User talk:SkyWriter

Welcome! you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you just add the new earth and new heaven at the top of the post. i cant cuz its locked Thanks. the died rise and those who are still alive enter the new earth and the new heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.234.247 (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again[edit]

I got your message on my talk page. Glad to have you on-board! If you have any questions or concerns that I can help you with, feel free to leave me another message on my talk page. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what are you interests and areas of expertise? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interests and areas of expertise[edit]

Hi Flex – thanks for your note. Interests and areas of expertise… First the last: I have a doctorate in theology, and am a writer and I work as an engineer. I’m interested in engineering resources and writing theory, and am especially interested in theology and textual criticism relating to Judaism and Christianity. I’m currently finishing a book related to New Testament textual criticism, and am looking forward to doing the same for the Hebrew Bible, after vacationing in some fiction for a year.

Thanks! Perhaps you'd consider adding that to your user page. Since I've got your ear, we have a question of sourcing over at Bruce Metzger that you might help us resolve. With a doctorate and an interest in texual criticism, I don't doubt that you're familiar to with his work. In particular, we're looking for documentation and details on Metzger's view of biblical inerrancy and infallibility (the article currently says he denies the former [because of grammatical aberrancies and so forth, which most conservatives intentionally overlook in their definitions] but accepts the latter). Could you come up with a source or at least point us in the right direction? You could post a response at Talk:Bruce_Metzger#Original_research. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 15:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Flex#Metzger. Cheers! --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks with the help[edit]

I just noted your changes to my contributions to the Critical Text article. I am very impressed. You rewrote it in a very pleasing and concise manner. Thanks.--Rclose 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text basis[edit]

Hello. Any chance you could leave a brief note at User talk:Alastair Haines regarding how the % deviation from NA27 is defined? Shalom. Alastair Haines 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim, thanks so much for a prompt reply. As I suspected, your provision of this statistic is based on all the responsible factors it needs to be. Naturally, there are still some subjective judgements, and a reader's ability to interpret the actual percentage needs a clear definition of what counts as 100%; for example, percentage of text-critical decisions, or percentage of all words in the NT. Presumably it is the former, given the size of the percentages.

As statistics like these are immensely helpful if compiled and presented responsibly, I thought I'd know of them unless they were recent scholastic contributions. Congratulations on worthwhile and exacting research! Godspeed to your publisher!

My only comment is that "vertical exaggeration" is very helpful for Christian readers. What I mean is, comparison of text-critical choices may just help KJV afficionados realize what they do to themselves. However, for non-Christians to see even 5% on an impossibly good translation could lead cynics to scoff at Christian scholarship.

I'm sure you've made the right choice on this too. I just wish to stress the importance of making the definition of the statistic as easy for a reader to interpret as is realistically possible.

What do you think of this page?

Shalom. Alastair Haines 04:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim, thanks again, please send me the article, I will read it with great interest. I bought Comfort and Barrett to help me make my own judgements on text-critical issues, though nearly everything I know was taught to me by reading Metzger's various contributions. Alastair Haines 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament manuscripts project[edit]

Hi again Tim,

I thought I'd put some work into getting standard text-critical information up onto Wiki. So far I'm mainly working on structure and tools like templates and categories. It's rather fun to be able to link to German and Italian Wiki articles on various things, but rather sad these articles are not in English yet. List of New Testament uncials will give you a feel for where things are at. Still a lot of work to go.

Cheers, alastair Alastair Haines 13:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible metrics[edit]

What is the source for the measures of conformity to the Nestle-Aland text and "paraphrase rate"? The latter, in particular, has a very unscientific air about it. These info boxes are widespread, but there is no attribution given to reliable sources. Both numbers are useless for the encyclopedia without attribution to a reliable source. And there is no discussion defining these terms at Template talk:Bible translation infobox. Wareh 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After writing the above, I have seen the discussion at User_talk:Alastair_Haines/Archive_2#Definition_of_Text_Deviations. But this does nothing for my concerns. Even if the book has "hit Amazon," that most certainly does not make it a reliable source whose information should appear, cited or uncited, in all of our Bible translation pages. The way this data was being promoted before it was even published forces me to ask what personal connection the various Wikipedia editors (you, Alastair Haines) have to the book. The standard for a reliable source is more like endorsement in book reviews in respected journals. These numbers seem to amount to a recent publishing venture, not a standard or respected measure of anything. And the recent edits seem to reflect an ignorance of significant figures. Wareh 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. It doesn't yet make total sense to me or answer all my concerns. For example, the attribution issue remains; it is essential that these figures appear on no pages without a clear reference to the reliable source from which they are drawn. The treatment of significant figures still appears absurd.

But basically my main concern is still that, despite appearing in infoboxes (which suggest that fairly universally agreed-upon facts are being provided), it is hard on the face of it to believe that most scholars would not deride the idea that these numbers provide useful or meaningful information. By the way, if both numbers apply only to the New Testament, then the format in which "paraphrase rate" is presented is highly misleading, since most of these Bibles include an Old Testament.

(1) Deviation rate. On the fundamental level, what evidence can you provide that a list of "14992 translatable differences between the Greek, Latin, and Syriac text-forms" (especially, that label, "translatable") commands agreement among scholars? How does this number compare to the number of variants appearing in the apparatus of the UBS edition (not because this is a perfect inventory, but because it is at least a widely recognized set of cases)? Then, the numbers themselves appear ridiculous. Are you telling me that, in cases where variant readings exist, Bibles like NRSV and NJB demonstrably choose a different reading than that printed in Nestle-Aland in 18-28% or around 2700-4200 cases? Any such list would be easy to refute, and I'm sure it would come as a surprise to the translators who worked on those versions; how do you reconcile their point of view with the view given by these numbers? Or does the number mean something else, in which it is inscrutable and useless to the encyclopedia reader?

(2) Paraphrase rate. I include the redlink to indicate that this will only be meaningful if the concept is defined, and that it only belongs in the infobox if the concept has a widely accepted definition which we can write up in an encyclopedia article. I don't know what to say about your definition, "do not agree completely with ANY text type," except that, while the numbers may have been crunched according to a consistent algorithm, this notion of disagreement itself is quite far from neutrality and objectivity. While the word-for-word and dynamic equivalence approaches to translation are widely recognized, I need better evidence that this effort to measure the "translation type" quantitatively (to the hundredth of a percentage point, no less) is anything but quackery. I know plenty enough Greek to know that the English meaning conveyed word-by-word and sentence-by-sentence in the NJB New Testament follows a definitely identifiable Greek text a lot more than 73% of the time. I'm not saying a rational discussant can't identify paraphrase, but your formula relating paraphrase to text-critical issues is confused. What is really being quantified? I imagine it is something like "word-for-wordness, whether that provides a correct translation or not."

These numbers have all the signs of being pseudoscience, measures conceived to broadcast prejudices that assume a dubious notion of "textual fidelity," and I believe they're only in the encyclopedia because they've fallen through the cracks. It seems a no-brainer to expunge them from all the Bible articles. If, in fact, they are worthy of note in the encyclopedia, the first steps to be taken by anyone who wants to include them are obvious:

Write articles on the Bible metrics themselves, providing not only an exposition of their meaning in their creators' own terms, with footnotes, but also evidence that they are a notable subject for an encyclopedia, because they have received reviews and discussion in reliable journals, books, etc.
Accept that, until or unless these numbers become a truly accepted standard by some significant range of scholars, they should only be reported in the article on the Bible metrics. I don't see any reason why such an article, if it passes the notability test, could not include comprehensive charts giving the measures calculated by various authorities for various translations. (If "paraphrase rates" are reported to the .01%, they will be laughed at, though.)

I'll wait for your response before initiating the needed cleanup, but I hope you can see why I feel little doubt that the community of Wikipedia editors, if this is brought to their attention, will be able to figure out how little these numbers belong where they are now being presented.

Wareh 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to http://www.bible-researcher.com/guide.html is not particularly helpful, since, if we accept it completely (which is a big if, since it's just a web page), it provides no basis for calculating a "paraphrase rate," and there is no evidence that the data has been "reverse engineered" (as you say) soundly to produce the "deviation rate." The number itself is still unattributed, and you're not linking to a list of the allegedly thousands of departures from NA in modern New Testament translations. Wareh 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in a hurry to change anything, and I don't want to delete without understanding. I think you've seen that my invitation to expound these methods in their own article (which will fly or not according to the encyclopedia's guidelines) reflects a basic inclusiveness on my part. I just don't want readers to draw unwarranted inferences from these infoboxes. In your very long response, I still don't feel you've helped me with the specific points that are unclear to me. Are you telling me that the transformation of the bible-researcher.com data into these numbers is your own work? If so, I'm very uncomfortable with what you'd then be telling me: "It's original research, but I invite you to take over all my methods and reproduce my original research." This would be clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy. Moreover, it's the validity of the methods that's in question, not whether calculation errors have been made. (Can you answer directly: what is the most reliable source that vouches for the validity of these methods?) If the actual numbers being reported in infoboxes cannot be sourced, then they are OR and that's the end of the discussion, right? Finally, if I were to follow your methods and reproduce the "paraphrase rate" numbers, even if I were in total agreement about the sequence (in other words, I looked at the ordered list of paraphrase rates and felt it accurately described some quality of the translations), that would not address the question of whether it is meaningful as a number. And please address specifically my complaint above that your formulation, "do not agree completely with ANY text type," confuses textual-basis issues with translation-style issues. As to the "deviation rate," I gather you're inviting me to undertake the compilation of a list on my own of, say, all the cases (out of 995 alleged total) where the NRSV in a sample NT passage is "firm agreement with a different text form" than the Nestle-Aland text. Surely the minimum you can do to help me out is to point me to where someone has already done this! If there's no such reference to provide, then how on earth can other editors accept its inclusion? Heck, even if it is your original research, I'd still like to see a sample list of supposed NA-deviations in an NRSV passage. P.S. Feel free to respond wherever you like, but it would be easier to follow if it stayed all here where it began. Wareh 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just in case it is a useful compromise. Consider how at least the "translation type" box could reflect wider consensus labeling. That is, use labels like "dynamic equivalence" or whatever, and base them on the comparative numbers if you like. But since the numbers are not exactly the point and/or meaningful in this context, wouldn't the right way for a reader to see the number in context be (1) click on wikilink dynamic equivalence, (2) notice in that article that there are Greek New Testament metrics that aim to produce a comparative measure of this quality, (3) visit that article to see a chart of such numbers, with an explanation of their methodology and meaning. This would at least seem to be a more appropriately humble way to try to include that number. Wareh 20:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromises are best[edit]

