User talk:Herzen/Archive 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries

Civility and restraining oneself from personal attacks are core requirements in wikipedia. This edit summary and these edits about Jake may be construed as attacks. It is best for all wikipedians to restrict comments to content and not editors. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments were not meant as attacks. As far as I am concerned, your and Jake's deletions of the link I added were themselves uncivil, given that these deletions are completely unjustified according to Wikipedia guidelines, for the reasons I gave in the Talk page. -- Hyperion (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to review Wikipedia:Civility. Civility relates to discussions between editors, not to changes to articles. Please remember that adherence to Wikipedia:Civility is as important as any other wikipedia policy. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha! You decided to remove a link from the anti side, instead of taking up my suggestion to add another link to the pro side.

Fine by me. I don't care about the other links in the anti side, since I imagine they would turn up with a simple Google search. BTW, I noticed that Jakew deleted an addition that I made to "Circumcision and law". I'm not going to resist that, because I think it's pretty clear that the tide is turning on male circumcision: now that female "circumcision" has become an issue, people are coming to understand that male circumcision is analogous. But I don't imagine that Western countries will go so far as to not allow Jews to circumcise their sons for religious reasons.

You might want to check out a thread on male circumcision in a New York Times blog, which is what prompted this latest activity of mine at Wikipedia: The Rights of Baby Boys -- Hyperion (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kenny Clutch

The article Kenny Clutch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CRIME.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kenny Clutch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenny Clutch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Clutch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Pope Francis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  KTC (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent

you sound like just the sort were looking for :) Glad to have you, Sam [Spade] 17:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kant and conservatism

I took another shot at this, have a look at Talk:Conservatism#classical_conservatism_and_philosophers - Jmabel 06:14, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that. I've posted a response. I might have mentioned by the way that I don't really view Kant as a "transitional figure" as you put it, since he is so close to where contemporary philosophy stands. -- Hyperion 16:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Webpage

It's down, and web-archive version is pure ads. How come?

Also, you said you have read Hegel originals, so maybe you will shed some light for me here? 217.25.194.150 11:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop adding Abridged Scripts for Movies

from The Editing Room. It is not encyclopedic. It is a satire site. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Inverted totalitarianism

Hi Im digmores I left a more extensive reply on the talk page of the article in question, but i didnt mean to casue any offense and would like to say that I would be to help in any way possible. peace Digmores (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, i'll have a look over the article give you some feedback

)

Digmores (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inverted totalitarianism editing list

If you have any questions or wish to discuss any of my suggestions just send me a message

• First sectence should introduce the article, the first sentence should define what inverted totalitarianism is the attributing of whom was responsible for originally createing it should come a little later.

• carefull of using Jargon such as "ideal type" (second sentance) it can be preferable to use more words in order to explain something.

• when presenting the definition or opening sentance there should be a reference after it or a reference after the sentance following the first sentance

• do not engage in essay like format, saying things will be contrasted or questions will be answered e.g.

"Inverted totalitarianism is to be contrasted with classical totalitarianism" (contrasting 2 concepts )

"With these five political types in place, the question arises: given the transformations that Superpower has undergone during the military mobilization required to fight the Axis powers, and during the subsequent campaign of containing the Soviet Union during the Cold War, does Superpower, in its domestic aspects, continue to resemble a liberal democracy, or is it itself taking on totalizing tendencies? " (asks a question)

the reason for this is that when other editors come along they will make changes (thats just wikipedia) and the page will become confusing as what was once a singular argument has other editors contributions in it, and removing these contributions could be interpreted as Ownership of the page which is against the rules.

• when mentioning people and their views theories e.g. Hanna Arendt source them (i saw u did this just before i posted GJ)

• be precise e.g.

By the middle of the twentieth century (when exactly or specific decade 1950s)

First Hanna Arendt, among others (who are the others, if there are a large number of supporting theorists pick the ones that have the strongest links but be specific)

• quotes try to find quotes that are more concise meaning one or two key sentences rather than a paragraph if possible.

• the thing that will help the most is to change the structure of the article so that it is not an essay but an encyclopedia entry with sections addressing the subject. an example structure may be

intro

section 1 (background) gives a lead up introduces the reader to the subject, sectioning this also means that if the reader is farmiliar with broad subject they can skip it and move on the theory

section 2 (addresses key concept A) -subheadings can be put if needed

Section 3 (Addresses key concept B)

Section 4 (gives indepth examples or case studies) Digmores (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Inverted totalitarianism

WOW! I thank you for taking the time to not only turn Inverted totalitarianism from a bad redirect to a full-blown article. :) --Loremaster (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Your original entry, even though it only contained that redirect, was one of the things that prompted me to write the article. I learned about the concept when I ran across a reference to Democracy Incorporated, but suspected that one needs to read the extended version of Politics and Vision to understand what prompted Wolin to come up with the concept, and that suspicion turned out to be correct. --Hyperion (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Evangelicals vs Evangelical Protestants

