Talk:Eucharist/Archive 4

Eschoir - his table

Let's discuss Eschoir's ideas one at a time. First his table, which, though headed "Side by side comparison of Early Eucharist Sources", adds to the side-by-side comparison several personal comments not based on the quotations (as well as having other defects). Take a simple uncomplicated instance from the row about "Passover". The quotations given from the Synoptics say nothing about "Passover". That, I know, can be fixed by quoting more from these Gospels. Removing that problem (in whatever way) will doubtless give rise to one or more new problems, as well as leaving the several other problems that are already there. But let's start with something simple. Lima 17:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all your facts are wrong again, the Lukean quote starts with Passover. That miscue, coupled with your aborted denuncuation of me as either sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer, should have imbued you with a modicum of humility, which your purported Christian nature seems not to have afforded you. Second, is there any question that Mark & Matthew context the final meal as a Passover seder? Third, is there any fact in the table collecting and organizing material from existing sources that you disagree with, even what you call "personal comments" which I guess refer to the descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and which make no particular analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims? Eschoir 04:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Luke's mention of Passover is quoted in the table. I was wrong. Now would Eschoir please fix, perhaps by quoting the primary sources, his at present unsourced statements about Matthew and Mark. As has often been said, Wikipedia isn't about "the Truth", but about verifiability. Lima 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Which unsourced statements would that be? Eschoir 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Passover." Lima 06:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you dispute that the final meal in Matt and Mark is a Passover meal? Eschoir 07:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only said that the table gives the statement sourcelessly on your authority alone. Lima 08:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the fact in dispute? Eschoir 08:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about "the Truth", but about verifiability. As things stand, this is a personal comment (one of several) inserted by Eschoir, not a fact attributed to an authoritative source. Lima 08:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat, is the fact in dispute? Please limit your response to yes or no. Eschoir 15:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To stop this filibustering, let's say people may doubt it, let's say I question it. Now please fix it.

And remember, the statements are presented as the making explicit of what is in this side-by-side comparison of quoted primary sources, a making explicit whose accuracy, to quote Eschoir himself, should be "easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (should) make no particular analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". Lima 16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop the filibustering? I asked for a yes or no answer and I get "Let's say" like play pretend. Do you on your oath actually dispute that the Last Supper as depicted in Matthew and Mark, quoted in the table or unquoted but easily verifiable from the context, is a Passover meal, and therefore the reference to it as such need be stricken on authority of your official Wiki editorial dispute? Call this the Lima Rule Eschoir 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Easily verifiable from the context". Whatever context is meant seems to be missing not only from the table, but even from the article. Please supply. If the statement remains unsourced, it may be deleted. Lima 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I again ask for a yes or no answer. Do you on your oath actually dispute that the Last Supper as depicted in Matthew and Mark, whether quoted in the table or unquoted but easily verifiable from the surrounding texts of Matthew and Mark, is a Passover meal, and therefore the references to them as such need be stricken on authority of your official Wiki editorial dispute? Yes or no. No weasel words please. Eschoir 17:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

On my return I see that the statement still remains unsourced, and that Eschoir is still asking about my personal opinion (which I never knew was so important), instead of fixing that defect. Since he has not done it, I think I will.

By the way, the text that "surrounds" the Matthew passage quoted is the foretelling of betrayal by Judas (before) and denial by Peter (after). Lima 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "opinion" is the only one disputing [if it isn't just trolling] that the Last Supper as depicted in Matthew and Mark, whether quoted in the table or unquoted but easily verifiable from the surrounding texts of Matthew and Mark, is a Passover meal. You haven't said yes or no. It doesn't need to be sourced if there is no dispute. DO YOU DISPUTE IT YES OR NO? Eschoir 20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

For someone who is so insistent on sourcing even obvious statements when he dislikes what is said, this reluctance to supply them here when asked is a very strange. They could have been added for a fraction of the effort and emotion spent on arguing it was unnecessary. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a principle thing. Do YOU dispute that the Last Supper as depicted in Matthew and Mark, whether quoted in the table or unquoted but easily verifiable from the surrounding texts of Matthew and Mark, is a Passover meal? Eschoir 20:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir, I see, is still worried about my opinion. But I see that he hasn't reacted quite so negatively to the help I gave him in this section of the article. If he doesn't, on second thoughts, reject the help, we can move on to discussing some other one of his ideas.

But before that I would like to hear others' opinions of the very existence of Eschoir's table, which to my mind is unaesthetic as well as not being very useful. One's tastes can be very individual. Or, on the other hand, they can be shared by many. I have made changes to the details of the table; but have we really decided on whether the table, even in its revised form, should be there at all?

I fear that the dust of battle has scared off other contributors. Csernica is the only editor who has had the courage to venture in.

I am now closing for the night. Lima 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So you are incapable of answering me yes or non.Eschoir 20:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]My opinion is irrelevant, as I've said repeatedly. I'm not disputing anything, and you've failed to notice that Lima isn't either. ("Questioning" isn't the same thing, and that was only said arguendo.) He's simply pointing out that the cited passages don't support the statements being made. They ought to; "It doesn't need to be sourced if there is no dispute," is patently false. It only appears to be a dispute if no cites can in fact be supplied, but otherwise it's a quite uncontentious request. Since WP:V is the principle, a response on principle would be to add the refs. This is furthermore supposed to be a comparison of primary sources. You would therefore do well to cite (you need not quote; a standard bibliographic footnote will do) the exact portion of the primary sources you say you're summarizing so that your summary can be verified and the reader can be assured he's not looking at an "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claim. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

False. The principle WP:V states any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. You and Lima are merely trolling if you don't challenge the factuality of the material. Which apparently you don't. Eschoir 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:Common Knowledge "as always, if your edit is challenged, no matter how convinced you are that you're right, you must cite a reliable published source" -Notwithstanding their trolling, neither Lima nor Csernica challenged the Passover reference. Eschoir 15:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The bar for "likely to be challenged" is very low, and you are misreading WP:V if you think it says an actual dispute must happen before a cite should be added. As it happens, a challenge in this case is likely. I know of at least some exegesis that denies the Synoptics clearly frame the Last Supper as a Passover meal. According to this line of thought, they may seem to in places, but they also seem to include material that tends to contradict it. Not least of which is the fact that the trial of Jesus -- which happened at a time the authorities themselves chose -- would be placed at a time when those authorities would otherwise have been observing the Passover with their families. If the primary source clearly says otherwise, then add a cite. Otherwise, you need to find a secondary source that establishes the fact. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked eight separate times whether you dispute that Mark and Matthew recount the Last Supper as a passover meal. You have not answered the question but answer another question not asked, whether the Passover meal recounted in all three Synoptics (not just Mark and Matthew) show pagan unfamiliarity with Passover practice. THAT'S ANALYSIS. The question whether Matthew and Mark call their meal Passover is common knowledge, nobody challenges it and doesn't have to be sourced. And I'm' just about through playing chop-logic with you. Eschoir 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we please discuss the table first?

