text:
St. Stephen's College, Delhi

St. Stephen's College is a constituent college of the University of Delhi. Awarding both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, it is considered to be the most prestigious liberal arts and sciences college in India. It is often associated with elitism, as a place where the children of the rich and influential study.

In 2017, the governing body of the college unilaterally initiated a move toward making it an autonomous institution. In 2018, the plan was put on hold after the University Grants Commission received legal advice against passing a favourable decision.

Ranked eleventh among colleges in India by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) in 2022, the institution has produced distinguished alumni in fields like politics, law, journalism, film and business. St. Stephen's College secured the second place on India Today's 2022 Best Liberal Arts colleges.

History
The history of St. Stephen's College can be traced to St. Stephen's High School, founded in 1854 by Samuel Scott Allnutt, chaplain of Delhi, run by the Delhi Mission of the United Society. With the closure of Government College, Delhi, in 1879 because of financial problems, Valpy French immediately urged the Cambridge Mission, an Anglican mission organised by the alumni of University of Cambridge, to fill the breach. The other major aim for the foundation of the college was response to British Indian Government's policy of promoting English education in India. It was Samuel Scott Allnutt of St. John's College, Cambridge, who was mainly responsible for founding the college. Finally on 1 February 1881, in support of the work of the United Society Partners in the Gospel, the Cambridge Brotherhood founded the St. Stephen's College. Allnutt served as its first principal.

The college's first premises were in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, with five boarders and three professors, and was an affiliate of the University of Calcutta, but later in 1882, it changed its affiliation to Punjab University. The Punjab University received its charter more than one year after the founding of St. Stephen's College, which became one of the two institutions first affiliated to it and moved into premises in Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.

In 1906, principal G. Hibbert Ware abdicated his post in favour of S. K. Rudra who became the first Indian to head a major educational institution in India. The decision was frowned upon at the time, but Rudra proved to have a tenure of extraordinary importance for the college.

Charles Freer Andrews, a prominent lecturer at the college and member of the Cambridge Brotherhood, was active in the Indian independence movement, and was named deenbandhu (friend of the poor) by Mahatma Gandhi on account of his work with the needy and the trade union movement. Currently, a portrait ofAndrews is hung beside the portrait of his good friend Rabindranath Tagore in the principal's office. It is also believed that Rabindranath Tagore completed the English translation of Gitanjali, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, while a guest at the college.

With the establishment of the University of Delhi in 1922, the college became a constituent college of the university.

Women were first admitted in 1928, as there were no women's colleges in Delhi affiliated with the Anglican Church at the time; after the founding of Miranda House in 1949, women were not accepted as students until 1975.

Etymology
The college was named after Saint Stephen, who was adopted by the Anglican Church as the patron saint of Delhi after Christian converts were reportedly stoned to death during the 1857 uprising, as they were the first Christian martyrs in North India and were stoned, parallels to Saint Stephen were obvious.

Present form
St. Stephen's College is a co-educational institution of higher learning. It is one of the three founding colleges of University of Delhi, along with Hindu College and Ramjas College. In spite of its location in North India, the college has always striven to admit students and select teachers from all communities and from all parts of India. It also admits a small number of students from overseas. The college offers a number of scholarships and awards to meritorious students. These are endowed over a period of time. As of February 2017, the governing body of St. Stephen's College has decided to go ahead with the proposal to seek autonomy for the institution.

Campus
The campus is located in the North Campus of the University of Delhi and designed by the distinguished Welsh architect Walter Sykes George. The construction was completed in 1941. The college had previously functioned from a campus in Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, housed in distinctive Indo-Saracenic Revival architecture. This building now houses the Election Commission of Delhi.

In fact, some college playing fields are still located between Kashmiri Gate and Mori Gate. Facilities for a number of sports are provided for on the college campus. The Francis Monk Gymnasium, the Ladies Common Room, and the Junior Common Room provide facilities for indoor sports and recreation. A chapel is open to all members for worship and meditation.

Residence halls
There are different parts of the residence halls by means of the buildings having a main block and an extension. Originally only for male students (termed "Scholars in Residence"), three of these blocks are now allotted to female students. These blocks have a capacity of 500 men and women. There are a total of six residence blocks- Allnutt North, Allnutt South, Rudra North, Rudra South, Mukarji West and Mukarji East. Each block is supervised by a member of the faculty functioning as block tutor. Porters and other staff who work in residence are referred to as "gyps" and "karamcharis" respectively.

Library
The St. Stephen's College library has rare Sanskrit and Persian manuscripts. It also offers digital services to students and has its own homegrown online public access catalog. There is also a college archive housed in the library, containing various documents relating to the history of the college.

Organisation and administration
The college has also introduced a one of a kind certificate course in "Citizenship and Cultural Richness" which brings together a series of lectures by eminent Indian academics in a variety of fields ranging from science to literature, economics and social values. This had been touted as outreach by the principal of the college.

Rankings
St. Stephen's was ranked eighth among colleges in India by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) in 2021. India Today ranked St. Stephen second among art colleges and third among science colleges in 2020.

Admission
The college has its own selection process unlike other colleges under Delhi University. The college has an online application process where prospective applicants are expected to fill in their interests and academic achievements. The college releases a list for students selected to an interview and admission test by the first week of June. Every department has its own academic criteria and admission test/interview process. The interview constitutes 15% of the evaluation process. Candidates called for interview are usually selected in a ratio of 5:1. St. Stephen's generally receives around 30,000 applicants for 400 seats each year leading to an incredibly low admission rates.

Student societies
Student clubs and societies have always played an important role in the life of the college, and are seen as vital to student development. Each academic subject has a society which sponsors lectures and discussions. The popular extra-curricular societies and clubs engage in activities concerned with debating, dramatics, wall climbing and trekking, film, social service, photography, quizzing and astronomy. The social service league is the largest and most active society of St. Stephen's College which follows the mantra "Service above Self". It works for the betterment of the underprivileged sections of the society. In continuance of a long tradition, the Planning Forum regularly invites distinguished visitors to address and join issue with students on various topical issues.

Notable alumni
Alumni and students of St. Stephen's College are called "Stephanians". Alumni of the college include distinguished economists, CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, scientists, mathematicians, historians, writers, bureaucrats, journalists, lawyers, politicians including several Members of Parliament (MP) in India, as well as the Heads of State of three countries, and sportspersons including a number of olympians and international athletes.

title: St. Stephen's College, Delhi


text:
Wikipedia talk:Federal Standard 1037C terms/telecommunications filter terms

List of filter terms
Am I the only one who finds this article title to be exceedingly ambiguous? "Filter" is a term with many applications. Why don't we call this article "List of telecommunication filter terms"? That would clear up the ambiguity. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:18, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnivore characteristics

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

carnivore_characteristics
No need for this article in addition to carnivore. Currently nothing to merge. Squidwina 10:22, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Nothing relevent in here now, little chance of article ever expanding to a necessary sub-article of carnivore. — Asbestos | Talk  12:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur, delete. Radiant! 10:42, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no substance whatsoever, current or potential. Jdcooper 14:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Senai

Senai is a town and mukim in Kulai District, Johor, Malaysia. It is the base for several major multinational electronics manufacturers. This sprawl town is one of the flagship zones of the Iskandar Malaysia.

Name
The name, Senai, is derived from a local tree, Sinai, which thrived in the region in the early 20th century.

Geography
Senai is located four kilometres south from Kulai, and four kilometres north of Skudai.

Demographics
The town has a total population of 67,440 people. Chinese, Malay and Tamil Indian are the main ethnic groups. The majority of the Chinese in Senai belong to the Hakka dialect group.

Housing
Historic Senai consists of pre-World War II shophouses along the main road, which is divided into an upper street and a lower street by the river in the middle. During the post-war Malayan Emergency in the late 1940s to early 1950s, resettlement policies propagated newer villages in Senai as well. A third phase of settlement was enacted in the 1970s when low-cost housing was introduced. Four main lorongs (lanes) of residence continue to dominate these older housing estates.

The 1980s brought about a major boost to Senai's population, which resulted from the construction of the Senai International Airport then, increasing economic interest in the region. Consequently, this called for the establishment of additional housing estates to cater to the expansion of Senai's infrastructure.

Education
Senai has 3 Chinese public primary schools - SJK (C) Senai (士乃华文小学),SJK (C) Saleng(沙令华小) and SJK (C) Seelong (泗隆华小), two public primary Schools (SK Senai and SK Taman Senai Utama), and a public secondary school (SMK Senai Linkun).

SK Senai which is located in the middle of Senai Town consists of students from 6- (pre-school) to 12-year-old pupils. In January 2008, the student count was 892 and 57 teachers.

