Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:23, 3 April 2006

Note: Salisbury and Warwick

• Henry VI, part 1
  • Earl of Warwick (Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick)
  • Earl of Salisbury (Thomas Montagu, 4th Earl of Salisbury)
• Henry VI, part 2
  • Earl of Salisbury (Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury)
  • Earl of Warwick (Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick)
• Henry VI, part 3
  • Earl of Warwick (Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick)

DrPickle and Vicarius Filii Dei

You may want to keep an eye out for User:DrPickle. Dr Pickle is Bob Pickle, a Protestant fundamentalist given to adding in anti-Catholic conspiracy theories on websites. He has been trying to link his website to Vicarius Filii Dei and rewrite the article to suggest that that mytical title is real. He has been one of the internet's promoters of the ridiculous theory. Clearly he sees Misplaced Pages has another source to push his Catholic-bashing ("the Pope is the antichrist") viewpoint. Keep an eye out. FearÉIREANN\ 01:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Eva Braun

Str1977 - YOUR EDIT: 18:23, 6 March 2006 Str1977 (differing theories notwithstanding, the relationship was most likely sexual)

This is your personal opinion and goes against the Misplaced Pages:No original research policy. I remind you what Misplaced Pages: Administrator Jtdirl said at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68 concering references to homosexuality or other such issues:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive68

The claim is clearly sourced from published books with named authors and so belongs in the article. All it needs is more NPOV phraseology. FearÉIREANN\ 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages: Administrator Jtdirl also said on this ] article:

• I have to say as an academic I find Keith's stance mindboggling. The claims are from named sources in credible publications. There is more than enough claims to warrant inclusion. If this was an academic publication, the above quotes and references would make reporting of the claim automatic. Indeed failure to mention something with so many sources would be be looked at as either incompetent research or agenda-motivated censorship. FearÉIREANN\

23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reverse this important and well documented information from a qualified University professor and historian that is supported by other reliable sources. Karl Schalike 20:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Karl, the statment that the Hitler-Eva relationship was most likely platonic is a POV presented in factual language, hence my revert. This time I have only removed this contentious sentence but I still can't see why other editors should be burdenend with ploughing through your dirt to find the particles of gold that might be included as well. Please, learn how to write concisely and in NPOV language. Str1977 20:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jtdirl, I thought you had posted to my talk page but I soon found out it was Schalike who used some of your posts to another page. . He has posted the same on the Eva Braun talk page. Anyway, I have explained my reverts on that same talk page and did what I had to do and did the minimal revert, removing the clearly POV sentence . Cheers, Str1977 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And, Karl, be sure that Jtdirl will get to know about your misuse of his name. Str1977 20:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now, Jtdirl, followed the links provided by Schalike for the quotes attributed to you and have found that you indeed said what he quoted, but that it was meant in the context of Cary Grant - with not a word in regard to Eva Braun or Hitler and with no appearance of Schalike in the discussion. This a clear misuse of your good name and your adminship for Schalike's purposes. Outrageous, IMHO! Str1977 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vicarius Filii Dei

You might like to take a look at Vicarius Filii Dei. A user. Bob Pickle, who writes internet sites promoting the myth that the Pope has the title Vicarius Filii Dei and that that title is written on a papal tiara, is determined to push that agenda in that article. He does this using the "when did you stop beating your wife?" trick of insisting that WP prove there are no tiaras with the words. It is an old trick. It can never be physically proven that such a tiara did not exist and was not destroyed until you travel back in time. In reality there is not a single shred of evidence that such a tiara existed; no independent verification, no photographs, no reports by independent sources, etc. The only "evidence" is (i) POV claims "produced" by the Seventh-day Adventist Church which pushed the idea (all of it dodgy — claims that popes wore such a tiara at a High Mass when tiaras were never worn at Mass, a supposed witness statement by a former Catholic which suggests the guy is lying as the supposed former student priest got his terminology about Catholicism all wrong, something highly unlikely if one was a former priest who had spent a lifetime up to that time attending Catholic Masses and sacraments.) (ii) dodgy secondary sources such as a forged mediaeval document, a magazine article (yes! They "evidence" is something written in one Catholic US magazine published nearly century ago which the magazine itself admitted was wrong!!!) and a book by a nineteenth century cardinal that was famed at the time for its clangers and mistakes!