I am sorry that Eschoir disliked so much my addition of Ignatius to the Side-by-side Table that he resorted repeatedly to wholesale reverting. He did so three times today, though he imagined his third revert was only the second. Yes, it was the second in what was for him an early New Jersey morning, rising after at most six hours' sleep. But he had already reverted at 06:04 UTC/GMT today (when I think it was already 12 November even in New Jersey). His second and third reverts were at 12:38 and 13:00.

As I indicated yesterday, I was prepared to let the table stand as it was, in spite of it not being to my taste, and to go on and try to reach agreement on other parts. But Eschoir rejected this and made further changes to the table. So I did the same. And what's wrong with adding Ignatius to the table? The letters Ignatius wrote may well be earlier even than the Didache.

It would be good to add what Justin Martyr wrote also. Having come back home just now, I do not intend to stay up tonight as late (for me) as I did last night. I leave the insertion of Justin for tomorrow.

Eschoir's tactic of smothering discussion by multiplying edits and citation requests, which made me desist from the effort on 8 September, will no longer serve. If not eliminated earlier, they will disappear like the morning dew, if there is any.

So can we please discuss the table first? Lima 19:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets discuss rules first. If I ask a yes or no question, will I get a straight answer, no trolling? Eschoir 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not until everyone begins observing the existing rules. Calling another editor's good faith discussion "trolling" is unproductive, to say the least. You can frame a question however you like, but if the answer is in fact something other than a simple "yes" or "no", then that's not what you're going to get. Why don't you discuss instead of insisting on the answer you want? No one is obliged to answer your questions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about y'all's reading comprehension. I asked for a straight answer, which leaves room for something other than yees or no. But not misreprpesentation. If the fact that Matthew and Mark report the Last Supper as Passover is uncontested, it doesn't need a source. It was you, csernica, who pointed out the bad faith of Lima. He knows it's not contested but he wanted to jerk my chain. Well it's his chain too.

You are obliged to answer my questions if you want to work with me and create a npov article. Doesn't Jesus teach his followers to "go the extra mile"? Or does remembrance of his actions regarding bread and cup in your nutrition relieve you of any obligation of remembrance of his precepts in your behavior?

Again - if I ask a yes or no question, will I get a straight answer? Eschoir 03:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant red herring. Lima 07:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case. Eschoir 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

At last. Lima 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm for Ignatius, and Justin, and two John columns, if they lend themselves to the same concise sectioning - quote, elements, order and remembrance. But they will have to be agreed and unchallenged facts - not arguing a POV.Eschoir 03:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, Ignatius doesn't fit. He doesn't describe meal ritual. And his authenticity is officiallly challenged. Couldn't be used as common knowledge. Eschoir 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

! Lima 07:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No question needed about removing the distortion there was in the table about the Didache, misleading the reader into thinking that "after you have had your fill" followed a reference to a meal of ordinary food, instead of immediately following, as it does, a declaration that the cup and the bread over which thanksgiving had been pronounced - no other food or drink is mentioned - was holy and not to be shared indisciminately. Lima 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis. For that opinion you will need a published secondary source and a citation. Eschoir 13:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My analysis was of Eschoir's distortion of the text. For that I don't need a "published secondary source" or any "citation" other than the actual text of the Didache and, in recent revisions of the article, Eschoir's alteration. Strange how, for Eschoir, the Didache, which was so important when he analysed it as containing a reference to a common meal, has suddenly ceased to deserve inclusion in the table of which he was (and is?) so fond! Lima 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignatius doesn't describe a "meal ritual"; but, like Justin, he does give information about how the Eucharist was in fact celebrated.

Though still, to my taste, unaesthetic, the table is at least becoming accurate. Lima 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The principle WP:V states any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Matthew, Mark, Didache, Ignatius and the opinnions appended thereto are hereby challenged, you have 24 hours to source them appropriately or I will eliminate them. I haven't looked at Jstin. You yourselves agreee that Matthew and Mark are wrong as put in the table, yet you let it stand. 24 hours, folks. Meanwhile, I have a totally sourced table in hand. Eschoir 22:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how Matthew, Mark, Didache, Ignatius are supposed to be "sourced appropriately"! Please indicate (for instance with "{{fact}}") what points mentioned as contained in the texts quoted are not in fact contained in the texts. Perhaps the points, "Remembrance instruction mentioned both for bread and cup", "No mention of remembrance instruction", etc.? Lima 05:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You expect a straight answer? I would say "Red herring" but that would be WP:POINT. The principle WP:V states any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Eschoir 06:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima Cyberstalker

I jusut noticed this:

Yes, it was the second in what was for him an early New Jersey morning, rising after at most six hours' sleep. But he had already reverted at 06:04 UTC/GMT today (when I think it was already 12 November even in New Jersey).

An attempted outing! I believe I'm being cyberstalked! Poorly, as in the confused and rapidly debunked accusations of sockpuppet or puppeteering depending on the hour. And awkwardly, as in the references to me as she and Estroit.

Whehre does one go to report this? Eschoir (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Best

Lima, now you've footnoted the Mark and Matthew columns to say that your prior insisted-upon content is misleading. That's the best ever!!!! Eschoir 05:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I formally contest the Justin edits, so you'll have to source ypur comments. Please. Eschoir 05:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Blast from the Past

Revision as of 23:03, 4 October 2005 (edit) (undo) Lima (Talk | contribs) (rv: the opening definition must be one that all can accept)

That was then. Eschoir (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eschoir,

I'm here from Wikipedia third opinion in regards to a request posted on the project page, but I could not find any conflict here on the talk page to comment on.

Please note that edit summaries do not constitute discussion; your first step in the dispute resolution process should be to begin a discussion on this page with Lima to hash out the issues as you both see them. If at that time no agreement can be reached, I encourage you to relist the discussion on WP:3O. Thanks! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 01:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lima

I know how committed to consensus you are, and having a version of this article all can agree upon. In that spirit, I offer (again) these criticisms:

The Eucharist

is a phrase. The article should distinguish when it is referencing the word or the phrase.

(also known as Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, among many other names) is a rite

I suggest "Eucharist (thanksgiving) is an ancient meal ritual that gradually evolved into "the Eucharist" a Christian rite or act of worship . . .

or act of worship that nearly all Christians

you need a secondary source for that claim, I would contest quantitatively that nearly all Christians do any one thing. I suggest that 'nearly all denominations' would be easier to source and less objetionable.

perform in order to fulfill the instruction that they believe

you need a source other than yourself

Jesus gave his disciples, at his last meal with them before being turned over to his executioners, to do "in remembrance of him" certain actions that he did at that meal.[2]

Is this so hard to source properely? And you can't quote wiki articles for sources, and you can't quote primary Bible sources to support your own opinion.

The actions that they believe (as the Words of Institution that they use in their liturgies show) Jesus did at his Last Supper and asked to be done in remembrance of him are recounted by Paul the Apostle: "The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."[3]

Looking forward to your friendly accomodation, Eschoir (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please state with particularity the reasons this sourced version is less desirable than your unsourced paragraph, and why you changed it.