Tourist attractions
A night market (locally known as pasar malam) regularly takes place in Taman Aman every Wednesday evening from 6 to 10 p.m. Vendors sell various local food and drinks, local produce such as fresh vegetables and fruits, clothes, and other grocery items at low prices. Also, a morning market selling fresh vegetables and meat opens 6 days a week in Taman Senai Utama, but closes on Monday.

Air
The town houses the Senai International Airport.

Road
The town is located along Skudai Highway, a part of Federal Route 1 which connects Johor Bahru with Kuala Lumpur. Public bus services that pass through Senai are TransitLink, Causeway Link, Triton, Maju and S&S. These services ply the roads between Senai and Johor Bahru.

title: Senai


text:
Talk:Joseph Lister

The section on Lister's early years is a little confusing at times. Could it be made clearer? It speaks of his father, but at times it is hard to tell if his father or Lister himself is being spoken of. It mentions his mother and then the next sentence is "the couple" had their last child in 1855. I assume this is in regard to Lister Jr. and his wife, but it follows right after talking about his mother and just previous to that about his father and the microscope and all. Could this be edited and cleared up? Thanks! 172.58.123.28 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 8 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smonsibais, Jacobgpx.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Listerine
I removed reference to the Listerine mouthwash in the first paragraph, not because it's incorrect or shouldn't be mentioned, but because it appeared like it was an achievement for which he should be remember for. It's like leading an article on Einstein with a mention that the dog in "Back To The Future" was named after him, factually correct, but out of place trivia.

 * I think that the information about Listerine should be re-included into the article, if only to clear up misconceptions that Lister invented it himself. Leeuwenhoek 02:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

birth
What date was he born in?

joseph lister was born in 1827

Cultural depictions of Joseph Lister, 1st Baron Lister
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of Lister getting Goodyear to make rubber gloves
There is a near identical claim made on the wikipedia page for William Stewart Halstad.

Possible link to Joseph Lister's items on “Himetop – The History of medicine topographical database”
I suggest that somebody, interested in this page, could insert an external link to the following page describing, with pictures, some Joseph Lister’s memories: http://himetop.wikidot.com/joseph-lister

I don’t do it myself because I’m also an Administrator of this site (Himetop) and it could be a violation of the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy. Thanks for your attention.

Luca Borghi (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding reference material at WikiSource
I have started to add information for s:Author:Joseph Lister. Something of specific interest is the seminal paper On the Antiseptic Principle of the Practice of Surgery. More to be added. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DEAR ADMINISTRATOR
excuse me but you keep deleting useful information that the people want to. for example: kids doing assignments. i have added useful information and you have deleted it. 124.183.199.186 (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you 124.183.199.186 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.199.186 (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Abandonment of phenol
May be worth adding something here: One of the first reports of adverse effects of chemicals on healthcare workers was the use of carbolic acid (phenol) sprays by Lister (Newsom, 2003), who stated “…as regards the spray, I feel ashamed that I should have even recommended it…”. He abandoned its use in 1889 after recognising the hazard.

Newsom SWB. Pioneers in infection control--Joseph Lister. Journal of Hospital Infection 2003;55(4):246-53. 21:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeuubee (talk • contribs)

Lister -- and the birthday of modern medicine (doing less harm than before) in 1865
"Lister disappears into germ theory's prehistory, and is merely 'the English disciple' of Pasteur, a role in which, it must be said, he cast himself. As a result, the nature of the first crucial meeting between science and medicine is scarcely explored and its character is systematically misunderstood. ... Lister's work is hopelessly underestimated if one takes at face value his own unduly modest suggestion that it followed straightforwardly from reading Pasteur. To make the leap that Lister made [and it may have been the biggest leap in medicine so far] you needed to be a microscopist (to have seen all the invisible creatures in the air), a bacteriologist (to understand that every operation was a bacteriological experiment), and a surgeon, accustomed to struggling with sepsis." (David Wootton, 2006: Bad Medicine -- Doctors doing harm since Hippocrates, pp. 229, 239) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.161.4 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to say that Lister heard about new research, applied the techniques, which were successful -- scientific method. That quote seems to say Lister figured it all out. This isn't to diminish Lister's work, but like Fleming's discovery of penicillin, he stood on shoulders of giants. In that article, Lister is said to have cured a patient's infection with a mold-derived "Penicillium". I'd think that book would focus on toxic dangers of phenols. 68.149.10.39 (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

King Edward VII
The King had his operation to drain an appendix abscess on 24 June 1902, not August as here described. The King's appendix was not removed.

See Wikipedia articles for Sir Frederick Treeves who performed the operation.

The King's coronation, due to take place on 26 June, was postponed until 9 August.

86.135.112.185 (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wine auction
Not worthy of comment in the main article, but perhaps of interest to a passing researcher, might be an auction, by Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods, on 21 May 1912, “The Cellar of Wines of The Right Hon. Lord Lister, deceased, late of 12 Park Crescent, Portland Place, W.” Some of the Ports were bottled by Lister and Beck, seemingly unrelated. (My pictures 21339/40.) JDAWiseman (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Lister. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202001531/http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/frieze/ to http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/frieze/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Lister. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125042654/http://www.lister-institute.org.uk/about-us/our-heritage/ to http://www.lister-institute.org.uk/about-us/our-heritage/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161122224155/http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/frieze/lister.html to http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/frieze/lister.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Plan for update
I plan to update this article. It only has 6k covering Lister's life, which is drastically too short. I plan to take it up 40k-60k and submit it for GA.  scope_creep Talk  17:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Use later TODO

 * 1)  between 1883 and 1897 as Sir Joseph Lister, Bt.

Quotebox
for use later.  scope_creep Talk  22:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The big four
The guardian review of The Butchering Art: Joseph Lister's Quest to Transform the Grisly World of Victorian Medicine, mentions the big four. What were they??  scope_creep Talk  18:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Unprovable
In 1889 he was elected as Foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.  scope_creep Talk  21:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Main Todo List
 scope_creep Talk  11:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Info on Carbolic acid.
 * 2) Question of KCVO still to be settled.
 * 3) Wakley gave up on 20 December 1879
 * 4) 1852 was when he did first caustic liquid on open wound.
 * 5) page  Gross, Lister, two paintings. DONE. In diffusion section.

A ref on his surviving papers
More than 30 of his early school papers are still preserved.

Honours
I note he has KCVO among his postnominals but no reference in the detailed Awards section as to when he was awarded the Royal Victorian Order (founded 1896 so one is unsure if it was awarded by Queen Victoria or Edward VII). Did he become Sir thereby?Cloptonson (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't tell you at the moment. I went through the section to copyedit it, but never checked yet whether it was applicable. A reader came in and sorted the list in the lede and that was already there, I think. The man was awarded quite an enormous number of awards and honours, more than probably anybody else in history. You could have one huge article on these awards alone. I read a bit about the fund that was created after his death, doctors sending money from outer Mongolia, Southern Africa, Australia, so it takes a bit of time to take it in. I'll check Godlee and come back to you in a couple of days.    scope_creep Talk  13:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understand. I only called this out because it is a high British honour in the gift of the sovereign, so would be sourceable in the London Gazette and contemporary biographical reference books like Who's Who. It just looked a major inconsistency to me.Cloptonson (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yip. I can't find in the 20odd documents have on him with an Adobe document search on Royal Victorian Order ore on KCVO. I'll do a better search later. I notice from other surgeons who were Serjeant-Surgeons to the queen, e.g.  that one of them was KCVO. Were they awarded it, for being Surgeon to Queen I wonder?     scope_creep Talk  14:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi The KCVO has been taken out. I think it is accurate to say that he wasn't awarded it. User:Mandsford found a newspaper.com entry, from The Guardian an article, dated 12 February 1912, which doesn't mention the KCVO. I think being that close, in time, it would be entirely accurate. At the time it would be universal news, and the man was so famous, ultra-famous really. I suspect the other editor assumed the fact, as everybody else in that position, would have been awarded it. Certainly, it is possibly something to do with OM being prepared. I don't know if at the same time frame, it could be that. Thanks for posting that.    scope_creep Talk  17:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I have several biographies on Lister now. I checked everyone of them and none of them mention the KCVO, so it looks like you were right.   scope_creep Talk  08:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Size
I am planning for about 270k for this article. I seems to be the rough size for these level 4 GA, FA articles.  scope_creep Talk  11:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Dates of moving
1812 Joseph Jackson Lister transferred the wine business to 5 Tokenhouse Yard 1818 Married Isabella Harris; they had 3 daughters and 4 sons, of whom one, Joseph Lister, became Baron Lister of Lyme Regis, the famous surgeon, and another, Arthur Lister, became a botanist. c.1822 They moved to Stoke Newington 1824 Proposed an improved design of microscope lens to overcome spherical abberation, which became the state of the art. 1826 Lister bought Upton House, West Ham, where he lived for the rest of his life.   scope_creep Talk  20:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Books articles to get
 scope_creep Talk  15:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Medical Innovations in Historical Perspective - Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History (Hardback) John V. Pickstone (editor). Lindsay Granshaw article is interesting.
 * Joseph Lister: The man who made surgery safe (Pathfinder biographies;no.15) Hardcover – Import, January 1, 1963 by Frederick F. Cartwright
 * Crowther MA, Dupree M. medical lives in the Age of Surgical Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University press; 2007.
 * Descriptive catalogue of the surgical instruments formerly the property of the late Lord Lister, in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England by Alban H. G Doran 1915