Hi, Herzen, I saw you changed "Evangelical Protestants" to "Evangelicals" in the article on Pope Francis that deals with his relationships with the Evangelical Protestant community. I was going to change it back, but wanted to check with you to avoid an edit war. The problem is that there are also Evangelical Catholics, as you know, a group that increased under Pope Benedict XVI's push for a "new evangelization" within the Roman Catholic Church. This section doesn't deal with Bergoglio's relationship to Evangelicals as a religious approach, but instead with the Evangelical Protestant community. Do you think I'm overthinking the issue, or would you agree that a few of the terms should be changed back to "Evangelical Protestants." (It wasn't entirely consistent even before your change.) NearTheZoo (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Protestant" is not a neutral term. It describes certain Christians whose faith originates in the Reformation of the 16th century. Evangelicals will not necessarily describe themselves as Protestant, so as to distinguish these two branches which are sometimes both broadly termed Protestant by Catholics and others. As a compromise, how about the term "Evangelical Christians"? Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was also wrestling with the issue of Protestant (even though I know some Baptist leaders who trace their roots back to John the Baptist, but still use the term Protestant) but couldn't find a better term...because Catholics, of course, also consider themselves Christian--so "Evangelical Christians" could also include them. Could we both keep thinking about this issue and compare notes? I guess it's possible to say "non-Catholic Evangelical Christians, or the "non-Catholic Evangelical Christian community. Is that too awkward? Anyway, no terms are too easy when it comes to religion! NearTheZoo (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it could not include Catholics to say "Evangelical Christians". No Catholic calls himself Evangelical. We might refer to ourselves as "evangelistic", that is, interested in evangelizing, spreading the Gospel, but "Evangelical" is a proper noun frequently attached to "Christians" to denote a particular cross-section of Christian belief and denominations. There would never be a suggestion that it refers to anything Catholic. Elizium23 (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I could be wrong, judging from the existence and content of the article Evangelical Catholic. Not all of them are Roman Catholic, either. But no matter - Catholics would never refer to ourselves as "Evangelical Christians" because we know that refers to a set of denominations.

To use that old term, "it's complicated." I actually do know some Catholics who use the term Evangelical Christians to include themselves, seeing themselves as separate in terms of Catholicism but overlapping with some non-Catholics in terms of being "Evangelical Christians." In the American military, this concept was not unusual. Anyway, I appreciate this very civil conversation! We'll figure out something.... NearTheZoo (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC) ---PS: I'm very glad I went to your talk page, rather than just reverting your change. I knew it was not an easy issue.... NearTheZoo (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi NearTheZoo, to be honest, I didn't know that there are evangelical Catholics. (I was raised Russian Orthodox, the sect of Christianity I identify with is liberal Lutheranism, and I am not a believer. Not exactly a formula for knowing about Catholicism, except in so far as Luther tried to preserve continuity with it.) Also, I have a particular interest in American (Protestant) Evangelicalism, because of how it is intertwined with U.S. history.

I deliberately didn't change the first occurrence of "Evangelical Protestants". As you noted, further in the article, the term Evangelical was used without "Protestants", so I thought I would do the same for the second occurrence of "Evangelical Protestants", since I thought the first mention of that was enough, together with the use of the term in the title.

But if this is a Catholic page, so if you think that the term "Evangelical" alone without the Protestant qualifier can cause confusion or misunderstanding or sound weird, by all means make the relevant changes.

By the way, the article on Evangelical Protestantism is called Evangelicalism, and I don't think that's going to change, because this is mainstream American usage. I believe that Evangelical with a capital 'e' refers to Evangelicalism as discussed in this article, and evangelical with a lower-case 'e' means evangelical in the sense of "evangelize".

Thanks for taking the trouble to avoid an edit war. :) – Herzen (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I must say I am puzzled by Elizium23's remark that Protestant is not a "neutral term". It is simply what Christians who do not belong to eastern Christianity who are not Catholics are called. The term "Evangelicals" without a qualifier cannot mean anything other than Evangelical Protestants.