I have given up even communicating with Pickle on the talk page. I just revert his edits to the article at this stage. In true conspiracy theory style Pickle refuses to supply evidence for his claims, just demands you disprove his unevidenced claims. Your contribution would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\ 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the notes that I've included on the talk page, and the actual edits I've done on the article, can see that I'm not POV. Misplaced Pages policy requires NPOV, and the article as it stood was anything but that.

For example, Jtdirl doesn't want readers to know that the title in question appears in RC Canon Law. He doesn't want people to know that the alleged student in 1845 said nothing about seeing the pope wearing a tiara at a mass. He doesn't want his readers to know that the US Catholic magazine in question NEVER admitted it was wrong.

I say NEVER for the simple reason that when I ask Jtdirl for evidence for such an admission, which I would readily accept if he could provide it, he refuses to give any at all.

I'm a newbie here, but I think we're at the point where we need some mediation or arbitration. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages and its verifiability and NPOV policies are all a joke. --DrPickle 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I find it curious that you would revert my corrections this morning, claiming that they were inaccurate. Why would you do that? I had given the entire quotation of the alleged 1832 source, which states most clearly that the woman in question did not claim to have seen anything. It was a man who saw it, and he didn't see the title on the tiara. He saw it on the miter.

In light of how the quotation appeared in full in the footnote, for you to revert my edit to an erroneous version does not make you look too good. I respectfully request you to stop doing that kind of thing.

What should we do? Have a survey? Request mediation? What would you suggest? --DrPickle 15:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not allow pickle to foist misinformation in the article. He simply is unable to show that any legitimate source has ever officially used the title in question or that it appeared on any papal tiera. Error does not belong in an encyclopedia.Cestusdei 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a conspiracy promoter called Pickle
Who thought Misplaced Pages standards were fickle
So he pushed his agenda
To force an NPOV surrender
But support only came in a trickle.

FearÉIREANN\ 01:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Josephus article

Are you satisfied with the current state? Jayjg 17:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, please work on that some more; right now it looks like you're satisfied. I'm trying to achieve something more neutral for you, but I don't really have a dog in this fight. Jayjg 17:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Jesus-Myth

I've reported you for your out of control reverting (largely vandalism) on "jesus" myth. Please stop vandalising this article and stick to the rules. Robsteadman 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User:TrumpetPower! has also been reported. KHM03 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

TP was trying to proetct the page against the POV pushing, vandalism and reverts of Str1977 - it is ONLY Str1977 who should be banned - along with the TWO admins who have not taken action against one of their "edit pals". Robsteadman 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to 3RR page. --LV 22:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense about Messiah

Beat me to it by seconds! :-) Myopic Bookworm 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I think you will agree that it's all going silly again so we need outside help. I've decided to start up and RfC so we can all come together on neutral ground with neutral referees and really sort out what the core problems are. At the moment we are going round in circles at regular intervals with only the tenacity of the particular interest groups deciding what stands in the article. Not a good editing environment for anyone. Hopefully it will settle all the major points once and for all and give us a reference for new users so they can get up to speed without having to open old wounds. I would want this to be a positive experience that will hopefully save us all a lot of time in the future. As soon as I have the link I will let you know but that may take a few days as I don't know what I'm doing! SophiaTCF 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Message on the same plans on another user page:

Hi Giovanni - I've decided it's time to put an RfC together about the behaviour of the editors on the Christianity/Historical/Historicity/Jesus-Myth pages. I and I'm suer you have had enough of the "wheel warring" that happens every time the status quo is threatened. We seem to be going down the "my scholars are better than your scholars" route so we need external help.

I've been reading Pagels "The Gnostic Gospels" and she fully supports your view of the beginings of Christianity such as using relativistic terminology with regards to heresy and the lack of a clear othodoxy as the development of orthodoxy was driven by political not spritual needs. Even though she is a well respected authority in this area we have seen that these views stand no chance of being fairly represented here.

If you haven't already read this book I strongly recommend it. SophiaTCF 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"POV"

You reverted an edit of mine on the Christianity article which stated that the Bible clearly indicates that all one has to do is believe in order to be saved. You said in the summary that it isn't all that clear, and is POV. It is clear, and is not POV! It's not POV that the Bible says in Acts 16:31 that "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved"! That's exactly what it says! If you think I'm wrong go get a Bible and read it yourself! And the question of whether or not someone is saved is not a dark mystery. The theologians who believe this have done very little Bible research, obviously. I'm reverting the edit. Scorpionman 16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)