Todo

 * 1873-74 is missing from Godlee.
 * Removed FFPS from post-noms in lede. Doesn't seem to mean anything but for some reason its there. Replaced with FRCPGlas.
 * Need to find more information on Listers Microscope and who made it.✅

 scope_creep Talk  14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Peerage title
The issue of The London Gazette announcing Lister's peerage reads in part: "Baron Lister, of Lyme Regis, in the county of Dorset". This indicates that "Baron Lister" alone is the official title of his peerage – everything after the first comma is the territorial designation – so we should have "The Lord Lister" in the infobox; this is not just colloquial or daily usage. Additionally, since Lister was granted a hereditary peerage (despite not having any heirs to inherit it), we should have "1st Baron Lister" in the lead. This parallels exactly what the Wikipedia article on Lord Kelvin uses. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk · 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems accurate. I just needed to explain it to me to provide some clarity. Thanks for that. Sorry I reverted.   scope_creep Talk  18:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you update the section where is describes getting his peerage, stating he was Baron of Lyme Regis and make sure the wording is correct. It was written ages ago by somebody else I don't know if its accurate.  scope_creep Talk  07:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It does have small section but I don't know if its accurate. I does look ok though.   scope_creep Talk  07:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 * No worries! The section appears already to have the correct phrasing describing Lister's peerage. I have taken the liberty to add some links and tweak some extraneous capitalisation, though. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk · 07:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Coolio. Thanks for updating and doing the infobox. Its been need done for ages, who knows how long.   scope_creep Talk  07:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Todo
Papers added to the physiology section in edinburgh may not be physiology papers.  scope_creep Talk  01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Thats not the case.  scope_creep Talk  08:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Publications of Lister in the British Medical Journal
William Hentry Dobies obit at contains a list for reason.  scope_creep Talk

Being Lister: ethos and Victorian medical discourse
Article that describes the difficulties that Lister had in writing and why he never produced a biography. A section is perhaps needed, a small section.  scope_creep Talk  08:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Letter on imflammation
Letter, brmedj06853-0047a Letter listers views on imflammation. Describes his views on imflammation when he stayed. Contrary to Hunter.  scope_creep Talk  22:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 scope_creep Talk  20:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Inflammation, suppuration, putrefaction, fermentation: Joseph Lister's microbiology Ruth Richardson. On his inaugural lecture in London.

Testimonials Glasgow
https://archive.org/details/b2493074x/mode/2up?view=theater  scope_creep Talk  08:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Todo

 * 1873-74 is missing from Godlee.
 * Removed FFPS from post-noms in lede. Doesn't seem to mean anything but for some reason its there. Replaced with FRCPGlas.
 * Still missing sections in pysiology to complete.   scope_creep Talk  23:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Erichsen section, house surgeon might now be out of order.   scope_creep Talk  10:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Document is good for 1847 lancet article definitions
Statistics and the British controversy about the effects of Joseph Lister’s system of antisepsis for surgery, 1867–1890.  scope_creep Talk  02:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Why he never wrote any books
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2008.000270

Dud sentence
For three days in November 1859, Lister examined Pus corpuscle from the eye of rabbit as well as blood taken from the heart and arteries.

Articles on specific events
Article on Lister rolls: Keep for later use possibly?  scope_creep {{sup|Talk}}  06:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * {{cite journal |last1=King |first1=Louise |title=The Lecture Rolls of Sir Joseph Lister |journal=The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England |date=1 November 2011 |volume=93 |issue=10 |pages=369

Current status
The article is on its way. Its take a lot of reading to understand what had been going on between 1865-1867, both to try and understand the papers, which are apparently quite difficult to understand on their own and in order to get the references sorted and read with papers that cover that period. Reading through a lot of very specific references had taken time.  scope_creep Talk  09:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sterility experiment
"In 1871 Lister prepared an experiment to demonstrate to his students that the air carried organisms that could be killed by heating, he modified four flasks, by extending and drawing their necks into a narrow tube that was bent in at an acute angle. Using three of the flasks in an experiment with the fourth used as the control, he filled each with his own fresh urine. In the control flask the urine quickly became infected with a mould, while the other flasks remained clear and unclouded as the dust and organisms could pass the angular bend."

This is, at best, an unclear description of the experiment. One flask should have easy access (no neck) for air-borne organisms to access the flask, the long recurved neck is supposed to prevent them from contaminating the other flasks by gravity preventing access. Both types are, however, open to the air. 157.231.151.76 (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, its very raw text. I started looking at it, and started writing it, and then stopped, as I will still working in the 1860's. Can you suggest a better description of the experiment and it could go in. I think you have spurred me to get back to the article. Thanks for posting this. I shows me that folk are really reading the article.  scope_creep Talk  08:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Urine Sterility experiment
An address on the Antiseptic System of Treatment in Surgery. (Medico-Chirurgical Society of Glasgow, 2 May 1868.) British medical Journal, 1868, 2, 53-6 (18 July): 101-2 (1 August); 461-3 (31 October); 515-7 (14 November). Manuscript with related notes, mainly autograph: R.C.S. 33 Observations on Ligature of Arteries on the Antiseptic System. The Lancet, 3.

So urine experiment described in the paper above was started on October 1867. p55 vol II of collected papers. One of several experiments in that paper.  scope_creep Talk  22:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Winter lecture course
to finish.  scope_creep Talk  23:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revert
Not sure why errors were restored to the article. The work is by Cheyne W. Watson not W. Watson Watson, and the ref needs to use |last= not |first=. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi It was gallery change you did. You said it was overly wide on mobile. I'll split it today into two parts.    scope_creep Talk  10:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So why did you mass revert, rather than just undoing that one edit? Even if you couldn't do it automatically, you could just have restored that part of the wikitext manually. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Breaking links
You broke a wiki link while manually reverting your bold experiment with unusual spelling (preventitive? really?). I fixed the link, and you reverted that. Could you explain what is this you are doing? Also you removed a wiki link allegedly "for moment until article is fixed". Could you explain how this is supposed to help fixing anything? Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How are you? What makes you think its unusual spelling. I did notice the Lister insitute is actually the Lister Institute of preventive medicine, but I think that is modern take. I suspect but I'm not sure, since I last left a message that it was preventative medicine up to some date in the 20th century, not "preventive", hence the reason for reverting.   scope_creep Talk  18:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the watch phrase is that I'm not sure.  scope_creep Talk  18:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You managed to avoid answering both questions. Question 1: You broke a link while manually reverting yourself, and then reverted my fix. Could you explain why? Question 2: You removed another wiki link "for moment until article is fixed". Could you explain how removing a link should help fixing anything? Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Originally I thought the name of the term was "Preventative medicine". That is the term that was used, I think its used, in the 19th century according to Godlee. When I originally created the link in the lede, I put in sentence that said for something like "Preventative medicine" in the lede, from Godlee. That was linked to Preventitive medicine, which was removed back to Preventive healthcare which is modern thing, which no longer fits the 19th context. The lede is junk anyway. So when I saw you changing it back to Preventive healthcare and linking it on its own, I thought that was wrong and I still do and reverted it. It doesn't fit the narrative. I changed the Lister Istitute links before realising its called preventive medicine. I never actually looked at the title. Removing the link, because the link is not suitable.    scope_creep Talk  18:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Does that make sense?   scope_creep Talk  18:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not quite. You tried to rename Lister Institute to "preventitive" (and you don't seem to see the mistake), then reverted yourself manually, breaking the link in the process by removing the last "e" in "medicine" (and you still don't seem to see the problem). I fixed that, and you reverted the fix. All this makes an impression of some sort of disruption on your part. Retimuko (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When are you going to put the link back that you removed "for moment until article is fixed"? It seems wrong not to link to an important concept for the context of the article. Retimuko (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I want to work on Lister but I'm working at WP:NPP at the moment. Probably next week. Is it bothering. I will need to look at Godlee to see if it is the correct term. There is something there I don't know about and need to look at it, but not at the moment. If you want to change it, crack on but its likely going to change but it doesn't quite fit the period, but could be a grammer. I don't know. The lister instute bit is a spelling mistake.   scope_creep Talk  17:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Todo on Inflammation research at Edinburgh
This time, stimulation of the section had no effect except when the section would spontaneously contract. The experiment enabled Lister to conclude: " Still to finish this and marker removed.   scope_creep Talk  07:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Todo