Wareh,

I apologize for the rush a few hours ago. I just got home and only have five minutes. But I appreciate your suggestions. Since the numbers do not differ from what is found on other web sites so far as sequencing is concerned, I think your idea of using descriptions is ideal here. Formal Equivalence up to the RSV, then Dynamic Equivalence up to the NLT, etc. I can make those changes tomorrow night and they won't disagree with the numbers or other web sites. If I make that change, will I still need to list all the sources? There are a lot to choose from. As for Alexandrian / Byzantine... perhaps we could discuss the best terms to use.

Also, I found another site that does Textual Variant mapping with translations: http://bible.ovu.edu/terry/tc/index.htm I think it only does ten translations, though. However, you can probably do a quick sample of that site's maps and come up with similar numbers. Unfortunately, MY source is dragging it's heels on final publication, so counting a sample from that site or doing a quick sample from Marlowe are the only current links.

Would you be so kind as to help me find the least disruptive terminology to wrap the data in -- particularly with regard to the NA27 correspondence rate? I also noticed that the Flesch Kincaid readability statistics don't show up on the boxes. This is another set of information that is useful, and anyone with a readability calculater (like the one on Microsoft Word) can reproduce those scores.

Anyhow -- the information is only useful in a format that people can assimilate. The descriptions instead of numbers make sense, and an article on metrics could explain the demarcation points.

I'll make those changes tomorrow.

Best,

Tim 21:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim, What you're saying answers some of my concerns. The outstanding issue is still the "deviation rate." Looking at your latest link, I think I finally, maybe, might understand what it is (you never did define it adequately for me). I still might need to have a closer look at the numbers to be sure I can see what's going on here (I think the large number of "translatable differences" is badly misstated; the correct way to count is to say that your latest link covers three translatable differences in Philemon, UBS3c gives four—the number 14992 is an order of magnitude bigger than the plain-English truth!). The questions I'm left with involve (1) labeling/message, (2) motivation. A sample infobox line reads, "28.25% deviation from Nestle-Aland 27th edition (NT)." I just don't believe this is good English for what the statistic communicates. It suggests that the text on which a translation is based is in some meaningful sense 28% discrepant from the text printed as NA. Obviously this isn't true. Yes, I understand, again, to make a sequence, you want as dramatic a spread of agreement rates as possible, so you look at only the UBS-approved translatable variants. A more honest number would be an actual count: "Of the n translatable variants given in the UBS apparatus, this translation chooses a different reading in p cases." I don't want to belabor this point because you seem willing to replace the misleading number with text for infobox purposes anyway. But the larger question here is: what on earth important information do you believe this number conveys? Nestle-Aland, while widely used, is just an edition of the Greek New Testament. I can't imagine that there is any terminology (disruptive or not) to describe the quality of "being exactly like Nestle-Aland in choosing among textual variants, the vast majority of which are trivial in nature." There's no terminology because this is not really meaningful information apart from satisfying a kind of idle curiosity. That's why I ask about motivation... I see you're linking websites that promote textus receptus—fine, and from the textus-receptus-is-the-divinely-guaranteed-word-of-God point of view, I guess "number of times the translators saw fit to chuck out the divinely guaranteed word of God" might be a meaningful thing to count. But you can't reengineer this concept to apply to a modern critical edition such as Nestle-Aland, because it only claims to be a critical edition done by fallible humans (that is the whole point of an apparatus, and the letter grades quoted in your latest link: they indicate that the editors recognize doubt in many cases, and likewise if competent editors doing translations have chosen variants where the UBS editors claim "the text is virtually certain," it means they think the UBS editors are wrong). So, as a starting point on "deviation rate," I'd really just like an explanation of why you think it provides intelligible and encyclopedic information in the first place. Best, Wareh 00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There are some hints and traces that someone wanted to use the idea of a "text type." This term doesn't really apply to editions (Greek or English) of the New Testament as much as it applies to single witnesses. A manuscript can show an "Alexandrian text type," "Western," etc., and I suppose if a translation slavishly followed that manuscript, we could say it reflects the same text type. But translations are eclectic mixes of text type, and I don't see how the flavor of that eclecticism can be captured by a meaningful label, let alone quantified. Wareh 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Philemon sample[edit]

Wareh,

Thanks for your note. Actually, I only gave you the Marlowe list because it was the one I could find at the time – not because that particular list used the Textus Receptus as a baseline. For Philemon, the Terry list has only three locations with four variants – for a total of seven options. Terry has the ASV disagreeing with the Nestle-Aland 100% of the time in this sample – so of course it is far too limited a sample. Marlowe lists thirty-six optional readings (eighteen times two) and gives the Greek sources, but no translation mapping. The COM NT shows thirty-nine optional readings. Since we had discussed the New Revised Standard, I checked the COM NT notes and found one NRS deviation, in verse 10. For that verse the Nestle-Aland gives two variant readings, but only one is translatable into English: “the chains” in the Nestle-Aland is “my chains” in a variant. The NRS reads “my imprisonment” which would agree with the variant against the Nestle-Aland. Minor? Certainly. Accidental? Possibly. Nevertheless, it does agree with the variant against the Nestle-Aland. Usefulness? I think here’s the heart of what I see you exploring: what is the usefulness? For some kind of attack or disparagement, none at all. That is certainly not my intention at all. And though I personally use the Nestle-Aland, I recognize that it remains a work in progress. The usefulness of the metrics is not in attack, but in sequencing the translations. If a person wants to have a literal translation, the lowest paraphrase rate is the end to start. If they want a readable translation, the Flesch Kincaid numbers show where to start (and I don’t understand why these aren’t showing in the boxes – this is a hugely important metric). If they want to keep up to date with the Nestle-Aland in their personal Bibles, the lowest deviation rate (or highest agreement rate) would be the place to start. That’s all. It’s merely a number derived from a raw count of agreement with the Nestle-Aland as a comparative tool between translations. And to your point regarding the usefulness of looking at as many translatable differences as possible. Compare the Terry results for the ASV with the COM NT results. Terry has the ASV disagree 100% of the time! The COM NT has nineteen Nestle-Aland readings with an additional twenty from Pierpont-Robinson and about a dozen other possible sources. The larger number gives a more realistic list for the ASV: it unambiguously agrees with the Nestle-Aland 13 out of 19 times. For this book alone there is a 68% AGREEMENT with the Nestle-Aland, instead of the 100% DISAGREEMENT from the tiny list that Terry gave. The larger sampling gives better metrics.

I hope this has answered your questions. Now for my question: how best to describe it? How about High Correspondence down through the NRS, and Medium Correspondence down through the TEV? Then, starting with the NLT, DRA, etc.. these could be listed individually. NLT “update to the Living Bible paraphrase.” DRA “High Correspondence to the Clementine Vulgate” etc. Would that be fair? We can’t in good conscience describe them all as high correspondence! Especially below the NET, which describes in it’s own footnotes it’s large number of differences with the Nestle-Aland.

Best,

Tim 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- One caveat. The loose terms "High Correspondence" are left hanging without the actual percentages listed. Someone WILL ping us for the metrics if we list it that way. I know it's good enough for other sites, but Wikipedia should use something quantifiable. It's like "Easy to read" for the REB. What in the world does that mean? That translation has a Flesch Kincaid reading level at the sixth grade. Specifically, 6.0 -- with the RSV at 6.6, etc. Although the numbers may vary slightly between the measurements different people can make based on their sample size, the equations are pretty well established. Also, where does "literal" end and "dynamic equivalent" begin? At least with a number based on a real count is something useful. I think the question is -- do we REALLY want to put subjective descriptions in or objective percentages? I'm okay with the subjective descriptions if you'll back me up later on that methodology (at least until a metrics page is up). Is that fair?

For the demarcations I've proposed, the "Dynamic Equivalent" boundary should begin at the RSV simply because that translation coined the description for itself "as literal as possible, as free as necessary". And since the JNT (Jewish New Testament) is unabashed in it's use of Yiddish and other phrases to give a Jewish feel -- it's a safe spot to begin "paraphrase" at. But, again -- how do you describe the fact that the NJB, TEV, and REB are even more paraphrased without a number?