The Didache is the earliest surviving written church order, usually dated to between 50 and 120. "Most scholars agree that the work, in its earliest form, may have circulated as early as the 60's C.E., though additions and modifications may have taken place well into the third century."[1] A composite of several documents, it includes three ritual prayers that it calls the εὐχαριστία (Thanksgiving or Eucharist), involving a cup and broken bread, and to which only the baptized were to be admitted. Like modern Eucharistic celebrations, this short text does not mention a Passover meal. It does not refer to the Last Supper of Jesus, to his death and resurrection, and to many other matters that are dwelt on in present-day celebrations of the Eucharist. According to the overwheling consensus among scholars, the section beginning at 10.1 is a reworking of the Birkat hamazon the prayer that ends the Jewish ritual meal. (see The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity by Hubertus Waltherus Maria van de Sandt, David Flusser pp 311-2)

Eschoir (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lima

What is your motivation for eschewing the proper attribution of your sources, particularly date of publication, particularly in your ante-nicean quotes from 1886?

EXAMPLES

The Roberts-Donaldson translation given here can be found at this CCEL pagea bookstore website! An 1886 work!

"Bryennios and Harnack assign, as the date, between 120 and 160; Hilgenfeld, 160 and 190; English and American scholars vary between A.D. 80 and 120. Until the priority to Barnabas is more positively established, the two may be regarded as of the same age, about 120, although a date slightly later is not impossible" (Introductory Notice by Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D., Time and Place of Composition). That's not the real cite, is it? You seem reluctant to place it in its time and place of composition, which is Scotland, 1886 And who was Dr. Riddle, anyway.

"Although several scholars have assigned the Didache to the first century, and others have dated it to the third or even fourth century, most prefer a date in the first half of the second century" (Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, pp. 49-50) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoir (talk • contribs) 04:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And what happened to the Anaphora which you once insisted be included? Eschoir (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

One question at a time, please. When we have dealt with the opening paragraphs I will consider other matters.

Eschoir's suggestion for rephrasing the opening, "'Eucharist (thanksgiving) is an ancient meal ritual that gradually evolved into 'the Eucharist' a Christian rite or act of worship ..." proposes several ideas that not all agree with. The proposed distinction between "Eucharist" and "the Eucharist" would probably surprise many. Even if it were/is true that the Christian Eucharist evolved from an ancient (presumably pre-Christian) meal ritual, this is not accepted by all.

"nearly all": The simplest remedy for Eschoir's problem with this unnecessary phrase is to omit it.

"you can't quote wiki articles for sources": What wiki article did I quote as a source for a statement here?

"you can't quote primary Bible sources to support" What better source is there for what Christians believe Jesus did at his Last Supper?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lima (talk • contribs) 05:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir's suggestion for rephrasing the opening, "'Eucharist (thanksgiving) is an ancient meal ritual that gradually evolved into 'the Eucharist' a Christian rite or act of worship ..." proposes several ideas that not all agree with.

Agreement on the substance is not necessary, co-existance of contrasting even complementary POV is required.

The proposed distinction between "Eucharist" and "the Eucharist" would probably surprise many.

How about 'eucharist' and "the Eucharist" in the Didache?

Even if it were/is true that the Christian Eucharist evolved from an ancient (presumably pre-Christian) meal ritual, this is not accepted by all.

That's not necessarily what it says, I presume all references to small e eucharisting were Christian, a la didache and anaphora, that evolved WITHIN Christianity to the various Capital E rites it is today

Certainly ritual thanksgiving prayer was not invented by Christians, but it wasnn't called The Eucharist until and except by the Apostolic Fathers. Do you agree?

"nearly all": The simplest remedy for Eschoir's problem with this unnecessary phrase is to omit it.

Thaanks

"you can't quote wiki articles for sources": What wiki article did I quote as a source for a statement here?

Words of institution

"you can't quote primary Bible sources to support" What better source is there for what Christians believe Jesus did at his Last Supper?

Except when you are writing a wiki article. And are you going to poll Christians to see which version they believe? Most Christians couldn't express what they believe, like they can't name but four of the ten commanements. What you are expressing is what they are SUPPOSED to believe, which is another thing.Eschoir (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does Eschoir really think that the books that have been put together in the collection known as the Bible may not be quoted in a Wikipedia article? Of course, they may. Just like the books of Thucydides, Tacitus, Luther, Hitler and Crossan. Perhaps Eschoir would be so good as to rephrase his objection.

The article Words of Institution is not quoted as a source for the statement that the use of the Words of Institution in Christian liturgies shows that those who use those liturgies believe the actions they do are those that Jesus did at his Last Supper. I doubt whether the article on Words of Institution makes that statement. "Words of Institution" is wikilinked to help people who might not know what "Words of Institution" means.

The opening phrase says what the Eucharist is. Whether the Eucharist was called something else in the past is irrelevant. Eschoir's reference here to "'eucharist' and 'the Eucharist' in the Didache" is not only irrelevant: how can the Didache, the latest date posited for which is the fourth century, have made a distinction between lower-case "eucharist" and upper-case "Eucharist", when the upper/lower-case distinction had not yet been invented? Lima (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

By citation, I read you to say in instances where there is not consensus reached among editors, and the information is not common knowledge, reference is necessary to a source other than the editor's interpretation of the Primary source, but you could mean something else.

Either citation like

1) "God hates the world (see John 3:16)"

or

2) "God hates the world (See Nietzsche, Friedrich, On John 3:16 Der Froelichen Wissenschaft, 1872)

1) seems like OR to me Eschoir (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point here, but let me interject. "God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would be OR in most contexts, because it is a statement on God. However, "According to the Gospel of John, God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would not be OR, because it is a statement about what John says. Pastordavid (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I am mighty appreciative for the response. I point out to you the twist in my example, which raises another issue. "According to the Gospel of John, God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would not be OR, because it is a statement about what John says. What would it be, then, given that it is a ludicrous statement about what John says that is 180 degrees from the actual obvious explicit meaning of 3:16, and would certainly be contested? Forgive me if these questions seem elementary - I am a lawyer and if there were a place to look up caselaw I would go there first and search the precedents. Eschoir (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, in which case the proper response would be to insert the text of J 3:16, and let the text speak for itself without any interpretation. If the meaning of the primary text is obvious, "John says X", then it is not likely to be disputed.

If it is disputed, then the text should speak for itself or any interpretation should be that of a reliable source - not the wikipedia editors.

Pastordavid (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoir (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Original research is prohibited. You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible, to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Please take the time to read and understand our content policies. Vassyana 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoir (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"My suspicion is that, if it is not common knowledge, or at least consensus, because we all agree that Matthew and Mark place the last supper as Passover meal, and it needs to be sourced, then ALL the material in the boxes of the table need to be equally sourced, and not from the primary source.