 * Intramural part is missing from Edinburgh lecturing.
 * Showed the first bacterial culture at his inaugural lecture in London. Need to add context. Why?
 * He managed to get a b.lactis culture isolated. When and where. What is b.lactis, Bifidobacterium animalis?
 * He subsequently published his results in The Lancet in a series of six articles, running from March through July 1867. Where are those six articles? These are antispectics?
 * Lister's first operation. When and where was his first public operation. Need to dates to finish the sentence.
 * Page 97 of Wrench. 29 June 1863 for Pasteur paper was most important.
 * William Henry Dobie who was Listers dresser in Edinburgh and London. He made case notes on Listers operations, lectures. p.105 of Medicine and science in the 1860s : proceedings of the sixth British Congress on the History of Medicine, University of Sussex, 6-9 September 1967 / edited by F.N.L. Poynter. 1860 Paper. Where are they? Unable to locate them?    scope_creep Talk  18:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Archives of the Royal college of Surgeons possibly.

 scope_creep Talk  19:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hand-painted poster used at Lister’s inaugural lecture at King’s College London. Contact Kings College London and see if there is images that are in public domain available. Do the same for Listers rolls.
 * Robert Koch and Lister had independently discovered that airborne pathogens are rarely as pathogenic as those found on surgeons or instrument. After that point, Lister no longer used the spray.
 * Richardson & Rhodes 2013. Try and put in individual page numbers for this ref.

title: Talk:Joseph Lister


text:
Talk:Mass of Paul VI/Archive 1

As Novus Ordo is sometimes used politically to refer to the New World Order by extreme right wingers, I have changed this name to Novus Ordo Missae, because that is the correct term that unambiguously meant to mean the Mass, not politics. FearÉIREANN 22:34 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Please don't delete cogent, relevant, well-documented material. To be productive, why not expand the sections concerning the reasons for the NOM? This entry needs information about borrowing from Eastern liturgies and how 'openness to the world' is implemented in the NOM. 207.192.130.197 10:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Please read what you write about and don't just depend on hearsay.
It is unfortunate that 207.192.130.197 seems never to have read the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. He could easily access it directly in any copy of the Missal. Instead, he fills his article with quotations from secondary sources of extremely questionable accuracy and impartiality. Not a scientific attitude or objective outlook.

Take, for instance, his alleged quotation, under the title "Loss of Centrality of the tabernacle associated with the revision", from the General Instruction. If he only took the slight trouble to look up the text he would find that it says: "7. The Lord's Supper or Mass gathers together the people of God, with a priest presiding in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of such a local congregation of the Church: 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst' (Matthew 18:10).  In the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present in the assembly itself, which is gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and unceasingly under the eucharistic species." Instead, he uses a misquotation of the first words as a basis for a claim that the General Instruction ignores the sacrificial character of the Mass, when in reality this very part of the General Instruction mentions the sacrificial character twice!

It is curious too how he claims to know what others intended, even if they never expressed their intentions. Note how he freely uses phrases about what some decision "is intended" or "is designed" to do, on no more secure basis than what he imagines was in the mind of others.

And then, what is the purpose of his extremely long section on "The question of passivity"? It might well have a place in an article on the pre-revision Mass liturgy, to defend it from an accusation of passivity; then his lengthy quotation from the encyclical Mediator Dei, issued in that same period, might be justified. But what is all that doing in a section of an article that is supposed to treat of criticisms of the revised liturgy?

I hope the article can be made more objective and scientific when I next look it up, which will not be soon.

CPF

I agree with the criticisms expressed against the contributor who is intent on monopolizing this article and while complaining of his allegedly well-documented material, still refuses to correct, for example, his misquotation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

In the past, this article was kept from fully expressing the motives for the revision and the critiques made of the revision. Granted, most attempts to give expression to the critiques were clumsy editorializing, but the article itself was not much better than that. From now on, this article should give expression to the motives and to the critiques, as an encyclopedia user would have a right to expect.

The very latest attempt to change the article again involved removal of helpful information, although CPF, I think it is, did add two important GIRM citations, for which I had to find the hyperlinks, which are now in the entry. [He] also referred to the wider Scripture readings, which are another motive for the revision and should be expanded upon (without taking away from the rest of the entry). He did suggest, oddly:

 * The revision brought into use a far wider range of readings from Scripture. It also involved omissions, alterations and additions to the prayers said at Mass, and made changes in prescribed gestures and postures. However, for the general public, ...

Emphasis added: this is not encyclopedic material. Note the implication that somehow the foregoing is not of interest to the "general public" (i.e. the Catholic faithful attending Mass).

There is a very important reality: that for a long time, this article was telling people that language and posture were 'external' to the revision. I have provided facts that show that this is simply not true. This constitutes rather a stunning reversal of fortunes for the entry. This entry will not return to an erroneous presentation, but rather will always show the motives and concerns of both 'sides'. (The enthusiasm for the vernacular should not be considered a 'critique' of the revision, as the revisers were enthusiastic about the vernacular.) Note also that I took very much into consideration CPF's earlier comments, as it was those comments which prompted me to incorporate more authoritative information. Trc | [msg] 09:12, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

@Trc: I am sorry you misunderstood my earlier attempt to help. I pointed out that the changes in the language of the Mass and in the priest’s orientation (I did not speak of posture) were external to the Ordo Missae part of the Roman Missal. I did not, of course, say they were external to the revision: they are instead the two things that most strike a superficial observer – a phrase (“superficial observer”) that I should have used instead of “general public”.
 * It was good to see that for a brief moment you removed the pamphleteering part of the article. It is hard to imagine how anyone can see that part, then or now, as anything other than arguing for a single side. There were two reasons why I thought the talk about some people’s enthusiasm for the vernacular belonged to that part. One was the use for them of emotive terms like “reformers”.  The other was that it spoke of motives behind changes rather than the changes themselves.
 * Leaving that very lengthy part aside, there are a number of observations I would like to make with a view to improving the (hopefully) factual part of the article. May I please present the following:

 * 1) The first Internet reference in the article gives the text of the Order-of-Mass part of the Roman Missal, not the whole of the revised Missal. That is why I suggested that it be moved to just after the mention of the Order of Mass. I don’t see why you put it back where it was.
 * 2) The text you have restored again gives the impression that the revised Roman Missal has only two sections: Ordo Missae and Instititutio Generalis Missalis Romani (in English: Order of Mass and General Instruction of the Roman Missal). As you know, there are many other sections: Proper of Seasons, Common of Saints, etc.
 * 3) In this connection I mention a very minor point, by no means worth insisting on: it‘s hard to understand why you think it important to translate “Novus Ordo Missae” as “New Order of ‘’the’‘ Mass”, when the official translation of “Ordo Missae” has only “of Mass”.
 * 4) If the word “rubrics” is taken to mean rules and directions for the performance of a rite, “general rubrics” fits the General Instruction of the Roman Missal much better than it fits the limited rubrics found in the Order of Mass. I am not fully content with the description “brief rubrics” for the latter rubrics. Can you think of a more exact phrase?  I thought of “essential rubrics”, but that would seem to indicate (wrongly) that the rules in the General Instruction need not really be taken into account.  And yes, it was I who first proposed the unsatisfactory term “general rubrics” that you now want preserved; so I am only trying to improve my own imperfect contribution.
 * 5) It wasn’t just “for the canon of the Mass” that, before the revision, priest and people customarily faced in the same direction. The priest customarily had his back to the people throughout the Mass except when greeting them with “Dominus vobiscum”, making the “Orate fratres” exhortation and giving the final blessing. He also, of course, faced the people when preaching and perhaps reading to them a vernacular translation of the Gospel, but this was external to the “Ordo Missae” of the time, which had no mention of preaching.
 * 6) I beg leave to point out that “Liturgy of the Eucharist” is broader than “Canon of the Mass” and corresponds instead to what used to be called the Mass of the Faithful (a term that did not appear in the Ordo Missae). GIRM 107, in saying the priest should face the people when at that point inviting the people to pray, is only repeating a rule in the pre-revision Missal. GIRM 108 and 116 do not say the priest should face the people, only that he should face the altar, and not every altar is constructed in such a way that the towards-the-people orientation is the only one possible. It was because this section of the article was confusing rather than helpful and inaccurate rather than well-documented that I suggested it be omitted.