I find the term "Evangelical Christians" otiose. Maybe some American Evangelical Protestants call themselves that, but as far as I can tell, that's simply a way of snubbing Catholics and Orthodox as not really being Christian. To these people, Christian = (conservative) Protestant. – Herzen (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In the reference for much of this section, the term "Protestant" was being used by the president of The National Association of Evangelicals (and other leads) in this way: more a broad term for non-Catholics than a strict term linked to the Reformation. (That's why the president of The NAC could talk about families where some members were Protestants and some Catholics, and why the large group of "Protestants" in Argentina would help prepare Pope Francis to be sensitive in a compassionate way to issues of families made up of both.... Anyway, I thank you for your notes and your understanding. Tomorrow, after a good night's sleep, I'll take another look at the article and see what might make sense to us all! Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Protestantism", properly applied, is the term for a branch of Christianity that began with the Protestant Reformation. Granted, it is a wide branch, but it does not encompass all of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christianity. See for example Restorationism. There are probably plenty of other examples. Non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian denominations in the United States number about 20,000. Some are Protestant and some just aren't. However, I can see that the article, Evangelicalism describes the movement as Protestant at its core, so it probably won't ruffle anyone's feathers to use the term "Evangelical Protestant" in the first place. Elizium23 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Again! I think you're right that Evangelical Protestant is probably the right term to use, and "won't ruffle anyone's feathers." I did want to add one more note, though, from the wiki article Protestantism: "The term Protestant was not initially applied to the Reformers, but later was used to describe all groups protesting Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Since that time, the term Protestant has been used in many different senses, often as a general term merely to signify Christians who belong to none of the Churches of Catholic tradition (Roman, Orthodox, Monophysite or Nestorian Churches)." What this article points out (and I think correctly, although it is hard to get universal agreement in the area of religion, as we all know!), there is one technical understanding of Protestant as the term referring to the religions that began with the Protestant Reformation--but the term is also used in a larger context to include all denominations who affirm the principles of that Reformation, whether or not they are derived from it. So, as its put in another quote from the same article: " It has been defined as "any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth" and, more broadly, to mean Christianity outside "of an Orthodox or Catholic church". Anyway, I thank you both for your civility! NearTheZoo (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis article: quote from Jerusalem Post editorial

Hi, Herzen! Wanted to make sure you saw that I reverted an edit you made on the Pope Francis article, asking that the issue be discussed on the talk page. I did change the sentence you had deleted to reflect the fact that it came from an editorial (not an "article") in the Jerusalem Post. Sorry for my mistake!!! (Guess it was my sloppy thinking, just categorizing "editorials" and "news articles" as different types of "articles".) However, I think it's a really wonderful quote, only positive. The Jerusalem Post is a highly respected paper representing the views of an important segment of the Jewish community: those who live in Israel. If we talk about relations between this pope and the Jewish community, I think it's great to have a quote from a paper like that, basically saying that this pope has been in a place that gave him a chance to have a rich relationship with the Jewish community -- perhaps richer than any previous pope. Anyway, I think it's a very good quote in a section that addresses the pope's prior relationship with the Jewish community. I hope you'll reconsider your objection. In the meantime, I have asked for the opinion of other editors. Hope we can all agree! Best wishes, and thanks for all your good work on this article. NearTheZoo (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, NearTheZoo, I am breaking protocol again and replying on my own Talk page, since the last time you wrote on my Talk page, you noticed when someone responded. I did not realize that you were the one who originally included the text I deleted.

I personally find this quote bizarre. There is an elephant in the room, namely Benedict, who has been criticized for being in the Hitler Youth. So bringing up the Holocaust in connection with John Paul II, without mentioning Benedict and explicitly stating that he has no more responsibility for the Holocaust than John Paul II did, seems to be highly tendentious and unnecessarily inflammatory. Thus, you may find this quote "wonderful", but I think that Germans and Lutherans in general have every reason to find it extremely inflammatory and offensive. (If we are going to conflate Jews with Israelis, we might as well conflate Germans with Lutherans, the existence of Catholic Germans notwithstanding. Germany is considered to be a Protestant country, after all.) This is a nest of vipers that can easily be avoided. There are plenty of references to Francis' positive relations with Jews without this editorial by a publication that does not speak for religious Jews.