"Which means that my table, totally sourced from Crossan, is the more useable table, at the moment. Eschoir (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)"

"Eschoir, I removed the charts, as they took up a great deal of room on my talk page. Here are my thoughts, which I will also post at Talk:Eucharist. All of the categories in the chart require interpretation, and thus should be footnoted. The better option with the chart, if you really want to use a chart, is to simply list what the primary sources say, side by side. Pastordavid (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)"

Eschoir (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Pastordavid. Since it was Eschoir who inserted the chart/table, would he please now either remove it (or at least the comments) or else footnote the comments that he wants included in it? (If the footnotes are all from Crossan, then the place for the chart/table is in the section that gives Crossan's ideas.) Lima (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I did that, and you reverted it. Eschoir (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem that I have been trying to do too many things today, both off-Wikipedia and on my too rushed interventions. I apologize. Lima (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How to discuss

You have dozens of questions here to resolve, and the first and most important thing you had to do on the article was shrink the font on the Crossan table, the one that Pastordavid complained was too small? Let the record show I tried to work with you but you just reverted me withot discussion. That's your first. Eschoir (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is precisely the dozens of questions that Eschoir proposes all together. Eschoir, please "work with me" so that we can settle any differences. Please don't continue to try the tactic of multiple changes all together, which you so successfully used in the past to prevent reasoned discussion.

Since you haven't chosen which section to discuss, I am starting with one near the end, where you wanted to have a quotation from modern Cacoyannis presented as if it were the thought of pre-Christian Euripides. I have restored what you deleted from that section, while you were making elsewhere many other deletions and insertions of your own ideas. If you prefer that we discuss another section instead, just say which.

I am glad that, for once, I was right in thinking that, though objecting in principle (as just above), Eschoir would in practice accept the "shrinking" of the font size in his Crossan-based table to normal. I do not think that it was at all necessary to respond to Pastordavid's comment on the smallness (Eschoir had made them 67% size) of the characters by making them bigger even than normal size.

If Eschoir refuses to discuss the article one section at a time, I invite other editors who may be watching to make observations on the correct way to proceed. Lima (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What do others think?

On my return, I see that Eschoir has again refused to discuss the article, and has simply reverted all, including the section I changed with a view to initiating discussion. Surely it is possible to settle a section at a time as we did with regard to the Early Christian sources concerning the Eucharist. Rather than take up what seems to be Eschoir's challenge to engage in reciprocal reversal, I prefer to wait for comments by other editors. Lima (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if you understood the rules, particularly on OR and arguing your point of view, and played by them, we would have a starting place. Otherwise the discussion boils down to "you can't say that" "yes I can!" which has gone on for the last three months.

Rules first, then form should be decided (see comment about History of Eucharist separate article) and worry about the details. By the way, this article distinguishes eucharist from Eucharist in several places, despite your issue with my distinction. Perhaps this is a jjob your language skills could help clarify. How do some references (like "And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία[11] [the Eucharist] ... in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had ) get a definite article and a capital E and some don't? Eschoir (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"According to Crossan"

I've tried to stay out of the Eschoir-Lima disputes, but I'll venture in and say in this particular case I was very happy with Lima's edit (adding "according to Crossan" to the "Five preliminary stages" table). Without that qualifier the article appears to say "it is a neutral verifiable fact that these are the five stages that lead to eucharistic theology and last supper iconography, and by the way Crossan is our source for knowing that this is so." With the qualifier the article says "here is what Crossan, an important modern commentator, has to say about the stages of development of eucharistic theology and iconography, and Wikipedia takes no position as to whether he is right." The latter is the correct presentation. It seems a good way to resolve much of the earlier conflict. Mrhsj (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. That is precisely how the intro to that table should read. BTW, why is the text in the table so blasted small? Pastordavid (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. So shall it read. Eschoir (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think there's a place for parallel columns of the primary NT material, like you do in Divinity school Eschoir (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, y'all: this is an encyclopedia, not a journal article or even a monograph. If this is to be covered in any depth at all, my suggestion would be to take the debate, and the parallel columns, and create a separate article, perhaps "The Origin of the Eucharist" or something like that. (And if you do, include a discussion of Jeremias' work on this subject.) --Midnite Critic (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think the article too long, but would cut first the sections that have their own articles already - the doctrine sections. I tried that once - [2] got the article down to 72,846 bytes - its now at 118,000+. Eschoir (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking up Jeremias, I found this:

John Meier helps bring precision to this issue when he asks two questions: "Is it historically true that Jesus held a last Supper with his disciples?" "Is it historically true that, during that supper, Jesus did and said certain things regarding bread and wine that form the basis of the later Christian celebration of the eucharist?" (1) To both of these historical questions, Meier answers with an unequivocal "yes." But one needs to note that there is considerable nuance contained in the way he phrases these questions. For he adds something with which most students of eucharistic origins will agree: "We must appreciate that the Last Supper and eucharist are not the same thing pure and simple." (2)

If that is the case, how does one move from the dominical instituting moment with Jesus at the Last Supper to the full-fledged eucharistic celebration that one can find, for example, in the anaphoras associated with the names of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great that were developing by the end of the fourth century in the "golden age" of patristic theology? That story has not been fully told, nor is it within the purpose and competence of my article to try to tell it. Actually, unless a lot more data from the first Christian centuries can be recovered than is presently available, that full story may never be told. (3)

The available evidence indicates that it is a misconception, although a common one, to assume that there is one story, one relatively unified line of development from the Last Supper to the fully developed Eucharist. "Eucharist" is, of course, not an equivocal concept. But neither is it unqualifiedly univocal. For as one looks back and looks around, one sees that there have been and still are many different ways of celebrating the Eucharist. The exegetical and historical data indicate that this seems to be true right from the beginning. The starting point of this article is the apparent fact that the New Testament gives witness to a number of different Eucharists, or, more precisely perhaps, different practices of religious table fellowship that can be called Eucharists.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4364057/Eucharistic-origins-from-the-new.html

Eschoir (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Jeremias says "Do this in remembrance of me " would better be translated "That God may remember me"! Eschoir (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Euripides and Cacoyannis

Exactly the same problem is in these changes as were in the first editss on SSeptember 6, you are arguing against a published source and citing primary source while doing it. You have been repeatedly warned against doing this:

In the opinion of Lima the poetry does indeed contain Christianity-inspired expressions such as "son of the virgin" and "his blood" and "the blessings of life's flowing juices". None of them are found in the actual text of the speech by Tiresias in the fifth-century-BC play of Euripides, as can be seen in the following translation, which, though written in blank verse, in Lima's opinion keeps quite close to the original text: - Thus Euripides, while speaking of bread and wine as the basic forms of human nourishment, and enlarging on the benefits of wine, Lima argues, against the secondary source,' did not, like Cacoyannis, call Dionysus "the son of the virgin", or call wine "his blood"; nor did he talk about offering "thanks" (the meaning of the Greek word from which "Eucharist" is derived).

This is where I came in. You show no progress in your skills as a neutraal edito.Eschoir (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Eschoir for accepting to discuss this section. In September I withdrew for a while because unable to tackle a simultaneous discussion of so many changes made, all at once, by Eschoir and because I hoped someone else would intervene. Nobody did. So I am discussing the issues, one at a time.

In view of Eschoir's observations, I have made some adjustments to the text. If he finds them satisfactory, would he please indicate which other section to discuss next. If he is not satisfied, we can continue to discuss this section.

