User talk:EastmeetsWest

Welcome!

Hello, EastmeetsWest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Xiner (talk, email) 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you double-check something for me? I thought Dallas was not seeking alternative oversight. Could you explain more about the Anglican movement article and perhaps share a current source or two with me regarding that?

Thanks, Sarum blue 23:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to answer your question on my talk page, I am referring to the reference you made to the Diocese of Dallas on Anglican movement article. I believe you are incorrect, but I am not certain. So I was asking for your reference. Again - I could be quite wrong, but I think I have heard that Dallas is not and never did seek alternative oversight. When it was first included with the other areas, the inclusion was incorrect. Since you had made the statement on that article, I was hoping you would research this and clarify.

Thanks for your comment! I think the main issue is the whole notion of "realignment." Anglicanism has been realigning since it was founded, whether it be the Methodists or Plymouth Brethren or those who still call themselves Anglican, like the Reformed Episcopal Church or the Anglican Catholic Church. The desire I have, in any event, is to bring some historical context to the article. Fishhead64 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Realignment - You are correct that the suggestion of alternative primatial oversight is novel in the context of Anglican realignment, but it does have a historical lineage - that was my only concern. :As to the other matter, please see Talk:Roman Catholic Church. I am as happy with your proposed solution as mine. There is no ulterior motive here on my part - I simply want to see categorization occur that does not accord special status to any strain of corporate expression of Christianity. Fishhead64 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi East,

I am very happy to have met you through this site. You see I am trying to gather some Catholic unity and organization in order to appeal the article name from the erroneous "Roman" Catholic Church. You and any other Eastern Catholics will be critical. You I see you and all easterm brethren as central to our effort. Eastern Catholism and its 22 other rites are what makes the Church Catholic-universal. Your effort in making this clear to those ingorant to Eastern Catholicism will make a huge difference. Many that derive from the Western schism do not understand that they left the Catholic Church not only the Latin Rite.

I will study the subject on how to get this changed utilizing the proper naming change policies. I appreciate your help, and sharing of info.

In addition to the usual points of discussion I am also providing a difference reasons not mentioned before. Namely that the status quo does not provide a neutral point of view. That the only way to achieve this is by consensus of articles, you see, both Catholic and Catholicism articles represent the Protestant/Anglican POV. Thus, if we can change the name to simply CC then the overall consensus of articles with the non-Catholic POV vs Catholic POV would at least be 2:1 and lead to a proper NPOV via consensus of articles. Also, I am trying to present a historical point. There are Church Fathers which originally coined the term "Cathoic Church". I will point out that the church that they described is the same a todays Petrine Church, adding powerful historical evidence for what church deserves the right to be called the "Catholic Church" , emphasizing that this is not a religious or POV arguement but simply historica fact.

Lastly, as an Eastern rite Catholic you are of ultmost importance in the push to correct this problem. Eastern Rite Catholics are notoriously the most ignored in this discussion, obviously by non-Catholics, but as well by Latin Catholics, mostly out of ignorance. Thus, if you can add your input showing them how inpropriate it is to use the term, you certaily would be adding another powerful weapon for success.

The following is a generic post I am sending so you can be familiar with the most important and common points of discussion:

"The points you make, replete with the claims of injustice and oppression (despite the fact that there are several Roman Catholic editors who support the current name or don't care about the issue one way or the other) have all been made before, as Archive 7 above will reveal in all its prolix glory. I invite you to read it if, for nothing else, the strange sense of deja vu it will likely inspire in you, as it does in me. Cheers."

This it the type of patronizing rhetoric I've received from what I consider at this point, outwardly Anti-Catholic editors in this site. I know there is a good faith policy, sure, but the repeated disrespect and blatantly forward condescending attitude is just too obvious to conclude anything less.

I am aware you have supported the change of the article for the proper name "Catholic Church" in the past. I am determined to have our voice heard again and have this issue reviewed and hopefully repealed. However, there is no way I can do this myself, I need you help and anyone else that may assist us. (by the way where the due process ?)

My most significant points for change are found in the one of my latest post as follows:

1)Using a geographic description in addition to the title of a Church has to be one of the poorest excuses. What is not understood is that regardless of additional descriptive properties "Catholic" Church IS the common title of the Petrine Church in the equivalent manner as "Anglican" Church is the common title of the Church of England...regardless of any descriptive meanings of the words "Catholic or Anglican". If anything it proves how inappropriate it is to impose an extrinsic adjective upon an institution that is not titled in such a manner. If that is allowed then where does it end. Why not add to the Greek the Athenian Orthodox Church, or say London Anglican Church since the symbolic head of the Anglican communion resides there.

