User talk:Str1977

Please click here to leave a message for me.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page

Questions and comments

Archives

• ArchiveFK Str1977 19:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Archive1 Str1977 19:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Benedict XVI

Hi, glad to see your name appearing again on some of the pages on my watchlist. I had been wondering recently where you were, as the Christianity article has recently got very biased: persecution by Christians at one stage became much longer than persecution against Christians, and the two were balanced against each other as if modern examples of nasty remarks made by ministers could compete with examples of martyrs having their limbs chopped off. (I know there's the inquisition, etc. but the article was expanded to include every conceivable example of harrassment, discrimination, intolerant remarks, and vigilante attacks, as if they were the equivalent of state-ordered imprisonment, torture, and execution.)

Just wondering about your recent change to Pope Benedict XVI. I'm not sure how many popes have visited synagogues, but if it's just two (St Peter and Pope Benedict), then Pope Benedict is the first (not the second) after St Peter (or perhaps since St Peter) to visit one. Was there another pope who visited a synagogue?

Do stay around. We need you here, and I'm sometimes too busy to do much editing! Regards Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ann, thanks for your post.

I'm glad that you missed me. Well, where have I been? I visited a certain city in the Rhineland - me and one million other people including Benedict XVI.

As for the Synagoge visits: it was always said that JPII was the first pope to visit a synagoge since St. Peter. Which would make Benedict the third after Peter and JP. I don't know if the claim that JP's visit was the first is actually (verifiably) true but it his visit certainly has been the first in a very long time. If the wording I posted seems ambigious to you (since I'm only a German, so non-native speaker), please correct it accordingly.

Don't worry I will stay though I also am quite busy right now. But I will stay.

Str1977 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is terribly written and edited. It's barely comprehensible as English as well. A candidate for merge into the main article on Pope Benedict, I'm afraid. I'd support a Vote for Deletion as redundant and it's transparent that the some of the editors are merely seeking to avoid the scrutiny of the editors of the main PB16 page. patsw 23:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Str1977, please see my edit Talk:Pope Benedict XVI about the absurdity of claiming St Peter ever made an official visit to a synagogue in his capacity as Pope. He did not. He would have visited synagogues privately, but never as pope for the simple reason that the office of Pope was unknown in his times. The concept of papacy is a more recent creation, that we have restrospectively extended back to include Peter. In other words, even Peter himself did not know he was the pope, and certainly nobody else knew either, so it is ridiculous to say he made an official visit to a synagogue or did anything else AT ALL in his official capacity as pope. In any event, we have specific dates and places for JP2 and Benedict 16, but there is NO EVIDENCE for Peter. Please revert your recent edit. JackofOz 07:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Jack, there is a problem with the word "official", but that Peter visited synagogues is a fact, even if we don't have the dates (as we don't have dates for a lot of things). But read Acts and you will find some occasions. Furthermore your statement on my talk page, that "the office of Pope was unknown in his times", that the "concept of papacy is a more recent creation" and that "Peter himself did not know he was the pope, and certainly nobody else knew either" is just plainly POV (notwithstanding development in form and name of that position).

However, I want to suggest a compromise: what about saying B16 was the second pope (after JP2) to visit a synagogue since St. Peter (this is how it is usually reported). Str1977 07:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Bavarian Reaction

Yes I'm familiar with deletes. It's up for a speedy deletion which mean that when an admin sees it, they'll hopefully agree it should be deleted and do so. If an admin or another user thinks that it's not elligible for speedy deletion, they may remove the message, in which case it can be removed by a vote for deletion WP:VFD

Cheers, Cdyson37 13:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes up too much time!

Hi, thanks for your message, and sorry for ignoring it. I was finishing a University project, and then had to fill in some important forms that had a deadline. Then, a big war broke out at Terri Schiavo, which is now locked! I had a look at the persecution section, and I agreed with your edits. But then, I normally do – my very favourite edit (with edit summary) since I joined Wikipedia is this one!

A recent problem with the Christianity article has been the eagerness of some to fill it up with examples of Christians making bigoted remarks or discriminating against atheists in employment offers, and to use these examples to balance the tortures endured by martyrs in the Roman persecutions. However, the article changes so fast that I can hardly keep up with it! I click on the button to compare different versions with each other, and since whole paragraphs have been either rewritten or moved – and I'm not necessarily referring to your edits – it becomes more difficult to see everything that has "slipped in", especially when I'm short of time. (And patsw wants me to have a look at the Pius XII talk page as well, which I'd like to do.)