Tim 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my knowledge of NJB and REB, "paraphrase" is not a correct description. (I can see it a bit more with REB, but NEB should register as clearly on the not-paraphrase side of the line.) All the more so since you seem to accept that the explicit principles of the translators can be looked to for guidance. I don't know the JNT, but it sounds subjective to say that the use of Yiddish is obviously ("safe spot to begin") paraphrastic. After all, if I choose a Yiddish synonym, that's a question of register and not denotation, which a "paraphrase rate" could not hope to measure accurately. I think to validate the label "paraphrase," you need to show that the versions are scoring close to a translation that explicitly paraphrases, like The Message. And the inclusion of NJB and REB, which anyone using the English terms in their accepted meaning would not characterize as paraphrase, is enough for me to prove that the labels have not been applied as carefully as possible. Wareh 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can BEGIN the paraphrase with Phillips and above, although I have no data on the relationship of the NLT to the Phillips and will be forced to default to "dynamic." However, that leaves the first demarcation in question now. We'll end up calling almost everything a dynamic and practically remove the meaning of the word itself. "If EVERYTHING is true, then NOTHING is true" -- that kind of idea. So, now, where to begin dynamic? Starting with RSV makes no sense at all if we are going to include REB and NJB (not to mention NLT!) in the same category. The RSV and ESV are definitely not the same as the REB and NJB, and to paraphrase your last note: "the inclusion of NJB and REB [in the same category as the RSV and ESV], which anyone using the English terms in their accepted meaning would not characterize as [identical], is enough for me to prove that the labels have not been applied as carefully as possible." Do we add a fourth category, or do we start calling RSV and ESV formal equivalent, even though neither italicize implied words the way formal equivalents routinely do? We almost need 1) formal equivalent: ASV, KJV, NKJ, NAS, NAU; 2) dynamic equivalent: RSV, ESV, etc.; 3) free translation: REB, NLT, etc.; 4) paraphrase: Phillips, the Message, the Living. Suggestions? I'm really open here, believe it or not :-) Tim 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- Wareh, I’ve looked at my information in more detail and compared it to the other site. I’m leaning toward the four category option. How about the following?

Formal Equivalent: KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRA, NAS, NAU

Dynamic Equivalent: MRD, RSV, ESV, NET, HCS, NRS, NAB

Free Translation: NIV, JNT, NJB, TEV, REB, NLT

Paraphrase: Living

My only caveat is that I’ve inverted the sequence of the NAB and the NIV to match the definition of “free” given in the Master’s Seminary analysis that I linked. The NAB has a fraction of a percent higher paraphrase rate than the NIV, and the Master’s Seminary samples were based on limited sections. But, it is close enough to live with for me, if you can also. This has the following advantages: A) it doesn’t jar anyone’s expectations, B) it’s CLOSE to the truth, with the exception of the NAB-NIV sequence, C) we can link the Master’s Seminary page for the “free translations” designation (we won’t need to do so for the others), and D) it allows us to place the NJB and REB in a “non-paraphrase” designation without destroying the meaning of dynamic equivalence. Tim 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good[edit]

Dear Tim, I'm so glad this discussion has produced the results (through your willingness to do more work) that it has. Looking at the pages you've recently edited (I just looked at NKJV), I see that all categories of information are now plainly labeled in English (with wikilinks, which is very helpful). I really feel this is far preferable, just from the point of view that a widespread infobox should provide readily comprehensible and meaningful information. Each individual item now makes sense to me. So thanks for your open-mindedness on this, and for your work in improving these boxes. As to the reading level test, I don't have a good technical understanding why it's not displaying (I certainly agree it would be appropriately included). I have no outstanding concerns at all if the newly edited pages I've seen are the standard for what will be added elsewhere. And I'm sincerely sorry if some of my skepticism about the quality and motivation of the information was expressed too severely. (I still have some reservations about the unpublished status of your data set. It would be better if it were both published and had been subject to reviews, etc. But the result of your recent changes is that anyone can decide whether the plain-English label is correct—if they dispute it, I'm sure you'll have something to say about the basis on which the comparisons were made! I hope you do agree with me that, at least at some point down the road, it would be nice to see the information-processing methods treated in good articles on their own, and that that would then provide the natural home for the numbers produced by one or another analysis project. The goal is not to keep the numbers out, but to put them in the right context. I feel that it's the natural order of things to click on a label like "Masoretic/Dead Sea Scrolls," etc., before being confronted with numbers that really do not explain themselves.) Keep up the good work! Wareh 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wareh, thanks for the feedback. It might be a couple of days before I get all the updates finished, but they should be complete this week, including the Old Testament and Apocrypha. I can certainly see how the links to the different categories can help folks who are coming at this cold. If it helps -- I've been approaching all of this from a Quality Engineering angle instead of a theological one. We do a lot of metrics at work, so I tend to hunt down anything with a graph (which is why I prefer Aland's book on the text of the New Testament over Metzger's -- numbers and graphs!).

I think your labels are a little off if the New Jerusalem Bible is a "paraphrase." I feel that in any reasonable scale your label for this version shouldn't go beyond "dynamic equivalence." This is the version whose page happens to be on my watchlist (that's how I got into this whole issue), but I'm sure my judgment would extend to other pages as well. I have no problem going through the NJB sentence by sentence and clause by clause and seeing where everything's coming from in the Hebrew and Greek. Surely "paraphrase" should be reserved for The Message (Bible), or some of the plain-English Bibles that truly use paraphrase more liberally. (Obviously, it would be helpful to have an ordered list of these statistics to have an intelligent conversation about this. You seem to have one—can you produce it here?) Wareh 14:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wareh -- what I'm looking at has the JNT at a 20% paraphrase rate, the NJB at 23%, the TEV at 27%, the REB at 28%, the NLT at 33%, and the Living Bible at 38%. I had basically divided the descriptions into three categories: formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase (similar to the article on the link below). Since the RSV defined dynamic equivalence ("as literal as possible, as free as necessary") it seemed a good place for the first division. Since the JNT was designed to put modern Jewish idioms on the NT text (even to the point of using Yiddish expressions) it seemed the right place to begin the second division. That broke the 21 translations I had data on into nearly three even groups. Formal: KJV, NKJ, ASV, DRA, NAS, NAU, and MRD. Dynamic: RSV, ESV, COM (not listed yet), NET, HCS, NRS, NIV, and NAB. Paraphrase: JNT, NJB, TEV, REB, NLT, and TLB. Part of the paraphrase problems the NJB and REB have stem from hybrid "Western" readings that the DRA does to a lesser extent. But I looked at the passages marked as hybrid in the COM NT and they really could not be identified to any text-form on any of my Greek NTs, even including the marginal notes in the Nestle-Aland, which were about the same size as the COM NT notes themselves. I understand that the COM NT is only on prepub right now and we can't use the data. But I don't want to put down something that I know is wrong even for the sake of believability. You're my voice of conscience here -- so I'll ask -- where should I draw the line between paraphrase and dynamic? I found a separate analysis at http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj1d.pdf that consistently shows the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible within one translation of the Living Bible on their paraphrase scales. Their last scale is sequenced at: ASV, KJV, NKJ, NAS, NAB, RSV, MLB, NIV, TEV, NEB, JB, Phillips, TLB. That's not identical to the COM NT scale, but it's pretty close. If you break that list into thirds, you get dynamic starting at the NAB and paraphrase starting no later than the NEB. Since you're a good indication of how an intelligent reader will react... what's your suggestion? Tim 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- I just found more detail in that article stating what terms they would use for each translation. I can use their terms and link to the article if it helps. It makes me uncomfortable to list JNT as a dynamic, but I'll have to do it in order to make sense of what I'm putting down. Phillip's and the Living and the Message are obvious. The NLT claims to be a translation -- so... that would be the only uncertainty for me. Also, they have the RSV as formal equivalence. If I follow their demarcations, the NIV is the BEGINNING of the dynamic equivalence section. Should I go with it? Tim 17:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with "free translation." Wareh 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading level[edit]

Reading level was added anonymously to Template:Bible translation infobox on March 19, and anonymously removed three days later, with the comment, "It appears someone was adding his one personal opinion about the 'reading level' of various Bibles. I could find no source for this addition, so I reverted all the edits." Obviously, this is somewhat similar to my concern ("Here are a bunch of numbers in the article...where do they come from?!" Since there are many automated tools and standards out there, I don't see the reading level is so objectionable. So feel free to revert the March 22 removal of it from the template. But if you do so, you should at the same time respond to that comment on the talk page. Wareh 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Reading Level Question[edit]

Wareh,

Thanks for the information on the reading levels. I've been examining the reading levels in a number of calculators, and I’ve found a good bit of disagreement between them. Even worse, I’ve found that some web sites, like Zondervan, are posting reading levels for competing translations – and the numbers for their own translation seem to agree with Flesch-Kincaid, while their numbers for other translations seem to agree with Gunning Fog. The problem is that Flesch-Kincaid calculates 75% comprehension and Gunning Fog calculates 100% comprehension. The result skews the competitors’ numbers by several grade levels! Finally – a lot of other websites merely repeat the same numbers that Zondervan shows. In other words, we absolutely cannot in good conscience use the scores that are commonly listed online.

I ended up purchasing a readability analyzer and I’ve run eighteen translations through it so far. When I compare their results for nine different factors, they show a considerable range – but also resolve to an average score. I could conceivably run about thirty English translations through the program with the software I have on hand and put its results up there. But that leaves a question. Which score to use? Flesch Kincaid is the best known, and is also available on Microsoft Word (although there are complaints to Microsoft about a glitch of some kind with their tool). The average scores may be more accurate, but people can’t reproduce them without purchasing specialty software.