On what grounds can Eschoir claim that Cacoyannis's poetry is a more exact translation of Euripides than the translation by Ian Johnston of Malaspina University_College, Nanaimo, BC, Canada? Lima (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschooir doesnn't make the claim, couldn't make the claim. The secondary source cited by some editoir uses the translation to illustrate his point. Similarly YOU CAN'T ARGUE THE POINT. You can cite other secondary sources on the issue BUT THE RULES ARE YOU CAN'T DO OR. YOU HAVE BEEN BEING TOLD THIS SINCE AT LEAST AUGUST 22. ARE YOU INFIRM? Eschoir (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"'According to the Gospel of John, God hates the world (see John 3:16)' would not be OR, because it is a statement about what John says" (Pastordavid to Eschoir). The quoted sourced original text and the quoted sourced academic translation that I have inserted present a view different from that in the Cacoyannis poem about what ideas were expressed in Euripides's play. For balance, at the very least, this second view should be included, and the article should not be limited to the Cacoyannis picture. Lima (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The original text, given in a footnote to the article, makes it possible for the reader to check which is a true translation and which an independent composition. Lima (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

iF YOU WANT TO DO OR Eschoir (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am only letting the reader choose between two views, on the basis of sourced information. Lima (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To show what Euripides wrote, what better than his actual words?

YOU ALWAYS SAY THAT Eschoir (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And Eschoir never indicates any better way of knowing what Euripides wrote. Lima (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When we have access to what he did write, why on earth should anyone think it necessary to look for a secondary source that says he wrοte it? Lima (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

BECAUSE YOU ARE USING IT TO ARGUE A POINT OF VIEW AGAINST A SECONDARY SOURCE' Eschoir (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just letting the reader see, with sources, that there exists a point of view different from the one Eschoir favours. Lima (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not even Eschoir thinks that, in Wikipedia, you must find secondary sources to indicate what Luther, Hitler or Crossan wrote; why should Euripides be different? Lima (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

REPEAT ABOVE Eschoir (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeat whatever I said to whatever Eschoir said above. Lima (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The expressions, "son of the virgin" and "his blood" and "the blessings of life's flowing juices", found in Cacoyannis's poetry, are not found in the translation nor are their Greek equivalents found in the original text. Can Eschoir point to any word in the Greek that looks like παρθένος (virgin) or αἷμα (blood)? Can he point to any word that contains the root εὐχαριστ- ? Can he point to any word in the translation that looks like an equivalent of these words? Lima (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

THAT'S ARGUMENT!!!Eschoir (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a statement of verifiable fact, followed by a challenge to Eschoir to disprove it. Lima (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I may havve a solution. I tracked down the original source of the Harris and bacchae quotoes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucharist&diff=69929861&oldid=68499885 back in August 06.

It is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.58.71.152

I left him a message to defend his edits, which you can see by going to his talk page. If he doesn't defend the quote, I surely won't. Give it a couple of days, then maybe it can be deleted entirely. Eschoir (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

When you google that quote, amusingly you can come up with this source: http://uk.youtube.com/Gaylipooo Eschoir (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The person whom Eschoir consulted has responded promptly. So there is no need to "give it a couple of days". I accept the word of the person consulted that Harris did quote the Cacoyannis poetry. The same person wants this useful information to be kept in the article. (He certainly doesn't have to "defend" it from me: I am happy to see this fuller indication of Harris's reasoning kept - provided, of course, that the other view A/K/A "THE LIMA VIEW [Eschoir (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)] is also mentioned.) For these two considerations, Eschoir's "solution" of deleting the Cacoyannis quotation entirely doesn't work. Logically, Eschoir should now allow the counterbalancing information about what Euripides did write to remain in the article. Yet, hours after the other person's response reached him, Eschoir again removed that information, as he has done so many times both now and last September. Unless he can give some reasonable explanation, I must restore the information once more. Would Eschoir then please let it stay and move on to discuss some other section? Lima (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

YOu may accept the word, but I only look at the text. It is problemmatic, not the least because of the quote from Bacchae. First of all, there is no close quote. Second, the quote has changed since it was added two Augusts ago. Three, I can't verify it elsewhere on the net or even at Amazon, its supposed source. I'm inclined to give it a couple of days to put itself toogether as a quote, if not, I would challeenge it.

ON lima's issue however, he is still wrong an his edit is inappropriate. The paragraph claims thatt in a secondary source Harris opines that in the Bacchae Tiresias urges his hearers to see [sic] ***something***. It is improper for Lima to argue "Harris is wrong" except by citing a conflicting secondary source.

Cacyonnis isnnnn't even the issue. As far as I can see, Harris' opinion is not based on the excerpt. And the offered translation isn't the actual text of what Euripides really said anyway, it's just another translation that Lima likes better, though not as much as the one he cobbled together wioth his little lexicon originaally.

I donn't even think Lima disagrees with the point Harris is making, that Eripides generally wrote soomething to the effect that Demeter and Dionysus, respectively, gave humanity two indispensable gifts: bread to sustain life and wine to make life bearable.

While it is trut that the ***something *** doesn't appear iin Lima's translation, it doesn't appear in the Cacoyannis translation either.

I'm not defending the Harris pseudo-quote, rather i am manning a duty station defending the integrity of te wiki system Eschoir (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say: "Harris is wrong"? The Euripides text that I have inserted shows that Cacoyannis's poetry is not a true translation. It says nothing about Harris. It is not I who have made a connection between Harris and Cacoyannis. Lima (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

IDIOCY! How is it your business to correct someone else's translation if quoted in ANOTHER SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK? ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION reached by that other someone else. You are just wasting my time. Eschoir (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do disagree with Harris's claim "that Tiresias urges his hearers to see in Dionysus's gift of wine a beverage that brings into communion with the divine"; but in the article I have not expressed my personal opinion. I have not said Harris is wrong. I have only quoted what Tiresias, in the play, actually said.

The problem here is the dissonance between 'I have not expressed my personal opinion' and 'I have only quoted what Tiresias, in the play, actually said.' Which is to say, 'what Tiresias, in my opinion actually said.'

Does Eschoir honestly believe "that Tiresias urges his hearers to see in Dionysus's gift of wine a beverage that brings into communion with the divine"?

Eschoior believes that Harris said that Tiresias urges his hearers to see in Dionysus's gift of wine a beverage that brings into communion with the divine. What Esky believes Tiresias said is irrelevant.

Does Eschoir believe that it is legitimate in Wikipedia to quote the Cacoyannis text in such a way as to mislead unwary readers into thinking that, half a millennium before Christ, Dionysus was known as "the son of the virgin", and that wine was called his blood?

What way is in such a way? Secondary source Harris apparently refers to the text, though the originator of the quote hasn't responded explicitly to the challenge. Your preferred translation is in the text with the same dignity as the Cacoyannnis. What's the problem? That judgment isn't rendered on the superior translation? How is that wikibusiness?

I have left all this as Eschoir reinserted it in the section under discussion: all I have done is to reinsert also Euripides's original text and an academic translation (both of which Eschoir excised in September), while removing from them all that accompanied them earlier and that might seem to be an editorial comment on them.

Except to say "the actual text is this:" which is opinion regarding translation and irrelevant anyway.

