User talk:24.145.184.199

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Spanish Inquisition

Hey--try not to add stuff that is limited to one point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an editorial column in the newspaper! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent edit you made to the article Spanish Inquisition. You did not provide an edit summary, and I could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. In the future, please use edit summaries. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. NetK 06:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's NPOV policy - although your edits are in good faith, the general concensus seems to be that any of your edits do not conform to a Neutral Point Of View. Don't be disheartened, just be aware :) HawkerTyphoon 00:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


In reply to your message on my talk page, try not to use words like 'murdered'. Try executed, or just plain killed. It's the little things that annoy people. Try and leave edit comments - it adds authenticity to your work. Finally, type four tildes (~) in a row to sign messages on talk pages. Anything you can do to seem more of a person, and less of an IP address. No-one trusts an IP address! HawkerTyphoon 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HawkerTyphoon: your edits go a little too far towards anti-Catholicism. I fail to see how calling Catholic clergy "professional murderers" is neutral, among other things. At least tone down your comments in future edits. Otherwise I might consider having your IP address blocked. Wild Wolf 01:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A few of your edits to Inquisition are close to vandalism, in that they do not present a neutral point of view. I suggest you tone it down a bit, if you want the material to stay there. Kevin 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's NPOV rules and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Squigish 18:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I’ve thought about it, and I admit that reverting the article and threatening to block your account was not the correct response to your edits. I apologize for my actions.

But I still disagree that this article was completely NPOV. I admit there were certainly abuses in some cases and a few judges were not acting with a correct sense of justice. But on the whole I do not see much to justify the assertion that the Catholic clergy as a whole was a bunch of “mass murderers.” Presenting the assertion that the Church persecuted heretics because they threatened its absolute authority is false as well. It may look that way to modern minds but the Church’s intention at the time was different. This article also fails to present any sort of Catholic viewpoint on the Inquisition (despite the Vatican’s recent apology, many Catholics are still defending it).

Perhaps it would be better to place the accusations against the Inquisition (such as those of intolerance and persecution) in a separate section, along with a Catholic response. I am happy to do this myself but I will probably be too busy for the next week or so for this. If you would like to do it, there are some good online articles at the Catholic Encyclopedia site on the Inquisition, religious toleration, and the history of toleration. There are also articles at the Angelus magazine, and the SSPX sites. Wild Wolf 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits

Your contributions are inappropriate for wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 04:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia version of the Inquisition is as inappropriate as the Catholic Encyclopedia version. You need to incorporate multiple points of view, as well as modern mainstream historical analysis from historians from mainstream institutions like Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, etc.. your sources are mostly fringe wilderness, or special interest POV. -- Stbalbach 04:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Stbalbach

i hear what you are saying-sometime soon like tomorrow i'll go and try to make it sound more objective - i admit i got upset by the inaccuracy of the previous page - as far as sources, i've quoted most of the definitive ones in this field. of the publishers you mentioned, one may have been around when the subject events unfolded and i don't know that straying from original sources is always good. if you mean the revisionists by modern authors, they're not taken seriously as an academic group by any scholars of Spanish History but rather as political folk with a pre-determined (no pun intended) conclusion toward which they've tried to build an historical path. there is very longstanding, reliable information in this field and the users of Wikipedia should know what happened. There is an "Inquisition Myth" page for the revisionists.24.145.184.199 05:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just sound objective, it must be objective, in tone, content and implication. I don't believe the sources you listed are considered the definitive mainstream sources for this topic. Encylopedia articles reflect mainstream views. Compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica article on this topic for example. -- Stbalbach 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
any content i've posted has been well documented but i am aware that tone has meaning to people and being too blunt or blatant can be offensive. i've made some changes & am in the process of making more.24.145.184.199 19:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your edits are full of personal opinions. Might I suggest you read the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Inqusition and model it based on that? I really don't think you understand how Wikipedia works and what is considered appropriate at Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia article bound by the rules of NPOV and OR. You've taken on a

highly complex and controversial topic without a basic understanding of how to write articles for Wikipedia. You might as well climb mount everest as your first camping trip. -- Stbalbach 21:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