It was by chance that I came across the Wikipedia article, which I found so inaccurate and, above all, unbalanced that I felt drawn to offer some help. I think some progress has been made. But much more is needed.

Please take time to reflect on what I have now written. Clearly, you can devote much more time to the article than I can. I will look it up again only after several days or, perhaps more likely, after several weeks.

Please forgive me for being unfamiliar with Wikipedia procedures. I do not know how to add to this comment the reference, date and hour that I see you can add. But, unlike whoever added a short comment after my first comment, I again give my initials. On the other hand, I will avoid filling in the box that, last time, produced the “shouting” header, which I by no means expected or wished. I confess, however, to having written it when still somewhat annoyed at the comment to which I was replying. But time has passed since then.

CPF 27-May-2004

tag
I think there's a chance that this article may not be presented from a netural point of view (NPOV). That is why I added the tag to this article. It seems to me that there is an awful lot of criticism of the new mass, but I cannot find anything in the article that explores benefits of the new mass. It seems to me that the entire article is slanted towards the older Tridentine rite of the church.

I have attended Latin Masses in the past. I think that they are very beautiful ceremonies, and that perhaps we did lose something in switching to the new mass. But at the same time, (and I know I'm walking into a hornet's nest here) the Tridentine mass had its flaws as well. Part of the problem is that in the old structures, the only use some church officals had for the laity was for them to sit in the pews and keep them from flying away. The laity were only there to "pay, pray, and obey." It does disturb me that some traditionalists would love nothing more than to go back to that.
 * JesseG 05:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Instead of tagging the article, why not add material exploring the benefits of the new mass? I'd greatly welcome that. I don't think the laity was disrespected previously, and I think that many laity were confused about the new Mass when it came along, but the new Mass can be described in terms of benefits. Many think that the vernacular is a benefit, that more Scripture readings are a benefit, and so on. The first part of the article should give background on those things, and the latter can list out the criticisms. I would say that it is unfinished, rather than "NPOV". Trc | [msg] 10:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A serious NPOV problem existed previously, when a group of editors consistently prevented any budding expression of the criticisms that have been made since the new Mass was promulgated. This entry must provide intelligent background on the reasons for the revision and the criticisms made of the revision. The "for" and "against" if you will — although it's not even that simple. Having a criticism of the new Mass is not necessarily being against it: when Crisis magazine prints articles about improving the liturgy that doesn't mean they are against the new Mass. Anyway, this entry will have balance now. The new Mass has generated much ink and talk, and the entry should reflect that. Trc | [msg] 10:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(I moved this section to the bottom.) I notice that you were just over at the Marcel Lefebvre entry adding editorializing and somewhat inflammatory language, such as calling people "arch-conservative". I think your concern for editorial neutrality is suspect. I am always suspicious of content that changes the tone without adding a fact. Trc | [msg] 11:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just appended a brief note to the article tag, in which I invite people (not that my invitation is necessary) to contribute more to the discussion of benefits afforded by the revised liturgy. I want to make it clear that in no way to I wish to censor that point of view. Wikipedia policy is to express clearly and plainly the different points of view in an issue that is characterized by debate or disagreement. This must, then, be our course. I welcome it. Trc | [msg] 16:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It was not my intent to editorialize the article on Marcel Lefebvre, but I was trying to correct and add some information about him. I did that because that article seemed to be slanted towards a pro-Lefebvre position as well. I felt that it did not have enough information to give people the chance to make an accurate assessment about Lefebvre. The two people who I called arch conservative were exactly that. Both men tried to derail the Second Vatican Council, and fought both John XXIII and Paul VI and all those who were in favor of reform every step of the way. I don't know if Thomas Jefferson actually said this or not, it was a quote the Jefferson character made in the movie 1776 that he felt that King George III was a tyrant even if they did not include call him a tyrant in the Declaration of Independance, so he thought they might as well call him a tyrant. And I have talked to Catholics who were treated rather badly by church officals - especially in the times before the Second Vatican Council. Why do you think that sexual abuse of children became such a crisis for the church? It was because of a long standing church policy to protect the clergy at the expense of the laity. I remember talking to an older gentleman whose grandfather left the church for a while, he didn't exactly what his grandfater's reasons were, but he said it probably wasn't hard to guess why.

Even if people were supressing the faults of the new mass, it appears to me that the pendelum swung the other way, that the article was stuffed full of criticism on the new mass, but anything on the benefits was totally removed from this article. That's why I added the tag, because what I read gave me cause to believe that this article was slanted in one direction.

 * JesseG 02:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I share your concern entirely. I want very much for this entry to reflect both sources of thought accurately and fairly. Please consider helping with this project. (I'm not going to comment on the other matter as it is irrelevant to this location.) Trc | [msg] 03:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

draft schema for intended benefits
I removed the warning about POV, as the entry is really not unbalanced so much as unfinished. I created within the article an outline for intended benefits that are part of the approach to the revision of the Mass. Please help to fill that section in. This entry should tell the full story: the intended benefits of the revision, and the critique of the revision. Both portions are incomplete at this time. Of course the empty outline might end up being different after content is added; it's just a suggestion of various points that are generally considered benefits of the revision. I would recommend focusing more effort on providing information about the benefits of the revision and less effort on worrying that there are criticisms provided as well. Trc | [msg] 03:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

disputed
This article is highly POV. Trc, you know a lot of stuff but be careful in how you express it. If you don't get the hang of NPOV then people are going to have to revert it all and then begin reworking your stuff on a temp page to see what is salvagable and what is so far from from NPOV to be unsalvagable and have to be binned. Please for your own sake tone down the promotion of your views and allow the page acknowledge that many theologians, many writers and most catholics disagree with your interpretation.
 * I have added in a dispute tag. Please don't unilaterally remove it. This article clearly is disputed. FearÉIREANN 18:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is "disputed" because some editors refuse to give any meaningful space to the criticisms of the rite of mass of Paul VI. I am quite tired of having important citations undone or removed by those who want only to present this order of mass as uniformly and exclusively good. I forget how many tildes to use. ~ Trc | [msg]

This article is disputed because one editor insists on removing anything that might balance his specious disparagements of the 1970 Roman Missal, lumping with it abuses that go against the 1970 Roman Missal, the topic of the article, and displaying the arrogant presumption of personal infallibility that has been commented on in Talk:Society of St. Pius X and above. Lima 18:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This article is a gigantic mess
This article is a gigantic mess, which follows a haphazard course often venturing into non NPOV. I think it should be protected. We need to follow these guidelines:

 * The article should have a section "support for the new mass", and "criticisms of the new mass". In the "for" section, should only be arguments for the mass, without any counter arguments by those who are against the new mass, but it should contain any counter arguments people "for" the new mass might have against those against the new mass. The same should be done on the "against" section.

 * There should be added a section listing the reasons why a new mass was promulgated, why it was felt there was a need for it. Historical precedence, connection if any to preceding liturgical reform movements.

 * One obvious issue is that there is a big difference exteranally speaking between the text and rubrics of the mass as prescribed in the book in and of itself, and the way it is actually acted out. This needs to be noted in the article, and everything should be clearly demarked on these lines. To maintain NPOV though, a statement should be added that some believe that the differences between text and action were intended by the authors, perhaps secretly, or is in fitting with their general philosophies.

 * Obviously whoever is taking someone's, quoting them, and refuting them needs to stop. This way of editing is completely non sensical. This should be avoided if there is a pro and con section.