Eschoir (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder does anyone but Eschoir think he is "manning a duty station defending the integrity of te wiki system". What does Fremte think, for instance? Lima (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir has once again simply reverted, A/K/A undone Lima's revert without changing a word in his text and, above all, without discussing the question: If he wants the article to state: "Harris claimed ... that Tiresias urges his hearers to see in Dionysus's gift of wine a beverage that brings into communion with the divine", why will he not allow the article to follow that up with what Tiresias actually says? If Eschoir refuses to discuss this (and also the question of his presenting Cacoyannis's text as what Tiresias says), what can I do but imitate his reverting? I am putting off doing so, in the hope that he will, after all, be more collaborative in reaching consensus through discussion. Lima (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to this earlier: I have been out most of today.

I am again inserting the actual text of Tiresias's speech. It is not a matter of opinion what is the actual text. This text does not contain the expressions that are attributed to it. Again, this is not a matter of opinion. If Eschoir objects that he knows no Greek, as he has in the past, that is irrelevant: the text says what it says, whether Eschoir understands it or not. He can check what it says by asking anyone who knows Greek. (Just as an aid, no more, I have added a translation. By asking anyone who knows Greek, Eschoir can check that this translation is incomparably more faithful to the original than is Cacoyannis's poetry.)

If a statement (no matter who it is attributed to) is made that a certain text contains expressions that it does not in fact contain, it is surely necessary to follow up the statement with a quotation of the actual text referred to. Thus, "According to the Gospel of John, God hates the world (see John 3:16)" should be followed up with the actual text of John 3:16. Lima (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is disputed, then the text should speak for itself or any interpretation should be that of a reliable source - not the wikipedia editors.
Pastordavid (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research is prohibited. You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible, to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Please take the time to read and understand our content policies. Vassyana 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Eschoir (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research is prohibited. WP:NOR says: :"To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and relevance of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable from another source." Have I done other than make a descriptive claim about what Euripides wrote, the accuracy of which claim is easily verifiable?

You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible, to argue against secondary sources. Why cannot someone quote John 3:16 to show up a falsehood? You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. Certainly. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. What more reliable than the text of Euripides to see what Euripides really wrote? Lima (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

and relevance of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, like Greek language skills.

Your interpretatioin is that it is falsehood.

I will give you that phrases like '**blankety** does not appear in the original' are descriptive, and insofar as they refeer to te English translation, are accepptable and not OR. Do you agree, that such formulations as "**something** does not appear in the English translation of **other thing **" is not OR, and is unobjectionable as a rule? Eschoir (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"relevance" - it is clearly highly relevant

"Greek language skills" - anyone arguing about a Greek text, as you are doing, must either have some minimal Greek language skill or must turn to someone who does. If you post an appeal here to those who are observing us, they will let you know whether the translation that you yourself have chosen (and that, being in prose, is yet closer to the original than the blank-verse translation that you too were the first to draw my attention to) is a faithful representation of the original, and that the original does not contain phrases like "the son of the virgin", "his blood", etc.

Thank you for agreeing that the statement, "the phrases in question do not appear in the original", is a descriptive claim about the information found in the primary source. I beg forgiveness for not understanding your final question or the relevance of English translations. Any one faithful English translation can be put in place of another, as I have now done, but when you say that Euripides did not write about "the son of the virgin", "his blood" (that of Dionysus), "the blessings of life's juices" or "communion with the divine", what counts is the original. Lima (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that we understand that rule, I can count on you never again to delete "The phrase 'the Eucharist' does not appear in the Bible." Eschoir (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Provided, of course, the observation is relevant to the context, as the observation here is relevant to the statement in the article about the contents of Tiresias's speech. Now, please return to the question under discussion. Is there any reason why the statement about the contents of the speech should not be followed by the actual contents of the speech? Lima (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Budget

I was reading [WP:Lead Section], and it gave me some ideas.

First, they recommend that the lede be no more than 4 grafs..

That gave me the idea that perhaps we could agree to cut down the article to a certain size, budgeting as it were.

That might impart some discipline.

[edit] Provide an accessible overview

Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).

In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—they should be eased into it.

Eschoir (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir and Lima: edit war

I have been watching this page for a long time. It not so much as an article as a competition and argument page for Eschoir and Lima. Can the two of you work toward a consensus please? Then others might consider contributing also. Wikipedia is not intended as a debating forum, but rather as an information source. The information on the page tells the reader that the eucharist is a Christian rite with some disputed details, and that Lima and Eschoir need to enter into dispute resolution. Written in sincerity, Fremte (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fremte. I have long been appealing for others to take an active interest. Can you suggest anything better than discussing, preferably - far preferably - with input from others, one section at a time? Certainly it is impossible to discuss all together the many changes Eschoir has been constantly making ever since he took an interest in the article. I gave up that effort in September. But now, by insisting on debating only one section at a time, we seem at last, but only in this last week or so, to be making progress. First in dealing with Eschoir's table/chart, now on the Harris-Cacoyannis-Euripides section. Do please join in and give us advice. Lima (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that the two of you are slowly making progress. Best of luck in your attempts to reach consensus. May I offer some suggestions:

• Consider creating sub-pages for lengthy posts, such as proposed changes or tables.
• Please be civil when discussing issues on the talk page. Avoid namecalling.
• Play nicely with others who join your discussions. It's a bad sign when experienced editors like TCC feel that they must pack up and leave.

Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize it takes two to tango, but, well, you see where we are, wrangling since September over a translation in a footnote as the article gets longer and longer. In my view, Lima wants to editorialize, in his view, I want to mislead.

About a subpage, I created one [3] on my talk page and invited Lima to work away from the public eye, but he declined

Eschoir (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Majoreditor.

As for Eschoir's sandbox, I see no reason to think a private discussion would be more productive than a discussion in a public forum where we know others are observing our attitudes and words and may kindly intervene and help, as I hope they will.

I am not arguing about a footnote. I am saying that a statement in the body of the article that questionably attributes something to a source should be followed, in the body of the article, by the actual text of the source. Any reason why it should not? Lima (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, yes. Concision, common sense, discretion...The quote only says 'in line with' a specific free translation, H:arris doe not claim as quoted that "Euripides says." Anyway, all versions are in the article, sans editorial comment by editors. You have a lot invested in your translation of the passage and you wont let it go. And your appeals for interventiion by otheres could strike one as "grandstanding."

Eschoir (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Harris says that "Tiresias urges", referring to a speech in a play by Euripides. Lima (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I should have noticed earlier Eschoir's phrase "all versions are in the article". Can I perhaps hope that Eschoir will now leave them in the body of the article, where the statement attributed to Harris is, instead of relegating them to a footnote that few will read? Lima (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

If we can consider that consensus has at last been reached on the section we have been most recently discussing, I propose that the next one be that on the Jesus Seminar. I think this should be very easy. I am only asking Eschoir, who added this section, to retouch some parts, so that they no longer attribute to Wikipedia what are in reality statements by people like Crossan. Eschoir will remember this: "God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would be OR in most contexts, because it is a statement on God. However, "According to the Gospel of John, God hates the world (see John 3:16)" would not be OR, because it is a statement about what John says.