Here’s an example:

The American Standard Version has the following results: New Dale-Chall 7-8th grade; Coleman-Liau 7.1 grade; LIX grade 8th grade, RIX 8th grade, Fry 7th grade; Raygor 8th grade; SMOG 10th grade; Gunning Fog 11.9; for an average grade level of 8.4. Those are just the most popular tests. When you include EVERY test they average to 8.6.

Zondervan reports it at 12. That’s at the Gunning Fog level.

Now for the New International Version (Zondervan’s flagship): New Dale-Chall 5-6th grade; Coleman-Liau 6.4 grade; LIX grade 6th grade, RIX 6th grade, Fry 6th grade; Raygor 7th grade; SMOG 9th grade; Gunning Fog 9.1; for an average grade level of 6.8. When you include EVERY test they average to 6.6.

Zondervan reports it at 7.8. That’s a grade and a half below the Gunning Fog.

So, I’m not sure what to do here. I’m leaning toward Flesch Kincaid just because most tools have it. That puts the NIV at 6.7 and the ASV at 9.6. Anyone with a Bible text file and a word processor can double check it for themselves and come up with something close to it. But that raises an entirely different question: does this fall under the category of “independent research?” If so, the only solution will be to leave the readability scores out, or to make it something that fits into both Zondervan’s scores and the real scores – like “NIV, Middle School,” “NLT, Grade School,” “ASV, High School.” Does that seem like a reasonable solution? It would match what people see online, match what they can reproduce, and match what specialty tools would reproduce as well.

Tim 15:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your instincts are right here—Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test is what most people have heard of, and it is also the easiest to verify. I'd go with it, and offer an explanation of how it is neutrally verifiable at Template talk:Bible translation infobox before restoring it to the infobox. "People can’t reproduce them without purchasing specialty software" is really a fatal objection; if anyone challenges the number, an answer based on original research (including an original synthesis of information from other parties) is not going to survive the challenge.

Did you see my further inquiry above about paraphrase labeling? No hurry, but I realized you might have missed it since I added comments to two parts of the page at the same time. By the way, I have added this page to my watchlist, so I'll definitely see any further questions or comments you leave here. Wareh 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just saw your comment at the template talk page. That's fine with me, although, if it is verifiably the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, that (unlike the percentage numbers I was complaining about above) is a widely understood number, so I would also not object to the use of that number (if it is used, the template should properly label the number and specifically link to the Flesch-Kincaid article). Wareh 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wareh -- Info Boxes[edit]

Wareh, I've completed many of the info boxes, keeping the information as broadly verifiable as possible. I still have a few to go, such as the Good News, Living, Phillips, Message. For reading levels I took the variations of what could be found online as the base. So far everything has fallen into the Middle and High School range, but I haven't gotten to the Grade School ones yet, like the CEV, the BBE, and the Children's NIV. Just glancing at the information that's on there... I know a few translations are in preparation and revision status right now. Do we just not mention anything pending, or can we mention it with a link to the source? Tim 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as I just commented above, I can live with "free translation" as a reasonable wording. I think you should avoid giving any information for translations that are unpublished—wait until they're published. Wareh 15:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox for Bible translation articles?[edit]

Hiya! Thankyou for your lengthy reply to the question I asked on Talk:English Standard Version.

When I've been reading the Bible translation articles, I keep expecting to see a navbox at the bottom of each article with links to the articles about other major English translations. Have the WikiProject Bible folks thoughts about adding such a thing? If so, I wouldn't mind making a start on one. Alternatively, if it's been discussed and the idea rejected, I won't bother. --stephenw32768^{<user page><talk>} 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen -- thanks for your note. Also, I adjusted the English Standard Version into box to match the one for the RSV. I think the navbox is a fantastic idea. But I'm new to this and don't know any of the previous discussions on it. Tim 20:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick go at a navbox, you can see a "draft" of it in my sandbox: User:Stephenw32768/Sandbox/Bible navbox. --stephenw32768^{<user page><talk>} 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Keep in mind that I've been getting my own challenges here, though ;-). But it looks harmless and helpful at the same time -- which SHOULD go well on Wiki. Tim 02:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason BeDuhn[edit]

Not to protract our conversation, but, given the guy is a tenured professor at a major state university, I would like to add that I wouldn't have any problem using his comparisons to rank the NWT towards the literal end in its infobox. What I would oppose is a "compromise" resulting in a label that has no positive value; if there is a serious disagreement with another respectable source, or for the sake of consistency, it would always be better not to provide uncertain data masquerading as a fact. Wareh 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I actually ordered his book today to check him out. Some of the information online suggests that his statements regarding the NWT are not accurately presented in some selected quotes. But the subject is one of interest to me, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the man has to say for himself. Some other sources are saying something like "literal of sorts, BUT..." Interestingly, BeDuhn himself apparently believes that the Gospel of John isn't monotheistic! I don't think either the JW or Christian camps like that -- but a secular scholar doesn't bother me in the least (we need more looking at the question). If he really does regard the NWT in the more literal than RSV range, then the Formal Equivalence moniker may apply, and I wouldn't have a problem rating it that way based on his credentials. If you don't mind -- could you give me a little time until his book arrives and I can see what he really has to say? Tim 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the time in the world! This is actually quite peripheral for me and has been taking way more time than I have for it, so I'd like to take a break from the subject. Of course you're welcome to be in touch with me, but I think my general ideas are clear enough, so I'm happy to leave it in the hands of you & other Wikipedia editors, unless anything puzzling comes to my attention again. Wareh 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWT[edit]

I reverted your edit about a 'potentially anti-semitic phrase', as it distorts the explicitly stated view of the NWT's publishers. Though your edit was well intentioned, the disuse of their god's name is not considered by them to be 'reverent', and so cannot be expressed as their view.--Jeffro77 08:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure this works. Their view of the development of not using god's name is specifically stated by them as being Jewish in origin and due to "superstition". Adding "and Christian" detracts from the development aspect. Removing "superstitious" detracts from their view of why. If the statement can be construed as 'anti-semitic' (which I don't really think it is), that is the fault of those holding that view. Perhaps we should actually quote the source material to make it clear that it is their view rather than merely that stated in the Wiki article??--Jeffro77 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIV[edit]

Are you available to help redo the NIV page or rather make it better? Or at least act as an editor for what I write? Thanks! Knight1000 05:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIV[edit]

I completely agree with you and I will be slow too in my efforts, so no need to feel rushed. The controversy section in the NIV article seems a lot like reading a tabloid you pick up at the food-mart. If you need me to research anything, let me know. Anyone else you want to invite, I think would be great. The more "good" heads, the better this will be. Knight1000 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Jewish Bible[edit]

"However, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Secular Jews believe that worship of Jesus as a Messiah (or Yeshua as he is referred to in messianic Jewish congregations) and the New Testament are fundamentally incompatible with Jewish theology."

I like the edit you did, however on the part about "Secular Jews", would they really believe that the worship of Jesus as a Messiah be incompatible with Jewish theology? Many that are secular really don't know much about any theology, hence the secular label. I wanted to clarify this with you before changing anything you recently entered to see if you agreed. Thank you and keep up the good work! Knight1000 06:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secular[edit]

"Interestingly enough, although secular Jews don't care very much about Jewish religion, they do care about Jewish identity, and they do agree that Christianity is incompatible with Jewish identity. The best example of this is the secular Jewish state of Israel. According to the Law of Return, any Jew may move there and declare citizenship, unless they have converted to Christianity (Messianics are considered Christians). Although Israel is Jewish in identity, the state itself is secular. I agree that it looks a little peculiar in the sentence, but it's one of those idiosyncracies of Judaism. The problem is that Judaism isn't strictly a religion, per se. It's a nation (even beyond the state, which is only one aspect of thatt identity)."

Thanks for your response! What you have here I believe as well, but not all secular and non-secular Jews believe that Christianity is incompatible with Jewish identity, that's why they were able to become Messianic and this is actually a very growing movement. While Israel's Law of Return is what it is, they have let in many that are Christian from Europe in the past due to the fact conversions on that side of the world were sometimes forced in the past (i.e., Catholic) or abuse in Orthodox Christian areas. Abuse from non-Jewish Christians has probably been somewhat responsible for the feeling that Christianity and Jewish identity aren't compatible.

An "organized" messianic movement is relatively new. The angst over it that is arising is mainly out of rabbinic Judaism which many could argue over it's own legitimacy as an original form of Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism however does have a huge political influence in Israel. I have 5 messianic Jewish congregations in the area where I live that I know about, and they are all pastored by Jews. The Jewish members strictly maintain Jewish identity and some have Israeli citizenship, they go back and forth for whatever business they are doing. I just want to be careful about stereotyping what secular Jews believe because, their beliefs can really be all over the place.