 * 1) I agree fully that the article is quite unsatisfactory. I have already twice suggested that the only way to overcome the problem is to remove all polemics to a separate article, with a link to that other article placed in this. This article would then simply describe the 1970 revision of the Roman Missal, without expressing value judgements. In other words, it would become an article for an encyclopaedia, not a tract.
 * 2) Having "support for the new mass" and "criticisms of the new mass" sections within the article would, I submit, altogether fail to solve the problem. How do you envisage the “support” section? As “criticisms of the Tridentine Mass”? We should be thankful no such section has been put in the article on the Tridentine Mass. Then why have in this article a “criticisms” section? If the criticisms cannot be challenged item by item, the “criticisms” section will be stuffed with false statements such the attribution to Annibale Bugnini of words that are a total distortion of what he wrote. (I have a photocopy of the full text of the article in Italian that he wrote for the 19 March 1965 L’Osservatore Romano.)
 * 3) When unfounded criticisms are inserted in the article, there seem to be only two ways of dealing with them. One is simply to delete them, in which case the other editor will simply put them back in. The other is to preserve them, perhaps putting them in quotation marks (with or without an introductory phrase, such as “A certain contributor has claimed that ...”), and refute them. Which is the better way of dealing with them? Of course, there would be no problem, if polemics were excluded.
 * 4) “There should be added a section listing the reasons why a new mass was promulgated,” you say. Is it really necessary to add to the indications already in the article? The article, quoting sources, says rites were simplified, with due care to preserve their substance; elements which with the passage of time came to be duplicated or were added with but little advantage were eliminated; other elements which suffered injury through accidents of history were restored to the earlier norm of the holy Fathers; a much larger portion of the holy Scriptures is read to the people; the number of the prayers has been increased, so that the new forms might better correspond to new needs, and the text of older prayers has been restored on the basis of the ancient sources. The polemics section would have to be removed from the article to make room for developing this aspect. And yet it seems to be suggested now that the polemics should instead be expanded into two sections!
 * 5) The distinction should indeed be maintained between what the 1970 reform really is and the way some distort it. (There is no evidence that the “some” are anything but a small minority.) The best list of such distortions or abuses is the Holy See’s document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which is intended not just to “curb” (as one editor has put it) but to eliminate them. They might deserve a separate article; but they are not part of the 1970 reform, which is the subject of the present article.
 * 6) I disagree with the suggestion that “a statement should be added that some believe that the differences between text and action were intended by the authors, perhaps secretly, or is in fitting with their general philosophies.” In concrete reality, this turns out to be a circular argument: general philosophies are attributed on the basis of what are presumed to be intentions, and intentions are deduced from what are then believed to be general philosophies. An encyclopaedia article should contain only a description of verifiable facts, and should in no way be based on the too facile attribution to others of secret evil intentions.

Lima 08:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "How do you envisage the “support” section? As “criticisms of the Tridentine Mass”? We should be thankful no such section has been put in the article on the Tridentine Mass."

-Well yeah obviously it would include some criticisms of the tridentine mass which predated it and were a motivation for change, it would also include new innovations that people thought were good and why. I don't see any problem with having a clear and distinct support and criticism section. As far as either side having blatantly false statements, that can be worked through better by forcing it to cite a source, rather then adding an opposing scentence. We can put the actual source in the statement.

"3. When unfounded criticisms are inserted in the article, there seem to be only two ways of dealing with them. One is simply to delete them, in which case the other editor will simply put them back in. The other is to preserve them, perhaps putting them in quotation marks (with or without an introductory phrase, such as “A certain contributor has claimed that ...”), and refute them. Which is the better way of dealing with them? Of course, there would be no problem, if polemics were excluded"

Unfounded criticisms? What is unfounded or not is NPOV. Obviously writing the article to be critical would be wrong, but saying that people have critisims, however unfounded, should not be deleted.

"4. “There should be added a section listing the reasons why a new mass was promulgated,” you say. Is it really necessary to add to the indications already in the article? The article, quoting sources, says rites were simplified, with due care to preserve their substance; elements which with the passage of time came to be duplicated or were added with but little advantage were eliminated; other elements which suffered injury through accidents of history were restored to the earlier norm of the holy Fathers; a much larger portion of the holy Scriptures is read to the people; the number of the prayers has been increased, so that the new forms might better correspond to new needs, and the text of older prayers has been restored on the basis of the ancient sources. The polemics section would have to be removed from the article to make room for developing this aspect. And yet it seems to be suggested now that the polemics should instead be expanded into two sections!"

Umm, disregard the size warnings, there is plenty of room for all sections. Those reasons you talk about only hint at parts of larger movements, the history of the liturgical reform movement, etc. Its illuminating to talk about all the currents that led into the development of the novus ordo.

"5. The distinction should indeed be maintained between what the 1970 reform really is and the way some distort it. (There is no evidence that the “some” are anything but a small minority.) The best list of such distortions or abuses is the Holy See’s document Redemptionis Sacramentum, which is intended not just to “curb” (as one editor has put it) but to eliminate them. They might deserve a separate article; but they are not part of the 1970 reform, which is the subject of the present article."

Yes obviously I am going to ensure the article makes quiet clear that there are two phenomenons at work here, one being the actual text of the missal, the other being how it was actually acted upon, including all things that were percieved as abuses. I had previously made this distinction very clearly and well in the article but the article has since been drastically changed by polemics from either side.

"In concrete reality, this turns out to be a circular argument: general philosophies are attributed on the basis of what are presumed to be intentions, and intentions are deduced from what are then believed to be general philosophies. An encyclopaedia article should contain only a description of verifiable facts, and should in no way be based on the too facile attribution to others of secret evil intentions."

Yeah I didn't say this part clearly. Let me try and make myself more clear. With regards to the second phenomenon, "how the new mass was actually acted out in many countries", there are always elements that evolve that some say is an abuse when they come out, such as "altar girls", but the fact that they were tolerated and encouraged by either the Bishop or Pope at the time shows that they were not de facto abuses according to the Bishop or Pope.

I don't think the part explaining Pope Pius XII easter changes in detail is necessary, as it has little to do with the motives and movement of the novus ordo change.

This last section was added by a 67.180.61.179 user. Would he/she please sign, at least with initials or a pseudonym, so as to mark off where a section ends, and a new one can begin.

On point 3. Of course, the fact that people have criticisms should not be deleted. What is wrong is to declare that unfounded allegations and false attributions should be left unchallenged. These allegations and attributions often cite as their source the Internet sites they are copied from, but that still leaves them unfounded and false. Take as an example the Bugnini attribution that is repeated in good or bad faith on many sites.

On point 5. The optional presence of “altar girls” is not an abuse against the Mass liturgy. An official interpretation of the Code of Canon Law has declared female altar servers permissible, though, of course, not obligatory. Some people’s dislike for them could perhaps be dealt with in the article. What is out of place is to treat as part of the revised liturgy abuses against it, such as those that Redemptionis Sacramentum has explicitly condemned.

Additional matter. It was because of the false claim that there were only minimal changes to the Roman Missal from the time of Pius V to that of Paul VI that I wrote at length about the Pius XII revision of the Triduum Sacrum and Vigil of Pentecost liturgy (and could have written longer, since I possess copies of the Roman Missal from before and after the change). Besides, the Pius XII changes had very much to do with the motives and movement that led to the Paul VI changes, which in several matters simply applied to the rest of the Missal what Pius XII introduced into the part he revised. Who knows too what changes Pius X would have introduced, had he lived long enough to do more than raise the status of Sundays in comparison to celebrations of saints, reform plainchant, and ease the regulations on daily and early communion? He died before publication of that complete novelty of his: adapting and systematizing canon law into a code.

I will compress the Pius XII section as soon as I can. In spite of attempts at different times, I find that the article is at present unavailable. I have also found it impossible until now to upload this comment to the discussion page.

Lima 23:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Take as an example the Bugnini attribution that is repeated in good or bad faith on many sites." The best way here is to actualy include the direct quote of Bugnini. However, I think this problem will be mostly mitigated by the clear seperation of the pro and con arguments.

"On point 5. The optional presence of “altar girls” is not an abuse against the Mass liturgy". There is on one hand the issue of the missal changes in and of themselves, which have nothing to do with Altar girls. But as part of the changes which occoured since the 1970's, Altar girls are lumped in by people in an argument who simply lump that stuff altogether as the "new mass". Another side would argue against them and say that Altar girls and all the rest are all good, but still another side would argue against the anti new mass side and say that the new mass is good but altar girls are an "abuse", or a bad thing done in an unauthorized way (especially before they were explicitly authorized, remember: they were done with ambigious legality for a long time in the US).

"What is out of place is to treat as part of the revised liturgy abuses against it, such as those that Redemptionis Sacramentum has explicitly condemned." Unfortunately this cannot be true, for these reasons

"It was because of the false claim that there were only minimal changes to the Roman Missal from the time of Pius V to that of Paul VI that I wrote at length about the Pius XII revision of the Triduum Sacrum and Vigil of Pentecost liturgy (and could have written longer, since I possess copies of the Roman Missal from before and after the change). "
 * In the arguments of almost anyone that I've ever seen argue both pro and against the new mass, both sides lump together both what was changed in the text in and of itself and the extraneous changes which occoured since 1970. The only arguments that I've seen that argue about the textual changes in and of itself, especially in the present time, are things like the Critical Study of the New Mass and the present day arguments of the SSPX. If these two phenonenon weren't so intertwined it would be better to have seperate articles but they are.
 * There is a blurry line between "extraneous" practices and those that are authorized, as in the example of altar girls. Practices, tolerated without censure by certain bishops for a while have gradually become tolerated by the Pope and church officially.

I don't think this will be needed in the final cleaned up article. 67.180.61.179 00:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) Actually I just thought of something, the liturgical movement should get its OWN article and a small summary should mention it in this article in the beggining as a predasesor for the changes.