I would also ask him to check the Curran quotation that begins: "even late in the first century C.E., at least some (southern?) Syrian Christians could celebrate ..." When Eschoir first put this quotation in, it did not include "(southern?)", which Eschoir added later. To me this addition seems very strange in the context of a statement by Curran.

One might think you had a duty to check the Curran [sic] quote yourself before contesting it. Did you? Eschoir (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding what Eschoir calls my reversions (all of them followed by outright reversions by himself), he should realize that each of them instead marks an advance on the text free from the changes he introduced seemingly for the purpose of distracting from discussion of any particular section. Each of them incorporates changes arising from the on-going discussion or, occasionally, accepts minor changes that Eschoir makes elsewhere in the article; but each remains shorn of the other changes made, it seems to me, chiefly as distractions from the matter in hand. In the present case, I am changing the previous such text by inserting Eschoir's own latest version of the "Jesus Seminar" section, so that we can work on it together. Lima (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No you didn't. You just reverted, timewaster. Eschoir (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was over-optimistic. Unfortunately I was wrong in thinking we had reached agreement on the Harris-Cacoyannis-Euripides section. To concentrate attention on that section, I must remove again the Eschoir version of the "Jesus Seminar" section. This time I am performing a simple reversion, such as Eschoir's are. Pity. Lima (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What section next for consensus?

I invite Eschoir to choose any one section for the next joint discussion. If he makes no choice, I'll concentrate attention on the "Jesus Seminar" section by again removing the many Eschoir changes outside that section.

THAT'S CALLED REVERTING, AND WOULD TAKE YOU UP TO 14 TOTAL. DON'T DO IT.Eschoir 21:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, that should be the easiest section to reach agreement on, since I think it only needs making clear that the statements in it are not what Wikipedia says, but what Crossan or others say. As has already been done for the table at the end. However, experience indicates that prolonged discussion on a section sometimes shows up more serious faults than at first appeared. Lima 17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What section next? How about all sections? Instead of just reveerting, why don't you point to all the parts you challenge, and they can be sourced or modified. The sand box might be a good place for it. Eschoir 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussing one section at a time has proved effective. Discussing with others watching has proved effective. If you do not choose a section, I will tomorrow. Lima 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

All right, I propose deletinig all content under the Christian theology section that is duplicative of other wiki articles. The link to the specific denominational theology article is enough.

The next section to be pruned would be the liturgy section.

The article is too long to begin with.

wOULDN'T IT BEE EPRUDENT TO SKETCH OUT AN OUTLINE OF THE ARTICLE FIRST? See my BUDGET proposalEschoir 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian theology concerning the Eucharist

Eschoir has chosen for discussion his proposal that all content under this section that is duplicative of other wiki articles be deleted. In line with that idea, he has already taken the initiative, while we were discussing other sections, to try to remove the subsection "Summary of views". Lima 09:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did you come up with that? Eschoir 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just another of my mistakes: I must have looked for the "Summary of views" at the end of the "Ritual and liturgy" section. Apologies for the mistake, and thanks for the correction. Lima 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am provisionally keeping this subsection, so that we can make our observations on something that can still be consulted easily. As before, in order to concentrate on a single section at a time, I am removing Eschoir's continual changes that would act as distractions from the matter in hand. Lima 09:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are reverting withouut discussion, as usual.Eschoir 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An already known difference of interpretation. Lima 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of this section may be more difficult to bring to a conclusion than discussion on the "Jesus Seminar" section. For my part, I think that this section, placing in a single article the different views, is perhaps the most valuable part of an article on the Eucharist, one that could by no means be replaced by a series of links to articles on individual views on the matter.Lima 09:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article is going to be 250kb long. Link and cut. Eschoir 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How can we resolve this disagreement? Perhaps the only way is to invite others to join in and give their views. Lima 09:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They did.

Uh, y'all: this is an encyclopedia, not a journal article or even a monograph. If this is to be covered in any depth at all, my suggestion would be to take the debate, and the parallel columns, and create a separate article, perhaps "The Origin of the Eucharist" or something like that. (And if you do, include a discussion of Jeremias' work on this subject.) --Midnite Critic (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, I did ask what you thought of the Jeremias translation - you never answered. Silence is consent. Eschoir 03:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But I think we should first hear Eschoir's reaction to this suggestion. Lima 09:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To distract from discussion, Eschoir has altered the section on which, since Eschoir himself chose another one for discussion in its place, we seemed to have come to a conclusion. Can I take it that Eschoir accepts the validity of my observation here that the section on Eucharistic theologies is of very high value? Or was his selection not meant seriously? I must now (perhaps again tomorrow?) remove all such distractions, so that discussion may proceed on one section at a time - on Eschoir's own choice of section in the present case. Lima 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir has responded with two observations:

1. Eschoir has quoted Midnite Critic as favouring cutting the Christian theology section. Midnite Critic instead criticized the complicated table/chart ("parallel columns"), with commentaries as well as texts, that Eschoir wanted to insert under the name "Side-by-side comparison of some early sources on the Eucharist". That problem has been solved. In the present discussion, there has so far been only one third-party intervention, and only an implicit one: Storm Rider has made some alterations in the section we are discussing. That seems to indicate that Storm Rider thinks the section should be kept.

2. Eschoir has said: "If the article is going to be 250kb long. Link and cut." Why cut what seems to me the most valuable part of the article? Why not cut instead the (to my mind) excessive growth that his interventions have imposed on the "Names in use for the Eucharist" section? Lima 06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not lisiten to Midnite Critic and divide the article? Two araticles, one on theology (which I have no interest in, as it couldn't be NPOV, and the other historical/analytical, which would have to be neutral. BTW, the side-by-side comparison issuee has not been solved by making them end to end. Eschoir 06:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What Eschoir has chosen for discussion is his proposal that all content under this section that is duplicative of other wiki articles be deleted. Midnite Critic has not (yet) made any comment on this proposal. Storm Rider has implicitly commented in favour of keeping the section as it is.

What Eschoir has now said seems to go further than his initial proposal: he now seems to want the whole section on theology to be cut and turned into a separate article. Lima 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Backwards.Eschoir 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But other less essential parts could be removed with much less loss. What most readers will look for is information on what this rite that Christians celebrate means, not details concerning its names or concerning theories about its historical origin. Lima 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more.Eschoir 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If any part of the article should be hived off to another article, it is these details, not the views about the nature of the Eucharist as actually celebrated. Lima 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said.Eschoir 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Did Eschoir actually say that the details about names and theories about historical origin of the Eucharist should be moved to a separate article, not the views about the nature of the Eucharist, i.e. the theology of the Eucharist? If only he did, this discussion would be over. But my optimism is not of so high a degree as to believe that Eschoir did say that. Lima 17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Midnite Critic expressly favoured moving some of these details; he did not favour moving the section on theology. Does anyone support Eschoir's proposal about this section?