Thanks for listening and check out Michael Brown when you have a chance. He has a couple debates with people on his website that are very interesting, http://www.icnministries.org/ and Jewish Voice is another good one to explore, http://www.jewishvoice.org/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight1000 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knight, thanks for your notes. Michael Brown is interesting on the Messianic side and Tovia Singer is interesting on the Jewish side. I have some friends who are former pastors who converted to Judaism, and one of them has a radio show -- Gavriel Sanders. He used to be a missionary in Israel and is fluent in Hebrew. The whole divide between "Jewish" and "Christian" does get a little blurry in Messianism, creating some intriguing concerns on both sides. Although Christians are happy about any movement that can successfully evangelize a group, theologians are having trouble with certain formulations of Messianic teaching. The role of the Torah is an obvious one, of course. But the concern that both Jewish and Christian theologians share is the oft repeated idea of "composite unity" in the Godhead. Both sides hold the idea to be heretical and polytheistic. I actually made some updates last night to the Trinity article on that very subject. My personal take is that it's just growing pains. Messianics really haven't developed a coherent theology yet, but neither did any new Christian denomination in the first decades of their existence. The Anabaptists were all over the map during the reformation, covering a spectrum from what today would be called Charismatic, Adventist, Baptist, Free Will Baptist, and Mennonite. Of course -- part of that could also be holdovers from Judaism. Jews aren't that big on theology since it's not as central to Judaism as it is to Christianity. So, why would Messianics be in a rush to define their theology? --> from Teclontz

Messianic theology, I think, will be as consistent as it has been with Gentile Christians; could be all over the map when comparing different groups. However I think they’ve maintained more consistency than Gentile Christian groups, (i.e., Roman Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal, etc.). Christian theologians are having trouble with Messianic teachings just like they have trouble with each others theology. Just get a Calvinist and an Arminian in the same room together!

There’s always been, small in number until today, Jewish believers. The internet has allowed groups to connect, communicate and form national and worldwide bodies, whereas before, Jewish believers could remain isolated. My point to raise was the part “Secular Jews believe” which seemed to me, a blanket statement and I think could be taken as ALL “Secular Jews believe” instead of some; were back to some and many. (-: If you've ever listened to Rabbi Singer, in my opinion, I would be cautious about the picture he sometimes paints.

If your curious about Messianic theology, see the added links, http://www.simchayeshua.org/FaithStatement.php and http://messianicbureau.org/statement.htm.

I’ll check out the Trinity section as soon as I can and I look forward to working with you on the NIV section. I feel we may be going through a few discussions like this but I think it’s positive and refining for the information that will end up being posted. Thanks for listening and glad to know you!-- Knight1000 (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NAS[edit]

Thank you for your encouraging answer. Have a nice day! --Kushal^t 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Religion[edit]

I am not sure how you arrived at a possible belief that a new religion is here but I think assumptions you have made could be the reason. Many that would disagree with your application of Tri-Theism here. Also, while this may be the agenda of a few, there is no major majority movement that is trying to fuse two religions together. Thank you for your response.Knight1000 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate is good[edit]

No need for apologies! You stated you, “Having been both” then should be aware that One (Echad) is used in a singular sense and in a group/unity sense. Another common example would be, “two become one (echad) flesh”. The word “compound” in unity I think is being used to help explain. And please to not take what I'm writing as a large singular view of any group. I have a feeling you have been exposed to different views on this than what would be the norm for me. Without revealing any personal details on yourself, is there a web-link you could post that would have your views of the trinity concept (for my own personal interest), if you believe in it that is. Knight1000 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trinitarian views[edit]

I carefully worded my response, I am in agreement with these; Nicene Creed, and mostly in agreement with the Westminster Confession and 1689 Confession. Before “mostly” scares you, I am not with the denominations that use those anymore. Due to being now unaccustomed to their use, I find some of the wording ambiguous when I look at them now in a few areas.

Your response in regards to dimensional vs. compositional was excellent and I would be in agreement with the Trinitarian view rather than the Compounded view. Compounded could be possibly considered tritheism however I don’t think that is what messianic congregations are meaning to convey, however I cannot speak for them. That would be like me be claiming to speak for Christendom. I think however this in an area that gets confused by applying human understanding to a "beings" existence that we really cannot fully comprehend. I base our inability to understand him on Jer. 19:7 and Romans 3:9-20.

If God can be broken apart, echad could be nullified depending on the perspective your viewing from. On one of the links I supplied it stated before the statement I think your referring too "We believe the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel is the one and only true God". Then it stated "We believe that He is Echad, (one) a composite unity expressed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit". I think this is where the dimensional vs. compositional perspective can come into play. I think it might be presumptuous to assume they believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 gods and in my mind, that is clear tritheism.

In CHAPTER II. Of God, and of the Holy Trinity it states...

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html#chap2#chap2

"III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son."

Using terms like "unity of the Godhead" in my mind could be taken as "composite". Also the part "the Son is eternally begotten of the Father" seems like it could really open up a theological trap door which is why I sometimes do not like confessions and creeds anymore over using scripture or statements w/scripture. I understand the purpose and use for confessions and creeds but sometimes they are, in my opinion, like using a paraphrase Bible. I'm going to stop because this is getting long, however I think I learned something from this exchange. Again, thank you for your time and sharing your perspective with me. Knight1000 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Jewish Bible Edits[edit]

I wasn't sure if I should edit that right away, however since you beat me to it, I'll help sit on what you've done. Hope your day is going well! (-: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight1000 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New International Version entry[edit]

I completed a major update and overhaul in the New International Version entry. Feel free to check my work and make edits/corrections as you see fit. For details on what I did, please see the discussion page for the NIV entry. Thanks! Knight1000 (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~AfD nomination of Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms[edit]~~

I have nominated Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms, an article you created, for deletion. Contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated. However, I do not feel that Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and I have explain why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the open discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Yavoh 19:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

AfD nomination of Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms[edit]

I have nominated Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms, an article you created, for deletion. Contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated. However, I do not feel that Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and I have explain why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the open discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — LisaLiel (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?[edit]

Tim, I don't get it. I was looking back at the "Terminology" subsection of the talk page at Christianity and Judaism, and your views seem to have changed radically over the page couple of weeks. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no[edit]

If you put it back to Messianic again, I'll have to put the AfD tag back. Whether it's your intent or not, you are essentially promoting a fringe group. It is undue weight, and contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you like, we can put this up for arbitration. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

Tim, I'm sorry not only that your well intentioned hard work is being challenged, but also that you have become the focus of the challenge. Several editors have been involved in creating this article and you are not alone and should not be the focus.

You seem to be doing a great job of staying cool despite it all. I agree with Bikinibomb that this AfD seems to be a way to wish away a content dispute and is disruptive to the time consuming work of citing content and completing the article. I am also concerned about the tenor of certain comments - in particular one that attempted to cast aspersions on your conversion. If you feel at any point that the comments to you have crossed the line to incivility (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) and you choose to object, know that others will be there to support you. Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think heavy duty sourcing is the right way to go. I've added some comments to the "Sources" section. In addition, I've added some (cited) comments to the AfD and article talk page in hopes of nailing down the real content of the claim of POV pushing. Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, you might want to particularly focus on sourcing the Messianic column. Some doubts have been raised in the AfD about its sourcability and I'm in no position to help. This isn't the kind of thing that the HUC library has sitting on the shelves. Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If things don't work out as desired you can preserve the article and its entire history by requesting that it be moved to a user namespace, and we could also explore finding a project that is willing to host it as one of their subpages. Egfrank (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical detail: you might want to move the archived version to a subpage in your user space, so it doesn't clog up your talk page, e.g. something like User:Telcontz/GlossaryArchive. You might also want to clear out the AfD and other templates - otherwise you are nominating your own user page for deletion. If you need help with this, holler. Egfrank (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not a majority vote - in theory at least it should go by the strength of the reasons. Most of the "votes" are just duplicates citing each others reasons. To summarize the reasons they are:

WP:NOT#DIR- but there is an exception for socially relevant info and I think the intro makes that point - I've also added notes on the AfD to counter those arguments.
WP:OR - but generally Wikipedia doesn't delete articles under construction unless there is no way the article can ever be sourced. There are some very strong arguments that sourcing is possible and in progress. The only column I think that is vulnerable to the never-can-be-sourced argument is the overlap/neutrality column which is why I suggested we split that part out into a separate list that links back to the table.
WP:NPOV - seems to have died out - I think my point about what is the pushed squashed that line of reasoning.

So don't just assume it is a lost cause - and even if it does get quashed we can request a move to user space, work on the sourcing and restart the article. Best, Egfrank (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now as in give up or done for now as in done for the evening? Please don't give up - I didn't spend my evening teasing this table apart to have you give up. :-) Egfrank (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh of relief - just saw your edit message and you did mean done for the day. Kol tuv and lilah tov, Egfrank (talk)

No, I don't think we can be any sillier - thanks for the good laugh. I'm having trouble writing this I'm laughing so hard. Actually the only thing the fact check was for was to make sure it was the Messianic view. I've been nosing around terms and there are some pretty interesting redefinitions out there. Mikvah/T'vila=baptism - Mikvah I understand; T'vilah is for dishes. Kol tuv, Egfrank (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I'm also finding some of the more polemical additions unsettling - we can't very well ask for respect from other religions if we are not willing to give it back. There are ways to make points about religious boundaries that both truthful and respectful. And there are ways to make Jewish feelings about those who convert out known, also without insulting the integrity of their most likely difficult decisions. Egfrank (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the second paragraph? It got added back by Lisa - I'd leave it be though - we really have a lot more important things to worry about and she's kind of overheating as far as personal comments go - I find the best way to deal with this stuff is just to work past it - I've had my own run ins in the past with such editors - its always a bad sign when someone's strongest argument is "its POV" (and what isn't?). The debates and attacks go on and on and on and become a huge distraction unless you just refuse to take the bait. It is a pity though this is one of the first cells in the table. You might see if she'll agree just to have the row removed entirely - redirecting this material to idolatry didn't seem to do much good. Short of that, I'd focus on other things. Keep up the good work - you are amazing - both in the energy you are applying to this and in your calm persistance. Kol haKavod, Egfrank (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the situation to WP:ANI#Continued problems with editor - disruptive editing. We'll see what happens next. Egfrank (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - User:Jeffpw has removed the edit protection tags (in case you were afraid you couldn't edit). My advice: focus on the citations and ignore the editor. Also do not under any circumstance revert her edits again today. I'd stay clear of the cells she has an interest in. (*You* don't want yourself to get blocked with WP:3R or be accused of edit warring). Best, Egfrank (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ma'am - but no need for formalities - you have the PhD (or is DD?) - I'm just a lowly MSc. Egfrank (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms[edit]