i disagree that Wikipedia is an online equivalent of Encyclopeia Britannica - the latter is used by schoolchildren for writing reports but i think more adults use Wikipedia and can deal with a little more of an in-depth treatment of a given subject. I understand religion is a touchy subject but readers of history don't need to feel attacked every time they learn of a past misdeed by their religion or a similar one. telling the truth, however difficult or unpleasant, has to be the first job of a contributor - you & I seem to disagree on what objectively transpired during the Spanish Inquisition but that's one of the great things about this site - learning new perspectives. if your perspective is along the lines of the revisionists' views, so be it but mine isn't and i've been careful to list all my references. i haven't heard you debate any specific historical matter discussed in the article so don't know what else to say other than that i am indeed aware of the objectivity guidelines and will continue to try to conform to them.24.145.184.199 02:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No actually myself and about a dozen other people disagree with your POV writing style and original research. It has nothing to do with the inquisition and everything to do with your inappropriate style and writing on Wikipedia. Your not writing an encyclopedia article your writing a polemic expose. -- Stbalbach 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach

i still haven't heard any disputes about any of the historical facts i've added. i have gone back through my contributinons several times, taking out text that could be construed as personal comments or opinions. i even deleted the two uses of the word "murder," even though "murder" is exactly what happened in the Spanish Inquisition - murder for money. if that's too hard for folks to hear, ok, but i don't think honesty should be totally subjected to the fear of hurting a couple of readers' feelings. one of the main sources for my additions was Lea who is probably the single foremost authority on the subject over the years. another was J.A. Llorente, also known as Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801 - who was already cited in the Spanish Inquisition article before i ever came upon it. i've used Cecil Roth's 1937 publication quite a bit as well: this is one of the most common books used in American universities relative to the Inquisition. so i don't think i've performed what you mean by original research. i would of course welcome changes to my changes but deleting the whole article in favor of a version with much less information doesn't make much sense. there is an "inquisition myth" page for revisionist positions, which are still by no means mainstream, and the page is not by any means brief in the sense of an Encyclopedia Britannica article. i read that guideline as prescribing style, not as a limit on information. i have made a lot of changes so maybe take a look at it again before dismissing it. thanks.24.145.184.199 05:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC) p.s. whenever you go & revert this article to the revisionist version, you delete the work of not just myself but other contrubutors who want Wikipedia to have a real Spanish Inquisition page-for example the guy who added the section on Muslim persecution- i don't how to retrieve his work so i hope he does.

NPOV

What part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view do you not understand? You seem to labour under the mistaken belief that there are two separate articles, presenting two separate POV's - that is inaccurate. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view it is policy. And no, I am not the only one reverting there are about a dozen different people reverting, see the history tab. -- Stbalbach 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

i don't understand the part about how inquisition revisionism is neutral but actual history about the inquisition is not. and i'm not talking about the "information" on the inquisition myth page - a large, highly pov page devoted to revisionism - i mean the previous version of this page, the main references for which were all revisionist. this is the version to which you and one or two others continue to reset ("revert") this page. it not only relied on questionable references but also contained considerably less information than the current page. noone can stop you from continuing to paste over others' work but a true and academically accepted account of the inquisition is appropriate for Wikipedia.24.145.184.199 03:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The myth page needs work also .. all the pages need work .. but not like your doing .. your not incorporating the multiple points of view and your not taking a neutral stance. The previous version is the lesser of two evils basically. I just noticed the Spanish Wikipedia has a Featured Article on the Spanish Inquisition, why don't we translate that verbatum and replace the article that is here now. I can't think of a better source that everyone would agree too than the Spanish Featured Article on the Spanish Inquisition. Would you agree to that? --Stbalbach 04:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
if you mean the version you just put up then no and i trust that others of good conscience would not either.24.145.184.199 04:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Spanish Inquisition (featured article). For more information about Wikipedia:Featured article. It represents the best %1 or %2 of all articles on Wikipedia elected through a voteing process. -- Stbalbach 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Inquisition. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


In understand that your are passionate about this subject and have a good grasp of history. But in my experience in Wikipedia, that is not enough. You will need to work with other editors, some of which have a very different view of history than yours. So, if you want your edits to remain unchallenged, attribute your text to reputable sources. Cite from books, scholarly articles, etc. There is plenty of material out there that describe the Inquisition in the same terms you do. Also note that revert wars will only result in you or others being blocked for 24 hrs (or more if recurring), and it never achieves anything but stress. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Again. I do not think you are stupid, so please learn from your experience: take it to the article's Talk page. You might want to read some notes for the passionate while you wait for the block to expire. Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)