67.180.61.179 00:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and thanks for improving the criticisms section, removing a multitude of unfounded allegations and false attributions. There are still some manifestly false statements in the text. Take for example the affirmation that the changes include “Allowing Deacons, who permanently remain as Deacons, to marry.” In fact, ordination even as a deacon is an impediment to marriage (cf. canon 1087 of the Code of Canon Law). What is actually allowed is for married men of mature age to be ordained as deacons, without being prepared for ordination as priests. Other statements are of decidedly questionable accuracy, such as the gratuitous assertion that “The amounts of the word ‘sacrifice’ are reduced ... and ‘table’ introduced.” (This is, I think, untrue; but it would take a long time to count the times “sacrifice” appears in the old Missal and in the new. It is certainly untrue that “table” on its own is ever used to mean the altar – if that is what the phrase implies.) But I am so relieved at the thought of what has been eliminated that I just leave the text untouched. The trouble will come when rabid anti-revision contributors again put in falsehoods that shriek for correction.

You may wish to remove the paragraphs that begin: “At four points the 1975 GIRM ....”; and “GIRM directs the priest to face ...” These were inserted to counter an insistent false assertion that the revised Missal directs the priest to face the people a certain number of times, including during the eucharistic prayer. But now they seem, at least to me, unnecessarily detailed.

Your revision has unfortunately left without explanation the repeated acronym GIRM. The explanation must be restored, or else the acronym must in every instance be expanded to “General Instruction of the Roman Missal”.

I also leave it to you to change the phrase “Novus Ordo” in the second paragraph of the article. It is neither an accurate nor a neutral term. It is inaccurate, since the Ordo Missae is only a small part of the Missal, and also for the reason indicated at the start of this Talk page. It is non-neutral, because generally used pejoratively by opponents of the revision.

Lima 17:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Other statements are of decidedly questionable accuracy, such as the gratuitous assertion that “The amounts of the word ‘sacrifice’ are reduced ... and ‘table’ introduced.”"

I counted haha. In the Mass itself, the tridentine uses the word sacrifice 8 times, the new mass with Roman canon uses it 7 times and the new mass with any of the other canons use it 3 times. Ill slowly get rid of the refrences to the GIRM. What other term should I use in place of Novus Ordo? Should I use the term New Mass? Remember, once the word usage becomes widespread, you can't let its etymology or original meaning get in the way. The only two phrases I've seen used by both sides of the argument to describe the phenonemon talked about in the article is "new mass" and "novus ordo" although I might be forgetting other ones.

END OF UNSIGNED REMARKS BY 67.180.61.179

In counting the times the word “sacrifice” appears “in the Mass”, you obviously limited your search to the quite brief Order of Mass in the pre- and post-Vatican II versions of the Roman Missal. I was thinking of a much bigger task: that of counting the frequency of the word in the whole Missal: not only the Order of Mass, but also the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (and the sections of the pre-1970 Missal that it replaced), the Proper of Seasons, the Proper of Saints, the Common of Saints ... I am convinced that the result of such a count would show even more strongly that the idea formed in a reader’s mind on meeting the phrase, “The amounts of the word ‘sacrifice’ are reduced”, is quite false. Regrettably, this is not the only such baseless affirmation that is firmly believed and constantly repeated without any checking.

I think that by now, after more than a generation, “new Mass” is an outdated term. “Newer Mass” would be more exact. Objectively, what is being considered is the present form of the Mass in the Roman rite; but any description based on that fact, such as “present-day Mass”, would displease its detractors. However, there are many ways of referring to it that are accurate and at the same time will offend nobody: “the revised Mass” and “the post-1970 liturgy” are two simple ones. “The Vatican II Mass” would correspond precisely with “the Tridentine Mass”. The alternative names given at the start of the article are other possibilities. I am sure you can think of yet more.

As you well know, the Order of Mass in the revised Missal is not called “New Order of Mass” (“Novus Ordo Missae”) and never was. The term “Novus Ordo Missae” was invented and used by opponents of Paul VI’s revision, as “Papist” by opponents of the Roman Catholic Church. “Papist” can at least boast of being a more accurate description of its object than “Novus Ordo Missae” is of the revised liturgy of the Mass in its entirety.

Lima 01:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "I was thinking of a much bigger task: that of counting the frequency of the word in the whole Missal: not only the Order of Mass, but also the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (and the sections of the pre-1970 Missal that it replaced), the Proper of Seasons, the Proper of Saints, the Common of Saints ... "
 * I've noticed you've made this point before. Obviously the main issue for most people would be primarily the changes to the Ordo of the missal. So I don't see why its important to count how many times the word sacrifice is used in the instructions on how to say the mass or in the various Saint's feast day's readings. The vast majority of all types of criticisms and support around the new mass is about the ordo, the text and rubrics of the mass itself, and not in regards to the changes to the Saint's days. Incidentally, the GIRM intro section to the mass is seen as way more scandelous then the mass itself by the "text-in-itself" genre of critics such as Cardinal Ottoviani.
 * As regards to your proposed alternate names for the novus ordo mass, such as Vatican 2 Mass, work. I think the main issue is brevity when it comes to which word to use in the text of the article (obviously the article title must remain Novus Ordo Missae because its the most popular word and wikipedia policy is to use the most popular word regardless of accuracy!).

END OF UNSIGNED REMARKS BY 67.180.61.179
 * I agree with your observation about the centrality of the two versions of the Ordo Missae. And I was thinking of examining outside the Ordo Missae precisely because, as you say, some attribute more meaning to the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (GIRM) than to the Ordo Missae. Your counting has indicated that, when the first eucharistic prayer is used, there is a reduction of just one use of the word "sacrifice". This must be through omission of the prayer for himself that the priest used to say silently before giving the blessing at the end of Mass (Placeat tibi, santa Trinitas ...). Now that I come to think of it, if you count the times people heard the word "sacrifice" at Mass, the number has actually been tripled, from 2 (Orate fratres and response) to 6!
 * Lima 07:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mass of Paul VI/Archive 1


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aukrust

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 00:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aukrust
Geneology. Xezbeth 10:30, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. — Asbestos | Talk  12:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur, Delete as genealogy. Radiant! 12:37, Feb 24, 2005
 * Delete without verifiable refs - David Gerard 12:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Bluemoose 14:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Both Olav and Kjell Aukrust are notable Norwegians (Olav especially, since he was important in the development of the Nynorsk language)--> this is a notable family. It happens to be a long-established one that we actually know the back-history of (I know the stuff about farms seems really boring, but Norwegian dialects actually varied on a farm-to-farm level; Nynorsk was an attempt to standardise these dialects by giving emphasis to the "uncorrupted" rural versions over the Danish-influenced urban ones). My suggestion is that this should be renamed as "Aukrust Family" with "Aukrust" set as a redirect, and the text edited so it reads less like a geneology - i.e. giving more emphasis on the family members who are well-known and giving the backhistory later. I will also "dump" the information in this article into the talk pages for Olav and Kjell in case it is deleted. --VivaEmilyDavies 22:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aukrust


text:
User talk:Mel Etitis/Forum

On this page I intend to gather correspondence with and about Sam Spade, together with evidence of his interactions with other users, and his behaviour on articles and Talk pages.

Other collections & pages

 * User:Spleeman/Sam Spade
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Sam Spade

William_A._Dembski

 * I've just reviewed your user page, and if what you say is true (and I'll assume good faith ;) than I thank you for the opportunity of speaking with an oxford proffessor. Unfortunately, despite us seeming to agree on a great many things in theory (according to your user page again) we don't seem to agree on much in practice. In any case, please have a look at Talk:William A. Dembski, we seem to have had some misunderstandings. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

{Continued here.)

Communication breakdown
I don't know what the situation is, but I've never had such a complete failure of communication outside of language barrier and outright trolling. Nothing I say seems to be understood by your self, and while I think I understand what you’re saying, I don't understand why you’re saying it. We either need to change our paradigm utterly or cease communicating entirely, the present circumstance is untenable. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Continued here and and here.)