I have nominated Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. IZAK (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request, be briefer in your AfD comments[edit]

Hi Teclontz: Pardon my advice. Regarding what is happening now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms. Normally, Wikipedia AfD pages are not the place to conduct massive debates between parties. You did a good job presenting your views. You should not be writing essay-length responses and retorts to others as that just clogs up the page, makes the whole process messy and hard to follow, and is over-all counter-productive and very annoying to most editors who do not do such things when coming to vote and give their views (usually not more than a few sentences, if that.) I know it is not easy for a writer, but try to be consise and to limit yourself to paragraph-length responses at the most. People coming onto the page can go to the article's talk page to see and join detailed debates. Thanks for giving this your attention. I am placing a similar message on the others who are creating havoc on that page with full-blown essay-length responses rather than more focused replies that would be much more helpful to all concerned. IZAK (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the context of this particular AfD discussion, I do not think that this is a reasonable criticism. I don;t think its causing disruption, but that the issues are difficult. DGG (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Consenses for deletion of Glossary CJM[edit]

Tim, thanks for update .... reply , visit again .... Pilotwingz (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms[edit]

I will check to see if there is anything I can contribute. The problem is going to be good 3rd party sources. I see there has been some disagreement so I will exercise caution before I enter anything. I may ask your opinion first just to avoid a possible clash that has already taken place. In fact, I may make a posting in the talk page first before I do any editing beforehand. No promises. Knight1000 (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim , it;s Pilot[edit]

Please stop by the article Bible talk page and join in the discussion ( #34, The Pendulum Swings ) ........ I have ask Alastair, Egfrank, Biki , as well to join this discussion ......... I went back by the articles talk page to see what was new and discovered that a particular Carl took it upon himself to delete previously important work in the intro. ......... I reinstalled the original intro. which also had my 4 sentence edit incorperated relating to testament and covenant as well as others prior work which had added a few alternate terms Christains call the Bible which are Holy Bible, Scriptures, Word of God ........... anyway , I would like to have some others involved here who were working at the time these important edits to the intro. were added ........... I am not asking you to side with me , I just want to see a consenses on this matter , other than just allowing Carl to delete prior work that was well cited , valid and important .......... I undid his deletion work and reinstalled the original , but he kept insisting on reverting , and this took place three times ......... I opened the discussion back up , and also contacted him on his own talk page .......... but he keeps insisting on having it his way as if he resolved a consenses to make the deletions , which is not the case ........ well thanks in advance and please join in so I may at least feel there is a consenses this way or that ........ Pilotwingz (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no.[edit]

Avruchtalk 13:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Play nice[edit]

... and do not make unneeded and stupid comments in edit summaries as you did here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

out of ideas?[edit]

I cannot comment on Lisa. But I will say this: although I have tried to make constructive contributions to the glossary, I do have serious NOR concerns. I urge you to read over the NOR policy carefully and ask yourself how the idea of the glossary - its justification - does not constitute original research in the form of a kind of synthesis, drawing on different sources to convey an original project. I think the point is that this is not an article on some interfaith efforts, but an actual effort to promote interfaith activities. Please think about our NOR policy; Wikipedia articles should represent something out there and not try to create something new. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could tolerate small amounts of OR in summary articles similar to this, if it brought a large amount of enlightenment. You typically can't find readymade tables or figures from outside wikipedia that are free to use, and also at the same time perfectly suited to our purposes, so there has always been a bit of an exception for that kind of thing.

There is also a religion wikia that might find such tables most useful. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are feeling down, and I think you have good intentions. BUT: "The only originality of the page was the format." The thing is, format, the organization or structure of content, is one of the most common ways people violate NOR (because novle synthesis is forbidden and novel synthesis often occurs by juxtapposing information in novel ways. I am not asking you to respond to me, but if you value my advice at all and trust that my intentions are positive, here it is: (1) take a deep breath and relax. Even take a wiki-break of two or three days. (2) do not get defensive, do not take things personally even if you feel sur eyou have good cause. (3) read the NPOV and NOR policies until you practically have them memorized. Remember: a full understanding of the policies is not only understanding what they mean to you, but understanding how others might read/interpret them as well. (4) work through a discussion - not an argument, but an open (open-minded, open to new directions) conversation on the talk page to raise issues and seek consensus. Don't just try to build up a team of people who already agree with you. Seek to identify people who are neutral or even who disafgree with you and try to find compromises or new ideas that bypass conflicts. Final thought: Wikipedia has thousands of editors. Thousands!! If an idea is good, you should be able to get ten or fifteen people who support it. If out of thousands of editors you cannot build a consensus, you know what? Even if you (I am now using the generic you. Don't take this personally. I me, I mean everyone) get a handfull of people to accept a version and opponents give up and go away ... even if you achieve a stable version that you like that a few others very strongly support ... in the world of wikipedia, where there are thousands of editors and the number grows exponentially every month, by the end of 2008 your article will be unrecognizable. The broader the consensus, built slowly, with people of widely divergent views participating, NOW, the more likely your work will last over the months or years. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walking away?[edit]

Just when I joined in and started helping out. We could still revert to a more usable version, if you really hate this one. I don't think I've seen your response to this point yet? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, I have a 700 page book in galleys that I'm proofing. I can contribute to a collaborative effort, but I cannot withstand repeated and deliberate (and advertised) sabotage. I just don't have the time! And it's way too ugly by this point. The fact that Wikipedia is even tolerating such POV pushing is beyond the pale. I can't keep fighting it.Tim (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why an administrator asked me to come in and take a look. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- what can I do to help? I'm up to my eyeballs in orange highlight on my book, but I can do what I can. I'd suggest looking at the state of the page Friday midnight, and then Saturday midnight, to see the difference. This wasn't entered into any discussion. It was simply hijacked, and violently so. I did one reversion at a ridiculous hour like 3:30am and Sl tried to make some additions. By this evening it's back to the single blended glossary, which violates all synthesis, if nothing else.Tim (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, spend time on your book first, that's most important, after all.:-) I'll see if I can talk with Lisa as well, and see what I can come up with. It's a bit early to make any big promises, except for the fact that I promise to talk with everyone -which might take a while. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I'm curious. What's the subject of your book?[reply]

Hey, I wouldn't like to see you burning out on wikipedia. If you are burning out, do please take a bit of a break to work on your book while I sort some people out. Things always take time to sort out, and things will naturally be a mess until they're sorted. Will that do for now? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figs[edit]

I'm still kind of blown away by the claim that no Jews heard of fig symbolism, any Jews I've talked to previously know all about it since it's right there in Jeremiah 24, for me it's a rare thing to find a Jew who discusses religion completely not knowing about an entire chapter of one of the prophets. In the Jewish schools don't they ever study chapter by chapter as the Christians do? -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is that Judaism has grown and changed a lot since Jeremiah. The religion of Jews today is not identical to the religion of the Israelites, not even to the religion of the Hasmoneans. Jews believe that it started with and is based on the Tanakh, but not everything in the Tanakh is of equal importance to Jews today. In this sense Jews are not "fundamentalists," a literal reading of scripture (or even an allegorical reading of scripture) does not define Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd put it that way, but your basic conclusions are correct. In most Jewish day schools, the prophets are not studied chapter by chapter. Sometimes the curriculum for a semester might include doing the book of Judges, for instance, but it's rarely going to be Isaiah or Jeremiah. Understanding those books is done on a much deeper level than merely learning the text. Basically, what's of paramount importance in the books of the prophets are those things that led to results in Jewish law and/or lore. And that is learned by learning the Talmud. As a result, the books of the prophets are rarely learned in depth nowadays.

