Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism

Archive 1: December 2005 – June 2006

Nazirite

There is a section in the article Nazirite entitled Nazirites and the New Testament which is unsourced, appears to be original research and I strongly suspect that it is just plain work. I do not have any expertise in this area. It would be nice if someone knowledgeable would look over the section, or better yet rewrite it from scratch. Jon513 17:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Daughters of the Americas/ Daughters of Isabella

Does anyone know anything about the Catholic Daughters of the Americas or the Daughters of Isabella? Neither has an article. The CDA claims to have orginally been the DOI, but there is still a DOI website. They also have different dates and places of founding, but both claim to have been founded by the Knights of Columbus. I've put in requests for both of them.

New page

I have created a new page: May crowning because I couldn't find an article on it in Wikipedia. I hope some of the editors here can help expand and change the article while adding appropriate links to it. --ScienceApologist 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Style for people who are both Popes and Saints

Figured this was the best place for such a centralized discussion. Problem: about half of the Pope's are Saints. How should they be referred to in the article? From my understanding of the placement of the "style boxes", they should only be referred to as "Pope XXXXXXX" at the start of the article, and the posthumous reference style should be "Saint." However, this is not the case in some of the articles, particularly the shorter ones about early Popes who are either referred to as "Saint XXXXXXX," "Saint Pope XXXXXXX," or "Pope Saint XXXXXXX." Peter is a special case, because for reasons of disambiguation that page is called Saint Peter (even though several christian denominations do not view him as a Saint). For the others, would there by any objection to my standardizing them with "Pope XXXXXXX" as the first words appearing in the article, making sure that their Sainthood is noted in the introduction and in the sytle box? Thanks, savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As a corrolary, the succession boxes should state only the papal name and number of the predecessor and successor. A few use the term "Pope" (which is repetitive) and/or "Saint" (which is incorrect because they weren't a saint at the time) but this is so non-standard, that I'll just go ahead and fix this. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Opening template for Cathedral Stubs

I'm planning to create a template for RC Cathedral stubs, as it doesn't seem very fitting to give them church stubs. Ideas? I'll need a thumbnail too.. Ariedartin JECJY 17:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Look forward to using it. -Murcielago 13:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been done. I used the image in the Ulm Münster article. See it at Template:RC-cathedral-stub. Sorry Murcielago, but the Saint Francis Cathedral in Santa Fe is a bit small for a thumbnail. Ariedartin JECJY 15:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

no hard feelings. Will start using the template! Murcielago 06:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Project template

I was wondering if there's a reason why Template:Project Catholicism 101 isn't used more often. Most other WikiProjects place templates like this on all of article talk pages associated with the project, yet this one is only used on four pages. Might I suggest that we expand its usage? —Mira 09:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's start by slapping it on every single talk page of cathedrals, churches and chapels of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in Wikipedia. That's a good way to start. However, we must realise that many articles do not solely concern the RCC and may be shared with other scions, such as Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, both of which have several very striking similarities to the RCC. As such, they may not undisputedly come under this WikiProject. Ariedartin JECJY 15:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to do this, I think the popes, bishops, dioceses, etc. could all be marked. It's a pretty big task in and of itself. As for multiple-topic articles, I think that articles could reasonably come under the realm of multiple WikiProjects, see Talk:Catholicism for a good example. Just because we mark an article doesn't another project couldn't do the same thing. And in fact, if we think that an article belongs in another project, we could add their template for them. —Mira 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if no one has any objections by then, I'll probably start working on this tomorrow. —Mira 09:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. But won't it be very cluttered if we end up with multiple WikiProject templates? Especially now that there's a WikiProject Anglicanism? Ariedartin JECJY 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's just going to happen sometimes. It's not terribly unusual to have a bunch of templates at the top of a talk page. See Talk:Aztec or Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for somewhat extreme examples. —Mira 19:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As one of the major contributors to the Aztec article, it is a bit of wry irony to come here and read that Talk:Aztec is one of the more extreme examples of "template-itis". I admit that there are a number of templates on that page but I am at a loss to figure out which templates are extraneous.

Anyway, the real reason that I came over here was to suggest that you look at WP:AZTEC, specifically section 4.1 (Article rating and assessment scheme). This was set up for us by User:CJLL Wright who did it for WP:MESO. It is also being used for WP:MILHIST.

WP:AZTEC only has about 30 articles so the rating scheme is a bit of overkill but it will be more useful as we move towards 50-100 articles.

WP:MESO has 250+ articles and WP:MILHIST has 10,000+ articles.