Thanks for your reply to my last query. I had forgotten (stupidly) about Pope John Paul's visit to a synagogue!

Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Herr Ober! Der Tee ist kalt!

Hi Str1977. I hope I'm not violating Wikipedia policy by wasting server space on something not related to how to improve an article. I'm wondering about the politeness/rudeness of calling out "Herr Ober" to a waiter. It's typically found in textbooks for people learning German – in fact, the quotation is from Lesson One of Assimil: German with Ease, which my mother is doing in preparation for a holiday in Munich next Easter. I don't doubt that "Herr Ober!" is a proper translation of "Waiter", and it's quite likely that people learning English might have textbooks that have "Waiter!" in them. However, in practice, I think it would be extremely rare to call out "Waiter". It would seem quite rude and peremptory. If I wanted to attract a waiter's attention, I'd probably call, "Excuse me, could I have some more coffee, please?" So, in a sense, "Excuse me" might be a better translation for "Herr Ober", even though it wouldn't be what you'd find in the dictionary! Also, I'd never say, "That was a lovely meal, waiter." I'd simply say, "That was a lovely meal". Is it rude in German to call out "Herr Ober", when trying to attract a waiter's attention?

By the way, since we keep running into each other in the pages we edit, your interests are as obvious to me as mine must be to you! But have you ever considered having a look at the German article? I think the "writing system" section needs to be updated to reflect recent changes, but I wouldn't feel confident enough to mess around with it. I did German at school, and after school I did a bit of Assimil and Linguaphone and other methods, which were all produced in the early 1990s or before. If I'm not mistaken, modern methods don't use the ß, and that's not clear in the article. (But maybe I am mistaken.) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

German Wiki

Hallo Str1977, was ist der Grund für Deinen Revert auf de:Simon Petrus? Du weißt sicher, dass unbegründete Vollreverts bei Wikipedia unzulässig sind. Es geht hier um Verständigung und Zusammenarbeit. Ich habe sorgfältig recherchiert und die Überarbeitung detailliert begründet auf der Disku: Das solltest Du ebenso tun. Bhucks Anfrage hast Du auch nicht beantwortet. Wie soll so Vertrauen entstehen? Jesusfreund 16:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Sorry that I lumped you and the anonymous user together earlier, I couldn't figure out whether the comments were from someone else or from you not logged in. I apologize for the confusion. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians

You might be interested in the Historical persecution by Christians article, and the dispute about the "Modern" section. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Christian Heritage Party of Canada

You may be interested to read this about the CHP from their website:

"The CHP is Canada's only pro-Life federal political party, and the only federal party that endorses the Judeo-Christian principles enshrined in the Canadian Constitution:

'Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God' - capital 'G': the God of the Bible -'and the rule of law.'"

So I don't think that that the phrase in question in the CHP article is problematic. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Page I'd like you to look at, if you have time

Hi, I'm awfully busy preparing for exams, but I'm not happy with recent changes to Ordination of women. If you get a chance, could you take a look at it? I promise to join in later in the week. Regards. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I'm trying to look up information on this woman. It's incorrectly spelled in the article; her real name is Ludmila Javorova, and, as you can see, there's a Wikipedia article on her, which says, incredibly, that her ordination was officially accepted by the Vatican in 1995! (That would have been a year after the issue of Ordinatio sacerdotalis.)

Obviously, I want to be as accurate as possible. Bishop Davidek died in 1988, and it was after his death that Javorova came forward. I remember reading around the time that the news originally broke that someone from the Vatican had said something to the effect of "if these ordinations really happened, they are of course invalid". I think I may have been incorrect in my recent edit to put that five or six women "claimed" to have been ordained. I know Wikipedia policy isn't very keen on the word "claimed" or "allegedly", though sometimes it's hard to find a better word. However, my research tonight leads me to feel that "it is claimed that five or six women were ordained" would be more accurate, though I accept that Wikipedia doesn't like "it is claimed", either. What I really mean is that Javorova is the only one to have come forward; the other women, if indeed they exist, have remained anonymous.

I'm trying to find a way to change the article so that it doesn't state as a fact that these "ordinations" really happened. Alhough I recognize that it's possible that some liberal bishop would go against constant Church teaching, I still feel that her coming forward after his death means that it's unverified, unless, of course, there are other records – but they haven't been mentioned in the article.

I'll see if I can find any more information.

