.

The "good" shepherd was contrasted with counterfeit shepherds, as we speak of a "good" fifty-dollar note. Esoglou (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. That was my feeling too, so I asked. He did say that he considered sacrifice separate from general lamb dishes, but I think his statement should not be relied upon given that no one else seems to say that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is at least probable that every killing of a sheep or other clean animal by an observant Jew was, at least in some sense, done as a sacrifice, not as a mere areligious killing. But I don't think it is worth checking. Esoglou (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. But in any case, I will just ignore Wiersbe on that since out of 20 other discussions of John 10:11 I have looked at not even one mentions that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In basic sheepherding you don't eat sheep, which is mutton. Sheep are for wool, dairy, lambs, and sheepskin. You eat the lambs, except the ones selected to replenish the flock. Ewes must be pregnant to produce milk, hence a surplus of lambs. 75.0.1.84 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Given my lack of experience in sheepherding I was unaware of that. But we need some solid references to confirm that in the biblical context, and in any case, it is probably a minor issue and moot point now. History2007 (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Curious statement. Mutton is in fact eaten. And the process that produces mutton also produces sheepskin. Esoglou (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, mutton is eaten, by some, but it's a sideproduct, most is probably feed to pigs or today used in pet food manufacturing. Of course most Jews did not keep pigs, I don't know what they did with their old sheep meat, they may have sold it to pig farmers. If I remember correctly, the Mosaic Law does call for Rams and Ewes (adult sheep) to be sacrificed, so they weren't taboo and undoubtably some Jews ate some mutton and enjoyed it, but most people prefer lamb. Today even those who enjoy mutton are usually talking about 1-2 year olds specifically raised for older meat, not old sheep. And what many people call mutton is actually goat. 75.14.222.190 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for, or what argument you are proposing or trying to rebuff, but the Jewish Encyclopedia: Sheep article may be a start. 75.14.222.190 (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I started this, let me just conclude it by saying that I have now decided to become a vegetarian. Kidding, but probably a moot discussion now. History2007 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"The uses of the sheep were manifold. Its flesh, especially that of lambs, was a favorite dish" (Jewish Encyclopedia). But continuing this discussion is not a worthwhile use of sheep. Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You've violated 1RR at Catholic Church and abortion, with two reverts in the past hour. Please self-revert to avoid being reported. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am doing as you ask, rather than argue with you about your description of a completely new section as a revert. See you tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit and this were both reverts in that they restored text that had been removed, don't be sanctimonious. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't argue about a two-part revert, say ditto, or turn personal. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Two reverts are two reverts, because 1+1=2. One revert is not two reverts, because 1+0 =/= 2. Nice try, but you're not being merciful, you just don't have anything to report. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I still refuse to argue, say ditto, or turn personal. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Instrument for Jesus' execution

Hi Esoglou, you seem to have been a regular contributor to the article Dispute about Jesus' execution method. I have endeavoured to fix a few issues regarding the writing of that article (which I have explained in the talk page) but now have some unanswered questions about the argumentation and content. Do you have time to revisit the page and see if you can assist with some answers? I'm flying blind a bit here. Many thanks. BlackCab (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on the article's Talk page. Esoglou (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate that. Not sure where this one will lead! BlackCab (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Based on this edit you really need to take a look at the reliable sources policy. There's not one of them that qualifies in the lot there. While press releases may be used as sources they only can be used as such as it concerns the party releasing the information. For example, if you were writing about a CEO taking over a company, citing the press release announcing that is completely acceptable. However, in this case you had multiple references to the same press release of an organization calling on clergy to excommunicate Pelosi. You can't use that as a source of how the church feels about her, it's that organization's opinion on her and they're trying to generate coverage, they aren't a reliable source.

You also have a weight problem with so much attention on the Pelosi issue while other politicians are given a passing reference. I'm not saying your issue is not germane to the article but I would suggest going about it in a different way: using commonly accepted reliable sources to summarize the issues about her as it pertains to the article. Since it seems there were ten protestors that doesn't seem very likely but that would be the way to go about it. --WGFinley (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to discuss with others on an article talk page the value of Reuters and the like. Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Abortion Topic Ban

This notice is to advise you that per discretionary sanctions conferred by the Arbitration Committee Abortion Case decision you are banned for three months from the topic of abortion, broadly construed, on all pages of Misplaced Pages. You were previously warned about your battleground behavior resulting from a previous AE Report. I even warned and counseled you yesterday about your behavior. After my warning you reinserted almost that exact information into another article. Violations of this topic ban will result in blocks to prevent further disruption. I outlined a very plain course for you yesterday to try to work with other editors, you chose to reinsert material with unreliable sources back into the article and left me with no other choice than to prevent further disruption. --WGFinley (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)