I think this rating scheme will be a great asset to this project. I'm sure User:CJLL Wright would be willing to help us get it set up if there is a consensus that we should do it here.

--Richard 19:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say they were extraneous, I actually meant that sometimes articles fall into many categories and need to have many templates to identify them. As for the assessment, it looks like a good idea, although a lot of work, seeing as we haven't even identified the articles that "belong" to this project. —Mira 21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the rating system is "a lot of work". The "work" is in determining which articles belong in the project. Like anything else in Wikipedia, nothing is "cast in concrete". If someone decides an article should be in the project, someone else can just as easily decide that it shouldn't be. At the end of the day, it's about consensus.

Since including an article in the project just means that it gets included in lists of articles to be considered for improvement, it's no big deal if an article gets included when it's only marginally related to Catholicism.

I'm trying to think of a suitable example. Lessee, there have been a bunch of movies about people pretending to be Catholic religious (one with Sean Penn and Robert DeNiro and another with Whoopi Goldberg). Are those part of this project? Maybe, maybe not. I would say "No" but someone else might disagree. The point is... It's not really difficult to add it in the project. Nor is it difficult to take it back out if the consensus decides that it shouldn't be part of the project.

I would suggest that we institute the rating scheme right away. All it requires once it's set up is that every Talk page with a project template supply two parameters, one for quality and one for importance. If no parameters are supplied, the article is considered "Unassessed" which is no big deal.

To me, I'd rather start the scheme now before all the project templates have been added to talk pages. That way, we only have to hit all the articles once. Otherwise, we have to hit all the articles once to get the templates w/o ratings in. Then, we would have to visit them all again to add the rating parameters.

The main thing to consider is the point of the rating scheme is to identify those articles that need the most work. This is a great time for us to start that identification effort.

--Richard 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Per Richard's suggestion, I'd be happy to help implementing the assessment scheme for this project. It's not too much trouble to implement, and once it is set up a bot automatically updates the listing, statistics and log on a daily basis. The only work for the Project members after that is to record the assessments for each article, something readily done via two simple parameters in the project's banner template on the articles' talk pages, and the ratings will be categorised, listed and statistics compiled automatically.

For the system to be useful, the project members would also need to work out some guidelines for assigning relative priorities ("importance") to the articles, the general idea being that in your importance rankings you identify your "core" articles (those few which would be a must-have for an 'abridged' encyclopaedia), your high-priority articles, your 'general interest' articles and your specialist, or even obscure, articles. How you do this is up to you, but in general it's best not to flood the higher-priority categories (there should notionally be relatively few Top priority articles, a few more High priority articles, even more Mid-priority articles, and so on).

You'd also need to work out what to do with the data once it starts being compiled- for eg, after you've rated a few you should be able to identify from the listing which of your higher-priority articles are in need of the most attention, so you can concentrate your efforts on bringing those up to scratch. You can also easily track the day-to-day changes in assessments via the auto-generated logs.

If you like, I can set up the system so that you can try it out, and see if you think it will prove useful. If so, it can be retained and virtually the only maintenance needed will be to continue adding and updating the assessments as you go. If not, it could just as easily be decommissioned. Regards,--cjllw | TALK 00:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let's go ahead and see how it works out for now. I'll get out a message to the other project members to see if they want to weight in. —Mira 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, as a trial I've now implemented the rating and assessment functionality in the WP:CATHOLIC project banner, and created the categories which are needed to make the whole thing work. I've also created an Assessment subpage for your project, modelled on the one I created for WP:MESO, with links, instructions and criteria guidelines. Feel free to amend the text, layout and guidelines for assigning the ratings values to suit your project's specifications. I've included a view of this Assessment subpage on your main project page, but you can display/link to it however you wish.

Once the bot makes its next run (sometime after 0300hrs UTC), the following pages should be automatically created:

• listing of Catholicism articles by quality
• statistics
• log of changes

These pages will be updated on a daily basis by the bot.

For a preview of what these look like once a number of articles have been rated, see these examples:

• listing
• stats
• log

All you need to do now is to assign appropriate ratings to the articles, via the parameters and criteria described on the Assessment subpage, and also add the project banner with the parameters set to other articles you may be interested in. For articles which already have the project banner but have not as yet been rated, see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles. What you do with the generated data is completely up to you, naturally. I rated a couple myself as a test, feel free to change the ratings I applied as you see fit.

I've also created a category, Category:WikiProject Catholicism 101 articles, which will (automatically) contain all of the articles which currently have your project banner attached to their talk pages, for an overall view.

