User talk:Wnt

Hello, Wnt! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Omar Osama bin Laden

On 20 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Omar Osama bin Laden, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot answer your question on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Terrorism, sorry.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Haitian Cuisine

Geophagy or the consumption of material such as dirt and etc. is a phenomenon which most often occurs in impoverished and malnourished areas. This is common in all the very poor areas in third world countries. This is not "cuisine" and so this does not apply at all to the country of Haiti largely enough to be added into the article. Spyder00Boi (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the source article. It says the "cookies" use mud from a certain central plateau which actually sells for $5/100 "cookies" (up 35%...) Of the sections existing in the article "cuisine" seemed close enough. Grim but sourced. Wnt (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the Geophagy article. The practice is widespread and common, in particular among Africans and descendants of African slaves, and in these groups in particular among pregnant women, by way of medication or food additive (antacid) and nutritional supplement (iron, calcium), where the particular benefits depend on the type of clay (such as bentonite and kaolin). Such clay cookies are also sold in some health-food stores in the U.S. This is no more "cuisine" than the consumption of omega-3 pills among the affluent. As it is described in the source article the Haitian tradition of geophagy is a schoolbook example of the common practice as a dietary supplement. Resorting to eating these cookies not for health benefits but to fill an empty stomach is incidental and only highlights the lack of available food, in the Haitian case because of sky-rocketed food prices.  --Lambiam 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again it is a circumstantial phenomenon and it isn't eaten if there is readily available food. Some that aren't poor eat small quantities of it as a source of calcium and antacid supplement but it is NOT cuisine nor is it typical to Haitian culture. Spyder00Boi (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MobiTV

While I have no intentions of reverting an edit that I'm involved in (as I'm the admin in question), in this way, you may want to reconsider whether this addition is actually notable enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Typically, on-wiki activities like that are Self-references which we tend to avoid. Also, while the citation itself is a link to the action performed, it's not a link to any discussion of the matter. If that action has been discussed by a reliable source, such as news media of some sort (blogs and forums don't count, unless they're about the author of the blog or the nature of the forum, by the way), then that would make a better source.

If you need any assistance in correctly citing material, please let me know, and I can help you do it in a proper Wikipedia fashion, despite my personal feelings that it is too trivial to include here.

Take care. ~Kylu (u|t) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems logical that if it is notable to describe whether HowardForums allowed the links to remain, it should be notable to describe whether Wikipedia permits it. After all, Wikipedia is better known than HowardForums, as far as I know. True, primary sources aren't optimal references, but as per policy I'm not drawing any conclusions from it that aren't apparent to the average reader. Wnt (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen various places mention the issue that was taking place on HowardForums, but none about this on Wikipedia. As this sort of thing happens quite often (the AAC key incident, for instance), I would suggest it's more appropriate to find news stories regarding Wikipedia's stance on "spreading the word" on things and make a section on it on Wikipedia's article, rather than this one incident. If you can point me to a news story that mentions our response, let me know. I've searched HoFo and have yet to see one mention of this there. You've read the policy on original research, right? ~Kylu (u|t) 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not "original research" if there's a source; and Wikipedia can be used as a source about itself. And the controversy over using direct links to the site was already the topic of the section and notable. So... it all seems consistent with the policy. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In re per vim stuprum ("regarding fornication by force")

Yes, I do regard the reference you found as inaccurate. Your reference contradicted several sources on the subject and misinterpreted them. First, iniuria does not mean "assault."[1] A common definition is the obvious English word that follows from it: "injury." On the other hand, vis[2] was the general term to describe crimes of violence and brutality. When describing crimes (crimen), the Romans divided them into two categories: those that were wrongs against the individual (iniuria privita) and those that were wrongs against the senate and people of Rome (iniuria publica). Your source completely ignores the actual statute of Lex Iulia de vi publica, which is of particular relevance to this issue. The statute was in existence for over 5 centuries as lex scripta (written law), and at least another century as lex non scripta ("Roman unwritten, customary law"). Most importantly, it existed during the time of Augustine, the author's subject. It appears that the author of your source has latched onto a facet of canon law, which is much different from Roman law. Yes, adultery is prohibited under the 10 commandments, and one accused of stuprum[3][4] (fornication or sex out of wedlock, adulterium) would fall under that category. You can see by the reference I made to the letter of Basil that even the town that receives a woman taken by raptus[5] could face excommunication: such was the early church. But the focus of those writings is on adultery and not rape.