This has is downsides, certainly. I was at a dinner of religious Jews in Jerusalem once, many years ago, and the topic of Samaritans came up. No one at my table was familiar with the narrative in II Kings that describes the Assyrians settling the various tribes who became the Samaritans in northern Israel. I was shocked, and disappointed, but I've grown accustomed to that hole in Jewish learning. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no evidence that it is obscure, especially since I've talked to many Jews about it over the years, and when there are various sources about it, I just posted more on the talk over there. The fig tree as the Tree of Knowledge, and figs being good and evil, is another one I've heard a lot. I have to conclude it only seems obscure to the editors here, unless someone can dig up a reference saying specifically that it is not well-known. Even if it isn't well known, it's not entirely unknown to Jews as was claimed, we know that for sure. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Edit summaries such as this one and edits like this are unacceptable personal attacks. Dreadstar † 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Lisa[edit]

I wish the two of you would stop it. Or take it to your own talk pages. Lisa, you are deliberately looking ofr trouble because you accused Tim of "calling you unpleasantness" when he did no such thing. I did a search of this page and found "unpleasantness" only twice, both in posts by you. Tim never called you unpleasantness. And Tim, don´t let Lisa provoke you. Grow up. forget the past. Focus on the future. Focus on improving the article in compliance with policies.You have no intention of communicating with lisa? Liar! you just communicated with her. If you really mean it, then just ... do ... not ... respond ... to ... her. And don't wait for an apology from anyone. Water under the bridge. Assume good faith, we use the word "assume" because it doesn't matter whether it is justified or not, it is simply necessary if ANY progress is to be made on articles. So assume it, and move in! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are "done" with the talk page you would not have posted another note to the talk page. If you are done, please be done. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article and not personal grievances. Do that wlsewhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are done editing the article or talk page all I can say is I admire your self-restraint and wish you well editing other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and good luck. I deeply believe, self-restraint will be rewarded. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

little thing[edit]

you are quite right I meant to write old testament thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try a different route[edit]

I think you are right that the article has changed in a way that obviates the conflict and I appreciate your contacting Bikini Bomb. that said, I do not believe it is wrong to solicit the views of others. Bikinibomb has made claims about what Jews believe and there is nothing wrong in asking jewish editors what they think. Moreover, he has specifically said my view is that of a secular atheist Jew, so it seems to me that he is opening himself up to others inviting Orthodox Jews to comment. I acknowledge that this could be adversarial. But it doesn't have to be. The talk page can still be a place for people to learn more about one another's views. This can be a constructive process. When someone who is expert on Christian terms gains a better understanding of how non-Christians see something on the talk page, it helps that expert explain Christian terms more clearly for a general/diverse audience to put in the article. Similarly, when people who are experts on Jewish terms have to spend time explaining them to a non-expert on the talk page, it can help them then craft better explanations aimed at a general/diverse audience to put in the article. Whether this process actually happens or not depends on whether editors assume good faith in one another. And assuming good faith is essential for any collaborative effort at Wikipedia. I know I and others have written comments for Bikini Bomb in whih we assumed good faith. If you read the comments by Shirahadasha, for example, I would be stunned if you thought he were not assuming good faith on Bikinibomb's part. If bikinibomb were to respond in good faith as well, this could still be a constructive process. The point is not to make Wikipedia a forum for interfaith dialogue - but the point is how to write accurate article entries that are also clearly and fully enough explained so that a broad audience can understand them. That is why I think it is good for more people to participate in the talk page discussion. And if Bikinibomb has expressed a concern that so far people participating in the talk page discussion are ignorant of Judaism, it makes perfect sense to ask editors active in Judaism relted articles and the Wikipedia Judaism project to join the discussion, doesn't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Christian terms Glossary of Jewish terms Just to be clear, I never claimed that figs have no symbolic meaning in Judaism, only that they are not notable or key symbols in Judaism.

As for Bikinibomb, another reason I have asked others to comment is precisely because they enter the discussion with no prior history, no agenda, and cooler minds. It is my belief that they will address Bikinibomb with an assumption of good faith and in a positive spirit of trying to share knowledge. Indeed, if you look at the commentws by the two or three people who have responded to my invitation, I think you will find them to be phrased in respectful, non-provocative, good faith ways. I do not think silence solves anything; I do think that changing the tone of the conversation from one filled with sarcasm, vitriol, and suspicion to a conversation characterized by good-faith contributions is what is needed. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Feel free to move/delete this msg. I replied to you on the Glossary article. Just wanted add, as an aside, that things might go more smoothly if you avoid mentioning those folks with whom you've had a conflict (e.g., Lisa) and try to write w/o personalizing the debate. Best wishes, HG | Talk 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake[edit]

Actually I went back to the original message I wrote and saw that you (I am sure sincerely) mistook the kind of mistake I made. I wrote something like "in the New testament and in the "Old" Testament" What I meant to write was "In the Hebrew Bible and in the "Old" testament" (the first referring to the Jewish text, the second to the Christian text). In other words, I got the Christian text correct, I correctly identified that Jeremiaha and Song of Songs is in the Old Testament. My mistake was, I wrote "New Testament" when I meant to write "Hebrew Bible." Do you really think this was a Freudian slip, that I unconsciously think the Hebrew Bible is really the New Testament? No, I was just tired, and writing in haste. It happens. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Re: your comment, you've been warned for making personal attacks as well. You've also been asked to provide diffs to support the accusations you've made. I'm also asking you to back up your latest assertion, "using admin authority in an edit war". Additionally, these constant comments and assumptions based on other editor's religions violates WP:NPA policy, so I ask you one last time to stop making such comments, or you will be blocked. Focus on content, not the contributors..or their religious affiliations. Dreadstar † 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What exactly do you call coming into the room and saying "I'm an admin, do it thus and so." Okay -- don't block me for a bit while I look for it. It'll be one of the first posts in there... And if you'll take the time to look at my notes to everyone in the last day or so I've been doing my best to calm everyone down on all sides.Tim (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa wanted Messianic Judaism removed from the article, Jossi stepped in, and it was gone. Not a big mystery. From day one Lisa has been accusing Tim and I of being operatives for Messianic Judaism even though Tim is Orthodox Jewish and I'm Muslim, so I would like to see some warnings about religious accusations on her page as well. Thanks. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask, please provide diffs, and I'll look into it. Dreadstar † 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DS wants Diffs... I'm trying to hunt them down. I had thought it was obvious, too. But maybe he has a lot on his plate and doesn't have time to fish everything. It's a fair request...~

Okay -- here's the request you made:

Me:Dreadstar -- vandalism, strongarming, and then AfDing with NO discussion or consensus is being uncivil. Bikini's work gets assaulted -- all our work gets assaulted -- and you caution Bikini for being uncivil? That's... (to quote Seinfeld) "bizarro world."Tim (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ ::Please provide diffs of your accusations and I'll be more than happy to look into them. Dreadstar † 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't provide diffs because I was trying to calm down myself so I could either walk away or come back and be helpful. Sic'ing you on people isn't calming anything down or being helpful. It just exacerbates everthing. So, even if what I find IS significant to you -- just let it go instead of warning everyone -- jossi included. And now to get those diffs...

Vandalism diff [1]

This edit does not violate WP:VANDAL. It appears to be a good faith effort to improve the article. Dreadstar † 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interesting, since when I tried to improve the article with a good faith revert and request for DISCUSSION before a complete overhaul, I got an AfD instead of discussion:

AfD diff (there was no discussion on the talk page as I had asked on the revert0 [2] -- to give some context, we couldn't figure out if this was a sockpuppet, a meat puppet, or a real admin, since the Jossi and Lisaliel names had worked so astonishingly fast. It just LOOKED too fast to have been off the cuff. We took days and weeks to work out the right format before, and the new -- very polished -- format was instantaneously applied by two people working together who had never seen each other before.

Strongarm instead of real discussion diff [3] -- the level of discussion did not match the INTENSITY of the overhaul. We didn't even start talking until after the overhaul was done and this AfD was happening, and even then it was more "reminder" and dictation than real persuasion.Tim (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created to be a glossary of terms that Messianics use, including Hebrew terms when describing Christian ideas, that was all changed and removed and turned into another article. It's about as much improvement as an admin taking the Judaism article and turning it into an article about Fiddler on the Roof.

In addition to that odd partnership between Jossi and Lisa, Slrubenstein and Lisa hatched a plan on her talk page to at some point label me a troll, and a day later when Sl did, Jossi immediately slapped an archive tag around it and warned me not to remove it. I have no choice but to think this was planned out and arranged with Jossi to step in and make it happen. So yeah, I'm documenting all this and will bring it up formally somewhere. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow -- it was -- I hope you would at least agree -- an INTENSE experience. We would have appreciated better notice and discussion to reach consensus. The revert back to Jossi-Lisaliel format only happened under pressure of the AfD. We had been shell shocked from the first one. (also, I'm signing off for a few hours)Tim (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms[edit]

An editor has nominated Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defying Definition[edit]

Lisa, I wasn't saying that the "persons" of the trinity are considered to be attributes. Attributes are something that God has in Christianity. What I was pointing out was that Maimonides regards God as not even having attributes. God simply is what he is. We call him certain things and speak of certain attributes based on our experience of him -- but he remains beyond our experience and cannot be defined. Although attributes and persons are not the same thing, the beyond-definitionality of the Jewish God is what will negate both the presence of real attributes and distinct persons. God cannot, in fact, even be callled "a person" in Judaism. The closest we can say is "God is Person" but even that is only... experiential. The Jewish refutation of the Trinity is not in the simple idea of unity so much as in the Maimonidean idea that ultimate unity cannot be defined. Once you call God one thing in a real way, you are at the same time indicating either that he is not another thing too (like mercy AND justice), or that he is not "one" in every possible way. "Mercy" and "justice" are not the same thing in our experience. God cannot be called "merciful" or "just" in a real way. God is simply -- whatever he is. He will be whatever he will be. He will not be (fill in the blank), because (fill in the blank) will be a definition -- and definition is a limitation -- and a limitation negates the utter limitlessness of God, and therefore his unity as well. I'm simply looking for some good sources to say exactly this -- because THIS is the Jewish refutation of the Trinity. Do Jews think the trinity is arianism and reject that conception? Sure. But Jews ALSO do reject the logical foundations that are at the heart of the Christian idea, namely, a DEFINITION called "Trinity." God cannot be defined. The trinity is a kind of definition. Therefore God cannot be triune. God cannot, ultimately, by ANYTHING that you can name.