If you've questions concerning the running of the bot (User:Mathbot), contact its owner, User:Oleg Alexandrov. If you've questions about the rating and assessment scheme in general, see the folks at the Version 1.0 Editorial Team- the genesis of the scheme comes from there, I believe. And if you've other questions re the enhanced template or other aspects, let me know. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't wait to dive in, it actually seems like a fun thing to work on. Thank you very much for putting in the work on setting this up. —Mira 07:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Mira, you're quite welcome. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 08:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia conversion

I just had an idea about converting articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I noticed an editor had simply dumped the text straight out of the C.E. without formatting it, without wikifying, without updating the language, without removing the POV, etc (against the Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics guidelines). And I realized that doing all that for the one article is a pretty extensive task for one editor, and having a number of editors help out could always be beneficial. On the other hand, I think having an unfinnished conversion in the main article namespace is in poor form. So I thought, why not make a subpage of this project devoted to a 'holding cell' for converting text. Maybe we could get a queue of articles going, and have a group of editors work on the conversion one at a time. Once the article is up to speed, we then can add it to the main namespace and move on to the next article to be converted in the queue. Would this work? Or are there not enough editors around to devote time to such an endeavour? Or are there any other/better ideas?--Andrew c 02:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. JASpencer 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. I did one once and it was so big it had to be split into two articles Animals in the Bible and List of animals in the Bible. It was a lot of work. Perhaps we could nominate and vote on topics, just as we do for the CCE, but rather than have a set time limit we would move them along as soon as they are completed. --Briancua 12:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm currently trying to list all the red links by subject - it's on the Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics main page. We should perhaps focus on the more churchy topics. However I could use some help on sub-categorising the topics, I'm going through Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia cat People at the moment. JASpencer 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal From Queue

I put up the Knights of Columbus up for the Collaboration Effort while I was trying to bring it up to featured article status. Its already made FA status so I would like to remove it. There are other Catholic articles that need the work more. Would anyone object to my removing it from the queue? --Briancua 00:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I say put your suggestion on the Collaboration talk page, and if no one objects by Friday, to take it off the queue. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of Biblical Quote Template

As you may know, there is a template for refrencing Biblica quotes. The idea is that one simply clicks on a passage, when used as a refrence, and is taken there. For example: 14:12. Sometimes the link goes to a huge list of Bibles, for example: Mark 7:1–4.

• First, I would like to know how to link to a particular Bible - is there a list of the abbreviations for the various translations?
• Second, there is a great lack of conformity in the use od this feature. Sometimes no link is given, sometimes the link goes to the list, and sometimes to the passage. Should we go through all the catholic pages and impose a uniform policy here? Personally, I find it annoying to be linked to a huge list.
• Third, if we do, and we link all passages to a certain translation, should all the catholic articles use the same translation, for uniformity (maybe Douai-Rheims)?
• Fourth, is it just me, or is the website with the quotations rather ugly, both in color and script?

Lostcaesar 20:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd note that there is some discussion going on at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible which may be relevant, and also that determining which translation to link to has been one of the larger controversies, as I recall. —Mira 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I use the translation found on the US Catholic Bishops conference whenever I quote from the Bible. --Briancua 03:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Catholic in to Catholicism

There has been a proposal to merge Catholic in to Catholicism. It is being discussed at Talk:Catholicism#Merge of Catholic in to Catholicism. It has unanimous support at present. Any input is welcome. --WikiCats 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent reorganization of WikiProject

As you may have noticed, much of the project's main page has been moved around or split off into subpages. I don't really have a great explanation for this, other than that this project has seemed to lack organization, and I was hoping to provide some. Much of what I did was modeled after the Military history Wikiproject, as they certainly are one of the most organized WikiProjects around. I would really like to hear your feedback. —Mira 08:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, your reorganization seems to be an improvement. I compared the current version with the version immediately before you began changing the page [1]. The only thing I found missing was the Policy and Membership section at the beginning. I take it that you didn't like that section? Perhaps it was too pedantic?

--Richard 12:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought about how to save it, but decided that in the end it was redundant to basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have no objection to putting it back, it just seemed unnecessary. —Mira 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I liked having the current colaboration project at the top of the page. Would you object to putting it back? --Briancua 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. I think I was just overdoing it on "clutter." It's the neat freak in me. —Mira 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of strategy and terminology pages

In reorganizing all of this, I've been left wondering what the purposes of the Strategy and Terminology pages are. The only use I've seen on either of them have been attempts to move discussions being held elsewhere to these locations. I've proposed a new purpose for the strategy page, and believe it has potential in that capacity, but I don't see the reason or need for a separate terminology page, when that could be dealt with in a style guide. Thoughts? —Mira 10:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on using the Strategy subpage as a Style guide. However, this difference of opinion may be due to definitions of what a "style guide" should be. The WP:SAINTS page provides a useful point of reference. I see the purpose of the Strategy subpage to cover the kind of topics covered in the "Basic Rules" and "Structure" sections of WP:SAINTS.