Finally, I don't see why you titled the new talk section "Relation to Jewish community in Brazil". The Jerusalem Post editorial is not about the "Jewish community in Brazil" specifically, but about whether "the choice of Bergoglio [is] good for the Jews" in general. Since, unlike other religions, being Jewish is both a question of religion and one of ethnic identity/"racial" background, bringing up the Holocaust, a decidedly secular, historical event (the Nazis did not care if a given Jew had converted to Christianity) unnecessarily muddies the waters in an article about religion. – Herzen (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Herzen! I appreciate your willingness to discuss a little of this off-line on your talk page, especially because this gives you the ability to erase any or all of this conversation after we've had it! Nice sometimes to speak "off-line"! I did try to respond to you on the article's talk page, but glad I read this response here...because now I understand a little bit that you think that somehow the way I made this quote is negative regarding Benedict XVI, however I really, really don't see it that way. By the way, there are articles (and mentions in some of the references that I quoted) that note that Francis is viewed positively by Jews because they hope he will open church records about WWII church actions that are sealed, and Benedict refused to open. I purposely did NOT mention that because that, to me, would be saying something negative about Benedict, and I saw no reason to do this. (By the way, I lived in Stuttgart for three years, and my daughter and son-in-law are just finishing up three years in Munich, and I have visited them frequently -- so I always try to be sensitive about issues that might be harmful to either the German leaders or German people....) I just don't see this one as negative to anyone. John Paul II just happens to be a hero in the Jewish community, well known for his strong Jewish connections (especially because he was loved the theater and participated in it when he was young, and had Jewish friends from the world of the theater) -- but the fact is that when he older there was no "living, breathing" large Jewish community there because of the war. In fact, many Jews who survived the Holocaust did go to Argentina. (There is another reference that states that the Jewish community believes that Francis will understand the danger of anti-Semitism because he is old enough to remember the Holocaust...but again, I chose not to use that quote.) I really think this quote is positive toward John Paul II and includes insight in terms of why Francis had the chance to have an almost unique opportunity to build strong ties with the Jewish community, since he is from South America, not Europe. Ultimately, this quote is about Francis's relations with the Buenos Aires and Argentine Jewish community, and the hope that because of his strong ties with that community will influence his understanding and cooperation with the world Jewish community as pope. Please read it again without thinking there might be some secret negative message embedded in it. I really think it is (1) positive about John Paul II, and (2) positive about Francis (as Bergoglio) in Argentina; and therefore (3) a statement of hope for the future from a newspaper representing a good segment (not all Jews -- but a very large and important segment of Jews in the world: those living in Israel) of world Jewry. Again, thanks for your willingness to discuss this issue! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Herzen, Because it is clear to me that we cannot settle this issue without help from higher up, I want to notify you that I have asked that an administrator review the discussion, edits, and reverts regarding this quote here. I will also make this note on the talk page for the article on Pope Francis. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Herzen, Even though I know you are reading the talk page for the Pope Francis article, I want to post a note here alerting you to the fact that I have moved my request for help from the ANI page to the dispute resolution page. Here is the post I made on the Pope Francis talk page:

• ANI suggested a better place for this issue is the dispute resolution page, so I have posted a request for help on that board hereherehere I am embarrassed that this issue has continued for so long on this talk page, and hope the dispute resolution page will help settle the issue. I invite any of you who want to add an opinion to that page to do so. Thanks, everyone -- NearTheZoo (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

My hope is that moving this to a resolution page will help focus on the issue rather than your new claim that this is a personal attack on you. Best wishes, NearTheZoo (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk page for Pope Francis: Talk:Pope Francis#Relation_to_Jewish_community_in_Argentina". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 13:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my accusation of bias in an article

Greetings. I write to you regarding my accusation of bias in the "Origins" section of the article Criticism of Christianity. You opened it up for discussion in the Talk page, but have not replied to my last post on the subject. Is this because you now agree with me that the section is unfairly biased against mainstream secular perspectives on the possibly non-divine origins of Christianity? Or is this simply because you forgot about it? Either way, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my last post. Thanks, and best wishes. ThoughtfulMoron (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I briefly replied to your comment. Best wishes. Herzen (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has chimed in the article's Talk section about bias except for the two of us. And I am not a very useful person for this article, because I am someone who was raised as a Christian, who became an atheist for general philosophical reasons not having anything to do with Christian doctrine specifically. So the whole idea of "Criticism of Christianity" doesn't make any sense to me, since the only religion that I have as a reference point is Christianity. In other words, if you are going to criticize Christianity, you might as well criticize religion in general, as far as I'm concerned. (I've qualified this by pointing out that Christian fundamentalism must be singled out and condemned.) In other words, I'm better at defending Christianity than criticizing it, even though I am an atheist.

If you want anything to come of your objections about bias, I suggest that you start editing the article yourself, since nobody else has responded to your comments. I will continue watching the article, and will watch out for doctrinaire Christians challenging your edits, should you decide to make any. – Herzen (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not called Russia "barbaric." Please don't put words in my mouth (or on my keyboard). Civilization, like most things, is not a single thing but a relative position on a bell curve. One marker of Civilization, in my estimation, is adherence to ritual executions. 32 states in the U.S. have D.P. statutes on the books. Russia has such a statute but since 1996 when Yeltsin established a moratorium, subsequently extended, no one has been executed. So, using that criterion, the U.S. is "less civilized" than Russia. The U.S. has by far the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. Perhaps half of those prisoners are in for non-violent drug offenses. Do you feel that those "tests" are legitimate criteria for assessing the level of civilization? Activist (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to FEMEN may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

On this issue [1]. Since you have dealt with the editor before what are your suggestions from your experience?-Taeyebaar (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)