Thanks again. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on Ann's page: I clarified the issue on the ordination of women page [1] [2] [3] by adding quotes that claim both papel opposition and papel support for the issue -plue I cited my sources. Cheers.--GordonWatts 06:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Judah/Judaea

Well, personally, I'm not sure we should have any discussion of the post 586 BC Judaea in an article on the Kingdom of Judah. We should note that it was annexed by the Babylonians and that the Persians allowed the exiles to return, but no more than that. The rest should probably be in Judaea. If we are to have this section, it should certainly only refer to Judaea. john k 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Christians

I must not be a very good communicator. You have indicated that you could not follow my logic or trail; I will try and do better.

Before stating a group is non-Christian, please define Christian in the article. In doing so, we might illiminate a good deal of confusion that would be engendered by the statement, "Mormons are not Christian". When someone who is not a Christian reads the statement, it is too easy to assume that Mormons do not worship Christ, which is false. I think you will find that the world views Mormons as Christian (it is a little hard not to when the name of the chruch is {{The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of latter-day Saints]]), it is only other Christian churches that feel compelled to draw a distinction and redefine the term Christian so as to exclude Mormons.

I think it would also be helpful to document by referencing/linking to at least some of those chruches who have stated that Mormons are not Christians. I know ministers who state it, but only a few churches that go so far as to proclaim it.

When you define Christian, as you use the term, it is then easy to understand that what you mean is Mormons are not part of historical or traditional Christianity. That is completely appropriate because Mormons claim that all the churches were/are in a state of apostasy. Their creeds are the doctrines of men and have nothing to do with God or His teachings.

A compromise would be If you use "Mormons are not viewed as part of traditional Christianity". However, an alternative would be for you to use the same statement you desire and I would then put in a definition and why Mormons agree with the statement based upon the definition. Storm Rider 19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Constantine Hanging

Why did you remove my details on crucifixion,{Date} hanging, burning at the stake and the shedding of blood and make things so general? Please reply in the discussion page for Constantine the Great. Gave up. User:68.41.141.167 00:25, 25 October 2005

Checkout capital punishment in the Catholic Encyclopedia for burning at the stake. The way I understood it, it was not new in the early Middle Ages. The public execution of a criminal, was of course, to exhibit to the populace there was law and order.(A fun day of educational entertainment with the family.) The ancient Romans were very creative when it came to the executions of criminals. They had many methods. Check out executions in the arena, strangling seems to have been quite popular, etc. I would expect hanging was just one of more humane ones. Thanks a lot for the kind reply. Gave Up 25 Oc5 05

Ordination of women

I edited the article according to what I had entered on the talk page. patsw 01:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "theological reasons" in OOW. If Jesus had included women in the 12, the history of Christianity would have been different, in fact, the history of civilization itself would have been different. There would have been many women bishops, priests, and deacons through the centuries. But Jesus didn't include women in the 12 and that is the central theological reason. patsw 01:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eucharist

Hi, thanks for your message. I quite agree that bit was problematic. I looked up "symbol" at Merriam-Webster and got (as Meaning Number 2) something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible <the lion is a symbol of courage>.

I saw the problem the day before, when I was trying to get rid of the excessive use of the word "Bread", but it looked too complicated to fix immediately. I'm not even particularly delighted with my reworking of it. You might like to take another look. I think there is a sense where it's not heretical to use the word "symbol" – even though one drop from the Chalice, or one fragement of the Host would contain the whole Christ, yet, the use of bread is a better representation of the body than the use of wine would be, and the use of wine is a better representation of the blood than the use of bread would be. So it would be wrong to say, for example, "the bread is a symbol of his Body". But it would be okay to say that the choice of bread is a better symbol than the choice of some other food would have been. (And they say that receiving under both kinds is a "fuller sign", even though they don't say it's a fuller reception of Christ.) It's complicated. But it becomes very problematic when "symbolize" is used to suggest that the Host only represents Christ's body; and the Merriam-Webster definition would seem to support that interpretation. Regards, Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 09:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Church teaches that in this sacrament the bread is no longer bread in substance, but retains the appearance of bread. It is not symbolically the Body of Christ, but is in reality the Body of Christ patsw 13:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "form" v. "appearance". The Latin "forma" is not a cognate for the English "form". The sacrament of Holy Eucharist as all sacraments do, has a matter and form.

The matter of the Holy Eucharist is the bread and wine.