However, those sections cover "organizational strategy", NOT "style". Style should cover things like capitalization of "blessed", "venerable", etc. The Infobox could also be discussed in the "style guide". If there is enough "style" info to warrant a separate page, then the style guide should be placed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism 101/Style Guide subpage.

As for the Terminology subpage, I would suggest that page would be good for covering the use of certain terms. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aztec/Terminology for an example of how this page can be used. I don't know if WP:CATHOLIC needs such a subpage but that's what it would be for.

I also looked at WP:MILHIST and noticed that this project has no discussion of the goals, scope and structure of the project the way that WP:MILHIST does.

--Richard 12:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with the last sentence first, I think that would be a good idea a discussion of goals, etc. would be a good idea. As for strategy/style guide, I see what you mean by differentiating between the two, but I wonder if it's a good idea to have a page for each. One central location might be better. A terminology page, looking at the example you show, would be an excellent place to discuss Catholic vs. Roman Catholic, but again I wonder if it warrants its own page. Lastly, the things I think would belong in a style guide are the general conventions that seem to get lost on the talk page here. Things like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism 101#Style for people who are both Popes and Saints. Now I wouldn't mind three separate pages, but I also don't really see the need. —Mira 13:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are in agreement as to what is strategy vs. style vs. terminology, then I don't much care whether these are dealt with as sections of the main project page, all in one subpage or in three separate pages. We can start with one approach and then factor out stuff when it gets big enough to warrant a page unto itself. I think the only reason the three subpages are in this project at all is that they are called out in the generic template for WikiProjects and so the section describing the three subpages was inserted by default when this project was created.

--Richard 13:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement, then. Any opinions as to where this new page would be? (I think it would be reasonable to direct the other existing page(s) to whichever one we pick.) —Mira 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Catholicism" and "Roman Catholic"

Some of you may be interested in the following, posted a few days ago to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Anglicanism. Note that the category renames are processed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_11 rather than the category talk pages. Gimmetrow 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of you have been caught up in the naming debates concerning articles touching on Catholicism and the attempt on the part of some editors to render Catholic and Roman Catholic as synonymous terms. This has a bearing on our work, since Anglicanism has a Catholic component, and the question of ambiguity and the extent to which Anglican information can be included in such articles, as, say Catholic minister or Catholic spirituality can or should be included is relevant. I invite you to review Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name for the relevant discussion, which is ongoing. I wanted Anglican editors to be aware that I have tagged the following articles and categories for requested moves:

• Catholic Church hierarchy → Roman Catholic Church hierarchy
• Catholic spirituality → Roman Catholic spirituality
• Catholic marriage → Roman Catholic views of marriage
• Catholic minister → Roman Catholic minister
• Category:Catholic liturgy → Category:Roman Catholic liturgy
• Category:Catholic religious life → Category:Roman Catholic religious life

I have suggested on Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name that Roman Catholic editors post a similar message on the Catholicism 101 WikiProject. My preference obviously is for inclusivity with regard to the terms "Catholic," "Catholicism," and "Catholic Church," but I would be content even with greater clarity and specific guidelines. I invite you to contribute to the discussion with a view to a mutually satisfactory resolution. Cheers! Fishhead64 05:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hostile Article Moves now voting

There is an ongoing campaign (mostly by Anglicans hostile to the Catholic Church) to erradicate from Wikipedia the name of the Catholic Church. User:Fishhead64, an Episcopalian minister, has proposed to rename these articles and categories to "Roman Catholic," with the claim that "Catholic" is ambiguous.

His next move may be to force a complete renaming and re-writing of this WikiProject because every reference on it to Catholic or Catholic Church is "ambiguous" in his opinion. "Roman" in this case is not a compliment but is rooted in 450 years of Anglican slurs against the Pope and the Catholic Church such as "Papist" and "Romish."

For a complete presentation of these naming issues based on WP conventions and policies, please see CC vs. RCC.