Learning from previous similar experiences
(from my Talk page)

The problem you are presently experiencing with a particular editor at Talk:William_A._Dembski is nothing new. Please have a look at the archives of Talk:Atheism covering the last 11 months to see how we dealt with the same editor behaving in the same way. A visit to my user talk page and it's archives would also provide some insight to see how out of hand this situation can become.--FeloniousMonk 18:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If you folks over at atheism figured out how to keep this user at bay please don't keep it a secret. He has been ransacking the anarchism and related pages for more than a year now, and not surprisingly when a good discussion of the article gets going between various parties who disagree his arrival inevitably signals imminent disaster.  Frankly, people have gotten so tired of responding to his constant repetition of the exact same POV pushing that they have ceased to even try to debate at all.  Kev 05:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It takes those editors who are aggrieved to temporarily agree to only edits to the article that are reached by consensus/majority opinion until the troublemaker moves on. It's not particularly easy, as it takes cooperation of parties that often have little else in common in the article other than their difficulties in dealing with the obstructionist behavior of one particular person. This worked well for us at the atheism article. Each of us also began citing credible outside support for our arguments in reply to his objections. We built consensus as to page content working paragraph by paragraph, always editing the content in the article only after a majority opinion is reached. Anyone who didn't provide credible support for a particular argument or repeatedly obstructed progress was not able expect anything near majority support for their opinion or enjoy the assumption of good faith indefinitely. Someone will need to step up on the talk page to get a majority to agree to put this into action. Keep in mind obstructionism or constantly repeated edits that ignore consensus need not be tolerated indefinitely, particularly when it prevents progress, and if the editor in question insists on flaunting consensus the group always has a good case for a request for arbitration or request for comment.--FeloniousMonk 07:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's email
Sam, you misused the "E-mail this user" wikipedia email system to send me this:

 * Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:36:29 GMT
 * To: "FeloniousMonk"
 * Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
 * From: "Sam Spade"

 * Fuck you, you ignorant rat bastard

I am still waiting for an apology, Sam.

Related links:
 * 1) Sam deleting my response..
 * 2) Justifying his email.
 * 3) Admiting his actions were an intentional exploitation of a policy loophole intended to side-step the incivility policy.
 * 4) Refusal to apologize.
 * 5) Sam demanding (and receiving) an apology from an admin for performing his job in good faith, then a few hours later refusing to apologize himself..

Comments Deleted by Sam_Spade from his Talk page

 * February 7, 2005:
 * About your actions at the Atheism article today
 * Sam, your attempt to rewrite the atheism article to suit your POV undoes months of consensus and good work by earnest, responsible editors. Repeatedly insisting on inserting POV and undoing reverts correcting it is vandalism. Since you hold yourself up elsewhere to be an allegedly responsible and trustworthy editor, isn't it time to 'walk the walk'? If you're going to edit the article, please try make an effort to collaborate and be a positive influence on the article. We'd rather not have to protect the article again because of you resisting consensus, it would make it the eighth time in 12 months that your actions result in the page being protected.--FeloniousMonk 18:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arguing with himself?
self-debate

This all happened on 27 ii 05
 * 00:53 164.67.221.197 left the 'skinhead' message
 * 02:04 El C removed the message
 * 13:56 Sam Spade reinstated the message, and added a reply
 * 14:35, 14:39, 14:42, 14:43, 14:46 Sam Spade edits his message, expanding it to present state.

Talk:Atheism

 * In response to S.S.'s 'overhaul:, followed by:.

Sam Spade Edits
Don't revert non-vandalism. I worked on that edit for about 20 minutes, removing original research and postulated opinions, and clarifying the atrocious sentance structure. Point by point my edits were improvements, most obviously in the first sentance, which was nearly unreadable in its lack of inelegance. Featured article status should be our goal, and cited, readable information should be our method of achieving such, as with all articles. 17:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW SS - "sentance" should read "sentence". But keep up the desire for "readable information". --Mrfixter 17:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, your recent effort to rewrite the atheism article to suit your well known POV undoes months of consensus and good work by earnest, responsible editors; only accomplished I might add after you ceased your many months of disruptive obstructionism. Rewriting a accurate and serviceable article to significantly change its tone and meaning to reflect your personal POV and against consensus is vandalism personified. You hold yourself up elsewhere to be an allegedly responsible and trustworthy editor, yet you pull stunts like this? Protecting the page again may be the only option to prevent Sam from rewriting it with his POV. That would make it the eighth time in 12 months that Sam's vandalism results in the page being protected.--FeloniousMonk 17:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * while I don't call it vandalism, Sam cannot seriously have thought that his "overhaul" would go unreverted. This article will only progress in very small steps and by balanced compromise. Any major "rewrite" is doomed to wholesale reversion. dab (ᛏ) 17:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sam's engaged in this sort of behavior and obstructed progress here for exactly one year now. Only after Sam swore off editing the article in December(?), after being nearly being banned for 3rr violations, has any significant progress been made. His method here smacks of vandalism to me.--FeloniousMonk 17:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * calm down. it's reverted. nothing happened. Maybe SS will discuss, now. dab (ᛏ) 20:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Seven months of Sam pulling this very stunt will do that to you. The last two months without Sam were very productive and peaceful. Exactly how many chances are we to give someone before declaring they're acting in bad faith? How long do we have to wait for them to edit responsibly in an NPOV manner? Twelve months is very long time.--FeloniousMonk 20:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Sam's edits not because I disagreed with all of them. In fact some of them amounted to copy-edits. However, others were more substantial and should be discussed here first. In general, Sam, it seems a better policy when making a large number of changes, some of which you know are apt to be controversial, to make them piecemeal in increasing order of size and/or degree of controversy, waiting a bit after each one to test (and/or obtain) consensus. This might seem tedious, but you know from personal experience that being bold won't have good results on this article. By the way, if you don't proceed in this manner, I think you will find that this article has quite a large cadre of editors now who will simply revert your work. --BM 17:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I strongly concur that "when making a large number of changes, some of which you know are apt to be controversial, to make them piecemeal in increasing order of size and/or degree of controversy, waiting a bit after each one to test (and/or obtain) consensus." I think that is suggestive of one possible way to proceed here, if it is clear which edits are more likely to be controversial. Certainly any that are simply improvements of grammar, etc., should come first and should be uncontroversial. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:44, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've asked for admins to have a look at Sam's actions and protect the page (again) if Sam insists on not playing by the rules. Thanks Sam for making this a place of bitter contention again.--FeloniousMonk 17:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think protection would be excessive. As far as I can tell, most of the edits consist of moving material around. Sam, I think it would be very useful for you to be explicit here about what your edits are, other than simply moving material. I'd also suggest that moving material without consensus is probably not the greatest idea in an article where consensus has obviously difficult to hammer out. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:44, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with your suggestion, though I'll point out Sam's edits are far more than just "moving material around". Consider: . Sam completely changed the meaning and tone of the introductory paragraph, and went on to do the same to the 'Types of atheism' paragraphs. Those two sections alone were the result of months of negotiation and compromise.--FeloniousMonk 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Jmabel, I generally third your seconding of my comments. However, I would point out that unfortunately in this article apparently trivial wording and grammar changes can trigger edit wars, since in some places the consensus has been hammered out word by word.  It may not be obvious where these trip-wires are, but Sam should know, having spent a lot of time on this article.   Whether he decides to deliberately trip them anyway is another question.  --BM 21:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sam, as for some of your specific edits: --BM 18:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I've never been completely happy with the content of the first sentence, and leaving content aside, I also find the syntax and word-choice to be infelicitous and "clunky".  HOWEVER, there are other editors here who feel very strongly that it should be retained, word for word.    Since most of us can live with it, the consensus seems to be that it isn't worth having an edit war about.
 * 2) The remaining few sentences of the intro were a summary which I added. The general view is that the intro of the article should be more than one sentence and that it should include a short summary of the article, as do other articles.  Those sentences are a summary of the history section, which is now the bulk of the article.  The last sentence is still controversial, and when you moved almost the entire Talk page to the archives, you moved an active discussion on that point.  I have moved it back, as you see.  This controversy is at this point confined to the Talk page, and the people disagreeing with that sentence so far have not attempted to change or move it in the article. Incidentally, where you tried to move this (the Etymology section) didn't make a lot of sense.
 * 3) The edit in the paragraph about the monotheistic "god": you have a bee in your bonnet about this, Sam, and you should just let it drop, since people either don't understand what you are driving at, or consider it POV.
 * 4) I will have to look again at your other edits. As I recall they were small changes, but I can't recall if there was anything controversial about them.

Conscious Evolution
After a long Vfd debate, the page was deleted, the opinion being that it should go completely, with no redirect. Shortly afterwards, a 'new' user (4.250.138.88) recreated it (as his ninth edit) with a redirect to 'Transhumanism'. When it was blanked, S.S. recreated it, and when an admin removed it, S.S. put it back again (see a discussion with SlimVirgin from S.S.'s Talk page, and SlimVirgin's explanation to me ).

title: User talk:Mel Etitis/Forum


text: Template:Centralized discussion

title: Template:Centralized discussion


text:
Tibetan eye chart

The Tibetan eye chart is a tool allegedly developed by Tibetan monks. According to some authors, it can be used to train the muscles and nerves of the optical system, correcting visual problems. However, the International Orthoptic Association has found no scientific evidence of the effectiveness of this treatment.

title: Tibetan eye chart