The form of the Holy Eucharist are the words of consecration spoken by the priest or bishop in Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. [4]

So to speak of the form of bread is unnecessarily ambiguous and the word "appearance" is word typically used in explanatory texts on the sacrament, and in the context of Terri Schiavo more accurate. In Catholic terminology a "form" is more like a "spoken formula". patsw 14:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In some of the recent comments in Talk:Terri Schiavo you can now see the ambiguity that I wrote of above. "Form" is taken by Marskell, etal. to be identical to reality, substance, etc. and they strongly believe that "form" and "appearance" have a signficantly different meaning. They find "appearance" to be unacceptable. In Catholic doctrine only the appearances remain, the substance (i.e. the reality, the physical "form", etc.) is no longer bread but the Body of Christ. patsw 19:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Language matters

Hi, Str1977! I was very glad of your appearance at Terri Schiavo. On a completely unrelated matter, I recently started an article on ergative verbs. Well, to be more accurate, I didn't start it: there had been an article there suggesting inaccurately that these verbs were the same as unaccusative verbs (which I know nothing about, but the definition of them didn't match the meaning of ergative verbs); and then someone just created a "redirect". So I wrote a new article and undid the redirect. Someone then suggested on the talk page that examples from other languages would be nice, as it looks at the moment as if these verbs are a special feature of English. I have asked a Dutch Wikipedian to have a look at the article, and, if appropriate, to add one or two examples in Dutch. If you have time, I'd like to make the same request of you, for German, if these verbs exist in German. (I'm sure they do, since English is so close to German.) No need to feel embarrassed if you've never heard of "ergative verbs". I hadn't heard of them myself until earlier this year, when I was doing a university course in linguistics! In any case, if I've written the article well(!), it should make it very clear what they are. If you don't have time, that's fine. Sometimes some of the editing on Wikipedia is urgent, to correct major inaccuracies, whereas this is just a question of adding something that would be helpful, but not necessary.

By the way, I can't understand why you have en-3 on your Babel template instead of en-4. Obviously, I don't know what your accent is like, but that's irrelevant on Wikipedia. From the point of view of your contributions here (for example, phrases like "in the end it boils down to Terri's choice") your English is definitely native-like. I can't find anything that makes me think, "oh, he's foreign." Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Georg Elser

Hallo Str1977, vielen Dank erstmal für Deine Nachricht!

Was ich mit meinem Beitrag sagen wollte war, daß die die Spekulationen um Elser - zwei davon finden sich auch im Artikel wieder: britischer Mordauftrag und Niemöllers Behauptung, Elser sei SS-Scharführer gewesen, um mit einem bewußten Fehlschlag der Öffentlichkeit Hitlers "Gottgesandtheit" zu demonstrieren - stärker kommentiert werden sollten.

Zwar sind sie im Artikel als Gerüchte gekennzeichnet, doch wäre hier meines Erachtens eine klares Wort angebracht, daß sie schlicht und ergreifend Quatsch sind - ohne die Integrität Niemöller sonst in Frage zu stellen.

Wer noch nie was von Georg Elser gehört hat, und das ist im englisch-sprachigen Wikipedia wahrscheinlich eher der Fall, für den scheinen die im Artikel aufgeworfenen Gerüchte vielleicht durchaus eine anerkannte Diskussionsgrundlage zu sein.

Wir wissen beide, daß dem nicht so ist. Ich meine: Eine direkt ablehnende Kommentierung dieser Spekulationen wäre auch keine subjektive Sicht der Verfasser mehr, sondern entspräche heute den historische Tatsachen. Dies würde dem Andenken an diesen großartigen Widerstandskämpfer auch nicht schaden.

Zuletzt will ich in diesem Zusammenhang auf die hervorragende Biographie "Den Hitler jag ich in die Luft" von Hellmut G. Haasis, Rowohlt Berlin 1999, verweisen. Insbesondere Kapitel 20: "Der lange Weg zur Anerkennung".

Tschüß und bis dann, (Strafrechtler) Felix R.

Host desecration

Hi, Str1977, if you have time, could you have a look at the first sentence in Host desecration? The article seems to imply that the whole concept is an anti-semitic one, but surely the issue is much broader than that? Thanks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Many thanks for your help at host desecration. I can tell you put a lot of work into it. I promise I'll have a look at those other articles as soon as I get a chance – maybe tonight. Vielen Dank! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thiering stuff

I looked them over and you are correct. The language preferred by the other editor implies that Thiering's theories will (inevitably) be accepted someday, which is guesswork at worst, wishful thinking at best. Your sentences were far more accurate and NPOV. Hope I have helped without fueling the fires of discontent. KHM03 12:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)