Please consider voting on the following talk pages (the above links by Fishhead64 do not take you directly to the talk pages):

• Talk:Catholic Church hierarchy
• Talk:Catholic spirituality
• Talk:Catholic marriage
• Talk:Catholic minister
• Category_talk:Catholic_liturgy
• Category_talk:Catholic religious life

Thanks, Vaquero100 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage editors participating in these discussions not to simply go with a knee-jerk reaction. Carefully consider each proposal on its own merits. I would also suggest that these kinds of messages, while welcome, should be worded more neutrally in the future. —Mira 18:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic vs. Catholic in intro

I'm taking this to the talk page because I'm not going to get in a revert war on a project page. Vaquero100, I simply do not understand your objection to using the phrase "Roman Catholic Church," especially in contexts (such as this) where it is neccessary to differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church and the extensive list of churches at Catholic Church (disambiguation). Furthermore, this has been decided; the page remains at Roman Catholic Church, with Catholic Church redirecting there as a convenience. That does not mean you have free license to change links to go through the redirect. I also note from your talk page that you have been blocked for this type of behavior. I urge you to accept consensus, and spend your time working on improving articles instead. —Mira 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

MiraLuka, if you haven't done the reading on this topic yet, then you need to. Your introduction of "Roman" which was snuck in in the middle of a pile of edits is simply provocative. There is an ongoing debate on this issue and it was uttlerly unnecessary for you to bring this debate to this page. If you need to fight this out here, too, then we just may have to do that. Vaquero100 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

MiraLuka, judging from your own words on your userpage, you are an atheist former-Catholic. I am sorry about that. I hope that your work on WP will not be motivated by any antipathies this might suggest.

The page has been here for many months without dispute. It is you who have introduced the tension and further injured any spirit of cooperation. It was your intervention that was unnecessary. I hope that you, too, will find better uses for your efforts thant to needlessly provoke debates with Catholics. Vaquero100 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to worry or be sorry. I'm perfectly comfortable with my beliefs, thank you. I have no antipathy towards the Church, in fact I am fascinated by the historical aspects of it, which is why I joined this WikiProject. I do not see that my intervention was unnecessary, I see it as correcting a possible ambiguity. Nowhere did I suggest moving this page, because I realize the possible disruption this may cause. I changed the display of a link. Note that the link before I edited the page was [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholicism]]. The link already pointed to Roman Catholic Church rather than Catholic Church. I am not trying to needlessly provoke anyone, although I would note that this project is not a "Catholic Club," but rather a place for interested Wikipedians of all faiths to coordinate the editing of Roman Catholic related articles. Furthermore, I fail to see what is wrong with the term "Roman Catholic Church". I considered myself a Catholic until about two years ago, and I referred to myself as either Roman Catholic and Catholic interchangeably, depending on the context of the conversation and who I was talking to. My mother and grandmother, both life-long Catholics, also see nothing wrong with the term "Roman Catholic." —Mira 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Let's try to keep calm here. I think including Roman makes the project's scope easier to grasp. I self-identify as "Roman Catholic" and don't know of any Roman Catholics who take any umbrage at the label. If anything it clarifies that I'm not an Eastern Rite Catholic (like a Maronite), and I wouldn't be a part of the "Maronite Catholic" wiki-project if it existed because I have nothing to add to it. My $0.02. -Murcielago 18:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's nice that so many Catholics don't take offense at the term "Roman Catholic." It is a good, but naive thing. The institution, however, does not see it that way. WP is reporting on the institution which calls itself the "Catholic Church." The personal feelings of mothers, grandmothers, ourselves in our past or present lives have no bearing on this or any other WP article. What matters is what the institution calls itself. That fact that the institution's self identity is disregarded on WP in favor of the POV of others SHOULD cause offense regardless of one's personal feelings because the courtesey called for by WP conventions and policies extended to every other entity is being systematically denied to the Catholic Church. When the Catholic Church is singled out in such a way, as it often is, one needs to wake up see what's really going on!

WP is an intellectual exercise and should have nothing to do with emotional arguments. Unfortunately, this is an emotional issue, and unfortunately for Catholics, most of the feelings run against the Church among English speakers. Anglo-cultural anti-Catholicism is on the rise and this many month debate is really about the denial of WP policy specifically in this case in order to not honor that actual official name of the Catholic Church. Vaquero100 00:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Vaquero100. I could not agree with you more. In the past couple of weeks I have read a lot of what has been written by you and by others on this topic. You have well reasoned arguments succintly and clearly stated on your "arguments" page. While I agree with you on this topic, please take this bit of advice in the charitable spirit in which it is intended: as my father used to say, "you will catch more bees with honey than with vinegar." Perhaps some don't give your arguments a real chance because they are turned off by your anger--though if I were at this as long as you have been, I might be just as enraged. Still, brother, pray more and edit less. A fellow traveler.....on the other side of St. Joe's Lake. --Vita Dulcedo et Spes Nostra 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)