The author of your source makes a very controversial conclusion that the perpetrators of rape in ancient Rome would escape punishment while the victim received death, and yet the author does not resolve conflict of the Lex Iulia de vi publica, which clearly imposes the death penalty for the act. In reverting the rape article to what it was before (identifying vis, vim, vi as the crime under which rape "sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion" was enforced), I provide links to sources that are easily verified over the web. I could quote the source Nghiem L. Nguyen, Roman Rape: An overview of Roman Rape Laws from the Republican Period to Justinian's Reign, Michigan Journal of Gender and Law, 13 MIJGL 75 (2006):

"there is no single word in . . . Latin with the same semantic field as the modern English word "rape." For the Romans, the act of rape was covered under a variety of legal terms, but each of those words possessed wider definition fields than the modern word "rape." Thus while charges of seduction, attempted seduction, adultery, abduction, or ravishment all covered rape, there was no legal charge consisting solely of rape itself." "Probably the most important statute regarding rape as vis was the lex Iulia de vi, which was most likely introduced in Caesar's dictatorship, circa 45 BC. The lex Iulia de vi punished "per vim stuprum," intercourse by force, and it defined rape as forcible sexual intercourse with a boy, woman, or anyone else."

There are several drawbacks to this source. First, Nguyen was a law student. Second, Nguyen has had no formal training in Latin. I am both a law student and hold a degree in Latin, but would not dream of considering myself an expert on the subject. Third, Nguyen does not attempt to tackle the problem that stuprum is a synonym for adultery rather than intercourse (see link to Latin dictionary above), which was punishable under the companion statute of Lex Iulia de adulteris. Fourth, Nguyen attributes the Lex Iulia to Julius Caesar rather than to Julius Caesar Augustus. However, my reservations to this work do not approach the level to which I give Ms. Thompson's.

There is a real problem of individuals publishing material that discusses ancient Rome when they generally have no knowledge of the subject. They generally zero in on the term raptus and miss the term vis. We have recorded proof that for at least 600 years if not more that vis was the crime under which forcible intercourse was prosecuted. Per vim stuprum contains this word vis in the accusative, but it is not the name of an actual statute. Publication does not necessarily imply veracity. I do not believe that Ms. Thompson's article had false sources, only that they were misinterpreted. Her sources directly involve adultery, and rape only in the sense that the ancient church viewed female abduction as a form of adultery in some cases and over a narrower time period. My sources are contradictory to Ms. Thompson, but I believe that they are from authors more knowledgeable of the subject. They are also freely available online whereas Ms. Thompson's is not. Legis Nuntius (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for such a thorough response and helpful links. But there's one point you missed here and in the article: what did happen to the victims in pre-Christian Rome? To indulge a moment of wild speculation, I inferred that the source I'd run across might actually mean that if the Romans had not adopted Christianity, that essentially a policy of honor killings similar to that of Pakistan might still prevail throughout the area - that Christianity actually taught people to accept women as fellow human beings rather than damaged property. If so, that would really shed some light on the appeal of Christianity in ancient Rome - but is it true? Wnt (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting theory. I do know that revenge existed in England during the Middle Ages, but that is not something encouraged by the church. It was during the Middle Ages that the church began to have a greater influence over the legal system and then with the development of the common law, that influence was severed. There is a law review article that explored church doctrine of the 15th and 16th centuries as explainging a certain legal equality for women in property, marriage, and burial rights. The basis for this was taken from earlier works of church fathers. In that respect, there is some truth to your source's theory. On the other hand, there is evidence that some of the same values were held by pagan Rome as well. In addition to the rape statutes that focused on the property interests of wealthy, upper-class Romans, we do have vis. Because this was a public law, the punishment did not involve private punishment as a private wrong did. It was also a crime that included all citizens, even the plebs who did not have substantial property interests. I think your inference is correct in regard to the crime of raptus because the monks of the Middle Ages came to the conclusion that raptus seductionis (elopement without parental consent) was valid if followed by a legal marriage as long as the woman consented by her own free will. This was over 500 years from the sack of Rome, however. I'm not sure what it means that raptus is where we get our crime "rape" rather than vis, which seems to have fallen out of use, especially in the sense that both men and women could be victims under vis and not raptus. I'm a little skeptical of the early church teaching that women were to be accepted as fellow human beings. The early churches required that women be separated from men during services both when the church was persecuted and when it was the state religion. It is a complicated matter that has not been fully resolved among scholars today although we have had a couple thousand years to reflect. Legis Nuntius (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright controversy comparative incidents