Eschoir thinks an account of Eucharistic theology couldn't be NPOV. (In that case, it would have no place anywhere in Wikipedia, even as an independent article.) Why couldn't it be NPOV? NPOV doesn't mean arguing for a single point of view (e.g. Eschoir's), but in presenting the various noteworthy views. Lima 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A Baptist's views on Catholic practice? Orthodoxy as seen by Lutherans? Never going to happen. Eschoir 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir here seems to picture Baptists in his own image, as if they too refused to say "credo" to anything, and were willing only to add "non" to any "credo" pronounced by others. Catholics are not the only Christians who have views that can be expressed by "I believe", instead of saying "I disagree with other people's belief that ..." Baptists do have their views on the Eucharist, and do not need to define them merely by saying they are different from those of Catholics. Lutherans have well-defined views on the Eucharist, which they don't have to express by saying they are not the same as those of the Orthodox. It has already happened! Just look at the article. Lima 17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

An example of what is not NPOV is Eschoir's earlier tabular presentation of Crossan's view about some early texts as the plain truth. Lima 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Watching you mischaracterize events that happened in writing right here only days ago remind me of why it's important to source to secondary sources in these articles.Eschoir 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no problem, apart from legibility, about presenting the texts, whether in columns or successively: the problem was his presenting a view. Lima 09:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem was your not replying if a view was challenged, (or common knowledge) forcing all views to be sourced ("Lima's Rule), an impossible task in a parallel column format. That made YOUR table, the one I started to benefit YOU, unacceptable, and Crossan's sourced table, the one you and TCC originally objected to, the one that made the cut. As I said before, including excerpts from primary sources doesn't do much for me, especially selectively edited versions, but there are bigger fish to fry. Eschoir 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the declaration Eschoir made above, about having said that, "if any part of the article should be hived off to another article, it is these details (concerning its [the Eucharist's] names or concerning theories about its historical origin), not the views about the nature of the Eucharist as actually celebrated", i.e. the different theologies of the Eucharist. If only this were true! Lima 17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You read slowly, don't you? Eschoir 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This last comment, whether read slowly or quickly, still doesn't make clear whether Eschoir meant it when he declared he had said that the theology section should not be hived off to another article. Lima 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

At the same time he makes the seemingly contradictory declaration that he couldn't disagree more with the idea that "what most readers will look for is information on what this rite that Christians celebrate means, not details concerning its names or concerning theories about its historical origin." Lima 17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Readers looking for facts about eucharistic history will click through the parade of doctrines. That woould be most readers in my view. Those Christians who celebrate Communion per their own doctrines have no interest in information on other denominations' heretical alternate celebrations. Eschoir 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think that most readers would be more interested in how the different groups understand what the Eucharist is, and would give up reading when encountering the questions that fit Eschoir's taste. Lima 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So disagreement centres on the question: which is the more important in an article on the Eucharist:

1. the section on Eucharistic theologies (what the Eucharist is); or
2. the section on names used for the Eucharist (what the Eucharist is called); or
3. the section on modern theories about the origin of the Eucharist (how the Eucharist originated, aside from the excluded possibility of its being, in some way, instituted by Jesus).

The first of these is for me the most important. For Eschoir it is the least important (unless he has indeed said that it is the other sections that should be discarded or reduced – if he really did say this, then there is, amazingly, agreement between us ). Lima 17:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose two linked articles on the Eucharist, the first calling itself Eucharist: Current Litugies and Beliefs and the second Eucharist:Origins and Historicity:

1. The first encompassing the section on Eucharistic theologies (what (the many current varieties of) Eucharist are, and what they are called);
2. The second encompassing the section on names historically used for the sacrament some call Eucharist (what the Eucharist is called); and
3. the section on current theories about the origin of the Eucharist (how the Eucharist originated, including NPOV the tradition of its being, in some way, instituted by Jesus).

Eschoir 17:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To leave no article whatever in Wikipedia titled "Eucharist" would require consensus on the part of more than us two, and I think it is not at all likely that it could gain that consensus. But perhaps others could accept the putting into practice of Midnite Critic's idea to "create a separate article, perhaps 'The Origin of the Eucharist' or something like that"? The historical matter that, because of continual questioning of one element after another, has been inserted in the nomenclature section could very suitably go with that; but the information about the different names by which the Eucharist is known would of course stay in the Eucharist article, along with the information on the theologies of the Christian groups (which is the topic of our present discussion). Lima 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking at an OUTLINE! We're not suggesting no "Eucharist" article. Just a link to a "Definition and History" article at the top, and a disclaimer that this article is a theological article, not science or history or archaeology or textual analysis. Eschoir 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I started a Eucharist (Origins) site but the bot recognizes the content. Eschoir 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a problem that you can get solved. Do we agree that the theology section may stay in the Eucharist article? Can we now go on to discuss something else? Lima 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree that ther will be more than one Eucharist article? Let's discuss outlining content.Eschoir 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to additional Eucharist-related articles. I do have an objection to raising for discussion here a completely new broad matter, before we have finished discussing the changes that Eschoir has already tried to make in the present article. That looks like yet another example of the tactic of introducing changes for the purpose, it seems, of avoiding discussion of the matter in hand. So, have we finished discussing this particular section? Can we go on to one or other of the very few sections that still have to be dealt with? Lima 05:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we haven't finished. I proposed breaking the section down as below for two articles. Do you sign off on the proposed separations?

In the meaan time, you may discuss at will any content that you contest in the latest version of the article. You would do well to say where you disagree, and the grounds for yoour disagreement. Or you can split up the article.

You seem to be having similar problems getting along in the Purgatory article as here.Eschoir 06:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the only difference at present between Eschoir's latest version and my latest version of the section under discussion is the presence in mine of the generic phrase, An editor has proposed that "all content under this section that is duplicative of other wiki articles" be deleted. This, I have already said, I disagree with. I do not see "below" any proposal for breaking the section down: what I see is a proposal for abandoning discussion of the section by talking about a division of the article as a whole. So, if we haven't finished discussing of this section, which Eschoir himself proposed for discussion, would Eschoir please indicate what parts of the section he wants removed. Lima 07:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a litle tied up right now, but donn't let me holdd you up-if you've got discussin' you have to do, g'wan ahead and discuss away right heere. I particularly would like to know what facts you challenge anywhere in the article. But right now, reorganizing is uppermsot in my priorities - the guidelines in wp:size say 30KB is proper size for an article, so that means cutting about half from the theology sectiion. Your suggestions and nominations for cuts in that section are solicited. Eschoir (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You yourself chose for discussion this section of the changes you want made in the article. You say you're too tied up at present to discuss this section (and you alone have declared you want unspecified cuts made in it), though you're not too tied up to try to divert the discussion into other distracting channels. We must wait until you decide either to continue this discussion or to declare that you consider it closed, so that we can start discussing some other of the very few remaining sections of your many changes. Meanwhile, I feel free to present the article without your changes. Lima (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought more people than the expected two would denounce me on this page. It seems I must continue working for some years more. Lima (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a reason for the WP:RS rule

I'm checking footnnotes and I find the primary sources routinely selectively quoted and not given proper sourcing.

I would propose rather than starting with bickering about content, start with makinig proper footnotes and eliminating all pontificating on the primary sources quoted. Give the translator and year of publilshing of all primary sources, and don't use anonymous sources.

Start there. Eschoir 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Bad sources are a good way to mess up a page. With good sources, even people who disagree with each other can work together. Leadwind (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)