2)Since "Catholic Church" is NOT a description, but the title of the lone Church titled as such, by far, historically, in the present and by the world at large it deserves to be title as such. It is not ambiguous, Anglicans do not say they are going to the Catholic Church, do they? Thus, no point in pulling out the ambiguity alibi Also, the article describes one Church, it is not a comparative study of several churches, no confusion to be entertained.

3)The personal ignorance of a Catholic which refers to himself as Roman Catholic is not an excuse to go by such a term. Many of these same Catholics are the same ignorant Catholics that think Catholics of other rites are not real Catholics. Thus, ignorance is no reason, if any a reason for proper education.

4)The listing of a Parish as Roman Catholic is reference to the Rite not the Church at large(albeit slang, where "Roman" is interchanged for "Latin") just as Byzantine Catholic churches are frequently listed as Greek Catholic Church. Since this article is discussing the Church at large and not the Rite, the usage within the church by the "listing" excuse does not apply to this article.

5)The Church in the few instances where it does add the descriptive adjective "Roman" it is used in reference to its Petrine primacy and only when describing or comparing the Church with other schimatic churches. This fact, is perfectly exemplified in Pope Pius XII's encylical Humani Generis where he mearly mentions "Roman Catholic Church" as he speaks of churches not in full communion. Because, in that entire encyclical Puis referrs to the Church as simply "The Church" vs RCC 46 times to 1.

6)Since, this article is NOT from within the Church there is no way to confirm that it is not mentioned pejoratively, thus the additional push to disregard this disrespectful term. Face it, the only way to prove an article's description is not meant pejoratively is only if it comes from within the Church. (Wikipedia should not pretend that anti-Catholicism does not exist)

7)There is no neutral point of view where both sides are equally respected. Since, the Protestant/Anglican POV is represented in everycase (i.e., Catholic, Catholicism- both presented by their descriptive meaning); and the lone institution which presents itself to the world as simply the "Catholic Church", as a title, it should be respresented as such. The lone way to achieve some type NPOV is by consensus non-Catholic POV 2 articles to Catholic POV 1..

Wikipedia is not a Protestant or Anglican outlet. I mean really how many Protestants, Anglicans, or Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic", yet that article is presented from the non-Catholic POV(as well as Catholicism). Yet, the Catholic is supposed to shut up and take it - fine, I'll take that for the terms "Catholic and Catholicism". However, we are not allowed the common title of our Church in the name of outlandish excuses, instead the Catholic is supposed to swallow a term imposed by others outside the church, Anti-Catholicism, as is the preferred connotation of those against the Petrine Church.[9] [10] Where are the concessions coming from the non-Catholics? The injustice is truly preposterous! "

Additionally, and possibly the strongest point is historical. (What do you think about this?..) How did the initial author of the term "Catholic Church" describe that church as and does it still exist? Yes,, and there is documented proof that leaves no doubt that it is the present day Petrine Church and its 23 churches in full communion. (I am presently researching the material, it is facinating!) If anyone or any group has the right to be named by such a term it should be the actual institution which the original author and his companions were referring to.

Thank you very much for your support Micael 05:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...From a fellow Eastern Catholic. Majoreditor 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that your article Anointing of the Sick (Catholic Church) seems to have much of the same content as the existing Anointing of the Sick article? Are you splitting it out? Thanks. --EarthPerson 04:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am working on it right now. Thanks.

I see you have taken it upon yourself to revert an edit I made in the Gettysburg Campaign article. It appears that it is unknown to you that the Battle of Brandy Station was the largest cavalry battle in US History as well as the largest to ever take place on the North American continent. Admittedly, this is a fact known primarily to those who have actually studied the battle.

It is clearly appropriate to request a citation for a claimed fact. However, it is unnecessary to simply delete relevant information because it is unknown to you. BTW, this is a fact that is easily verifiable through a simple google search. If you are interested in making significant contributions to WP, you would do well to spend less effort playing gate keeper and a just a bit of time checking facts unfamiliar to you. This is also a good way to educate yourself on the unfamiliar. EastmeetsWest 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed this issue on the talk page for Battle of Brandy Station. I did not delete the claim because it was unknown to me. I was offering you the opportunity to provide an appropriate citation that it was the largest in US history, which you have not been able to do so far. There are two ways that I deal with information added to articles that require citations: (1) add a ^{[citation needed]} flag; (2) delete and ask for citation when the info is restored. Whether I select the first or the second is a judgment call on my part that is dependent on whether I believe the citation is likely to emerge or not. I think it is annoying to have articles that have these citation flags littered around for a couple of weeks while I wait for somebody to come up with a citation. By the way, Google searching does not always come up with the correct information.