Hi! I was just writing to get your opinion of the proposal I wrote to replace the "Parallel incidents" section at the Wright controversy talk page. I see that you weren't fond of it, but I have responded and I hope that you read the response with condsideration. I'm also pleased to see that you condensed the section in the article space (although I still feel it is placing too much unnecessary weight on the issue). I'm really hoping that we can work something out. Thanks! My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think my edits stand for themselves. If there were no discussion of these specific parallels in the media, I would have been tempted to add them simply as helpful See Also context, though this could be challenged under WP:NOR. Once Obama proponents began to mention them they certainly deserved coverage because the article is about a controversy which means that it is supposed to explain what both sides are saying - certainly it covers all the specific objections raised by the other side in great detail. But by now there are at least three top-of-the-line "mainstream" news sources that can be cited as specifically naming at least Hagee and Falwell in relationship to this story. There isn't a shadow of a doubt that these comparisons are relevant and need to be covered. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that all the details about Hagee, etc. cannot be covered in this article because that would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. So it's better to provide a general overview of this argument while linking to other places. How about:

Following the break of the Wright controversy, the media began examining religious mentors/associates of other current or former presidential candidates, including John McCain's relationship with Pastor John Hagee. Generally generating less publicity, this has led many liberal commentators to allege that the criticism of Wright was fueled by racist sentiments. Others differentiated the incidents, contending that the Wright case is more significant, as Obama noted that Wright was his spiritual mentor who guided him to Christianity, while McCain met Hagee while campaigning for president. Wright baptized Obama's children, performed Obama's marriage ceremony, and Obama attended Wright's church for twenty years.

I've now specifically mentioned John McCain and John Hagee. It also gives readers a short background on Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. I think this is very good draft, but what do you think? Better? Happyme22 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wright MedCab

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that I removed the comments you posted on the MedCab page, because a mediator is supposed to take up the case before we begin discussing. Please feel free to post your comments at Talk:Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy#My recent edits. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we've recently had some problems with edit warring on Jeremiah Wright controversy, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Working together. I'd appreciate it if you could add any thoughts you have there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Damaged

Template:Damaged has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Groupthink (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting find.

That CNN article where he says "I've always been a Christian" was a good find. Shem^(talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh and Maher

I laughed, though I can't get the image of Maher spanking Limbaugh with a paddle out of my head now. Shem^(talk) 03:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright controversy - title

Hi Wnt, There is currently a proposal to change the existing title "Jeremiah Wright controversy" that we supported last month. If you could "Oppose title change" on the talk page [[6]], it would be appreciated. Thanks, IP 75 75.25.30.215 (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your restoration of non-constructive comments on Talk:Dragon Skin body armor

Hi,

Please read WP:FORUM. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not for discussing the articles themselves. Such behaviour should not be encouraged. In future, if you have concerns about users doing such actions, please raise them with the users rather than on the talk pages of the articles themselves - for the same reason. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)