Also, the significant contributions I have made so far consists of writing these articles, not simply gatekeeping them. Hal Jespersen 17:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Ste Mere Eglise Paratroopers from Heaven.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, when creating articles as you did here, you should include references and third-party citations for notabiliy. Without this, the article will probably wind up as a candidate for speedy deletion regardless of how well-written or factful the article is. If you have any questions or need help with anything, feel free to contact me here. Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, today you breached three basic Wikipedia rules: on my talk page via civility and on the talk page for Roman Catholic Mariology regarding Good faith and intentions and states of minds of other editors. You are hereby being warned on all three issues. Should this uncivil behavior continue and I report it to administrators, you will be blocked from Wikipedia. The topic under discussion has a discussion page on the project page for Catholicism. Please focus your constructive efforts therein and refrain from discussing personal issues. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from starting an edit war while discussions continue on Roman Catholic Mariology. Please discuss on the project Catholicism page for focus, where several issues are being addressed. Else you will be blocked from Wikipedia. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of my edits are consistent with the title of the main article. It is your reversion which is out of line. If this continues I will have it reported. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a legitimate argument with this type of article not to move from Roman Catholic Mariology to Catholic Mariology. In articles where a specific church is being referred to say Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Paris, there is good reason to change to the proper name Catholic Archdiocese of Paris. However the article the dispute is on is a theological article and "Catholic Mariology" can refer to the Mariology of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome OR the Mariology of all Churches with a claim to Catholicity (including the Orthodox, Copts, Anglo-Catholics etc). Therefore simply changing the name to Catholic Mariology could raise more problems than it solves. I think an agreement is needed on the best way forward on such articles. One suggestion might be Mariology of the Catholic Church. Xandar 21:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xandar. Theological content can not just change. But in cases such as my article on Marian art, it makes sense to change, since many Eastern icons were there anyway. So I renamed that to Marian art in the Catholic Church today. Although I knw next to nothing about the Eastern Church itself, I know a lot about their icons, and like them, e.g. see my gallery here: [1]. So there are no hard feelings on my part, but Marialogy is not subject to the same issues and must remain as such. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Wikipedia, including Catholic Church-RCC. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. In breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. Which it is important in my opinion to preserve. Can you please add your comment at the new discussion. Xandar 00:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict#Positions as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page. Xandar 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the naming conflicts page have been marked as essentially a result of canvassing, with the implication that they shouldn't carry as much weight. I think that's ridiculous given your history. Just a heads up in case you want to address it yourself. --anietor (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't re-add information that is already present in Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue into the Catholic Church and ecumenism. Copying material back often undermines the legitimacy of separate entries devoted to specific subjects matters. Having it written once is already enough, per Occam's razor. ADM (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you agree to the content move ? ADM (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, User:EastmeetsWest, do not quote non-existant policy at other users in an attempt to intimidate them, as you did here. The relevant policy is noted at this location and states: Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred.--Vidkun (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite the evidence for the inappropriateness of posting a photograph of oneself in an article, when it is germane to that article? Or, perhaps, you could at least explain your rationale. I refer here to your removal of a photograph of me in a cassock to illustrate Anglican clerical clothing. fishhead64 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Catholic social teaching/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. On Nancy's talk page you wrote, "It is maddening to be a person of conviction amid a skeptical world." Could you explain what this means? In this world, skeptics are a very, very small minority. And, since "conviction" can be defined as "an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence", what is the value in such a position? In other words, why should we believe something without evidence? I'm guessing you didn't mean it this way. I suppose you mean a different kind of evidence, most likely personal and experiential. For example, you don't need proof or evidence to "believe" you love your mother because you don't need to prove it to anyone. In the same way, you don't need proof or evidence to believe in your religion because you don't need to prove it to anyone other than yourself. So then, why is it so maddening that people might think differently? Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a discussion unworthy of further response. EastmeetsWest (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Association of Mature American Citizens requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solidarity (Catholic theology) 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/Solidarity (Catholic theology) 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. Smartiger (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and the possibility the new List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave WP article could need some help. You could start by taking a look at the talk page. Thanks Pgarret (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]