Also, look at that statement from the 1689 Creed. It's riddled with DEFINITION.Tim (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you wrote a note to me here. But I agree with you. I hope you were sitting down when I said that. I don't want to shock you too badly. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! -- actually, I had written you on the Shituf talk page and was archiving it here so I could ask my Rabbi for sources. He gave me the email address for David Berger and I reworded it a bit to ask him also. Anything you can find would be fantastic!Tim (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New articles[edit]

Please don't create stub articles that don't contain a single reference. You must have gotten your information from somewhere and the burden is on you to show where. Pairadox (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(transfered from User talk:Pairadox per request on that page The Rabbinical Council of America is THE organization for Modern Orthodoxy. He's used as a source in a number of Wikipedia articles and it's helpful to have this here.

Give a person a moment to get some info together before slamming something, please!Tim (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to "get some info together" BEFORE you create the article. New pages are patrolled to reduce the nonsense articles, and creating a really poor article increases the chances of it being deleted before improvements can be made. Pairadox (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two of us who are going to work on this article. We can't find the work in progress template. While you're templating the thing -- could you add that?Tim (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wurzburger[edit]

stick a "work in progress" on top so it does not get a speedily delete. I dont know where to find the "work in progress" template. I will try to work on it some next week. --Jayrav (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{underconstruction|notready=true}} or {{in-use}} are two that I find useful. Pairadox (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Tim (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Happy editing! Pairadox (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Trinity[edit]

Thanks for the apology. I do understand your frustration. It would indeed be helpful if you would move the last to sections of the article talk page (which only the two of you contributed to) to you talk page, or just deleted them as an off-topic conversation. I will look at the situation some more and see if I can be of any further help. Pastordavid (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts[edit]

Lisa,

You seem to be trying hard to understand the Christian concept. First, you don’t need to. As a Jew you’re perfectly fine (and safe) not understanding the concept. Shituf is a legitimate substitute concept for a Jew to have, and it is probably as close as a Jew can get from within the Jewish paradigm.

I’d caution you to stay there. Don’t try to get the Christian paradigm. Paradigms are sticky things. Once “in” there are difficulties getting out again. It is very much like rebooting a computer into an entirely new operating system. The old “truths” don’t make sense any more until you can figure out how to reboot again.

However, if you must speak on Wikipedia about a subject, it is important to not only be able to find sources, but also to know how those sources are applied. Your inputs into the concept of the Trinity are very much like Bikinibomb’s inputs regarding figs – except that you are less likely to provide sources than Bikinibomb.

That might be a valid thing for you to say if Christianity didn't claim to grow out of Judaism. Since it does, it can be judged by Jewish terms. Tim, Christianity never satisfied its burden of proof 2000 years ago, and it hasn't done so since. After a while, it stopped trying, and chose to substitute brute force for satisfying its burden of proof. Nowadays, so much time has passed, that folks like you want to act as though it was always some sort of parallel entity, but it wasn't. Its paradigm is subject to criticism based on where it came from. That's Judaism. Nor am I "trying to understand the Christian concept". I'd appreciate it if you'd chuck the condescension and try to understand that this isn't an issue of "understanding", but one of "agreeing". I do understand. I don't agree.

Furthermore, none of that is pertinent. This is Wikipedia, Tim. Not your pulpit. There's a section that consists of challenges to the trinitarian concept, and responses. I must admit that a section of that sort seems grossly (not to say grotesquely) out of place on Wikipedia, but I don't feel like bothering to check and see when it was added and by whom, so let's take it as a given.

You don't have the right to dispose of a valid challenge by rephrasing the challenge in a way you find easier to respond to. That's called cheating. It's intellectually lazy and dishonest. If you don't want to respond to the issue of one entity pleading with another as being clearly polytheistic (if both are considered deities), then don't. But don't try and subsume the question into something else just to cover it up. The challenge stands. Why does it bother you so much to see it stand? A bit odd, don't you think, for an Orthodox Jew to be so concerned with validating the trinity as monotheistic? Why is that so important to you? And why do you think you can mess with Wikipedia in order to do it? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the right to dispose of a valid challenge. But I have the responsibility as an editor to dispose of redundant clutter. Your additional anti-Sabellian objection is redundant. Christians INSIST that the persons communicate with each other. They object to Sabellianism too. Put the objection where it belongs, in an article on Sabellianism.Tim (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stop. You were the one who only a couple of weeks ago were appealing to the average Wikipedia reader. When a person reads of X saying "Don't make me do it!" to Y, that's very clearly saying that X is not Y. That X and Y are fundamentally separate. This is a legitimate challenge to any claim that trinitarianism is monotheistic. You keep wanting to remove that challenge, but it won't wash. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is dimensional. It is also distinct from the concept of the Incarnation. Jews tend to blend the concepts of the Trinity and the Incarnation in ways that Christians do not – and it is in the blending that Shituf exists. The concepts themselves are not Shituf, although the concept of the Incarnation is idolatrous.

So – if you really need to – here is the concept:

Trinity[edit]

A sphere (or any physical object) is spatially triune. 100% of it is high, 100% is wide, 100% is deep. These dimensions are not parts. They cannot be divided. Remove one dimension and you have 0% left of the others (as far as real physicality is concerned). Although the object is a single object, the dimensions do relate to each other. The height is not the width, but the height and the width have an essential relationship with each other – and yet, again, all dimensions are still a simplex unity: they are not divisible parts.

That’s basically it. “Trinity” is not the difficult concept. “Infinite Spirit” is the difficult concept. We get along by not having a concept. We stop at “Infinity” and don’t go any farther, so we’re fine. Christians, though, add concepts to “Infinite Spirit” and you can’t really plug ANY concept into “Infinity” without leaving unscathed. Can you really plug tri-unity into infinity? For that matter, can you plug “mercy” into infinity without coming out with something so imbalanced as to not even qualify as mercy any more?

Now, any time you plug something into a “trinity” statement, do two things: 1) don’t route it through “infinity”, and 2) do route it through the analogy I gave. Did the Son speak to the Father on the cross? Sure. Are they a different Deity from each other?

Translate: Does the height relate to the width? Are they a different sphere from each other?

Get it?

When you see “Person” route that through the analogous “Dimension.” These are not physical dimensions – but spiritual (personal) dimensions.

Shituf is a partnership of multiple beings – the Trinity is a single being, in the same way as the analogy is a single sphere, and not multiple spheres.

Height doesn't talk to width. Width doesn't plead with breadth. It's a flawed analogy. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Height and width physically relate to each other. In the concept of the Trinity the persons spiritually relate to each other (that includes communication). The analogy stands. Your objection to it only underscores your failure to grasp it -- and even worse, your refusal to try.Tim (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incarnation[edit]

The Incarnation is a completely separate concept. It is also dimensional. Think of the Torah, for an example. It is finite in length but infinite in meaning. One could continue the Oral Torah forever even though we loop back through the Written Torah each year. The Written Torah can be read in a matter of days. It can be studied forever.

In other words – it is finite in one dimension (the physical writing) but infinite in another dimension (the spiritual meaning).

It is no accident that Christians regard Jesus to be their Torah. “What would Jesus do?” has real meaning to them.

Now, to Christians Jesus is not a demigod. He is not 50% human and 50% divine. He is the intersecting relationship of God with Man – 100% man and 100% God. The Deity and the Humanity do not mix, blend, or share attributes – but they do relate.

In the same way this note is 5 inches (or so) wide on your screen, but it could potentially scroll on forever (if I kept typing). No matter how long I typed, it would never get any wider. It would only get longer. The length does not change the width. But the length would never appear on your screen without the width. The length would be in my head but never manifest on your screen. The relation of the two is essential to the revelation of the one.

Shituf is a partnership of multiple beings – the Incarnation is a single being, in the same way as this note on your screen is a single note, even though it has two dimensions.

My God, my God[edit]

Does this statement apply to the incarnation or the trinity?

Well, it’s not the Incarnation. The humanity of Jesus is not speaking to the divinity of Jesus.

So is it the Trinity? Can the Father forsake the Son? And what is this forsakenness?

Jesus was speaking to God the Father. The forsakenness was the death on the cross. The human soul was separated from the human body. The deity was also separated from that body. The revelation – the relation in human existence and time, was ending. It was the revelation that came to an end on that cross. The intersection – the crossing – of man and God ended right there.

Is that Shituf?

I’m going to stop typing. I’ll forsake the note. I have more that could be said. There is more of “me” than what you see – but I’m forsaking this revelation.

And although that length continues to exist – because it is who I am – for the sake of this note, both length and width will disappear.

Right…

…here.Tim (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding and Agreement[edit]

Lisa, again -- you are failing to disagree with it by failing to understand it. Yes, you do not agree. But you do not disagree either. And if you do understand it, how about say things that don't betray a misunderstanding -- such as "one being talking to another."Tim (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further -- if you don't even try to address the subject at hand, you are wasting a lot of time for yourself and those who are responsible editors. It's one thing to be innocently mistaken. It's another thing entirely to not even attempt to be accurate after given a good faith explanation.Tim (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your explanation. I do so in good faith. Your explanation makes no sense. It's more rationalization than explanation. But even if it wasn't, go ahead and put it on the article page. Don't try and hide it back here on the talk page. The challenge stays. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with the explanation? In what sense? Do you disagree with it as a statement of the idea, or do you disagree with the truth of the idea? If you disagree with the truth of the idea, then I do as well. If you disagree with the statement of the idea, then there is a problem -- because then you really have no comprehension of the idea. What I stated was basic Trinitarianism 101. It is not Dynamic Monarchianism, Modalistic Monarchianism (i.e. Sabellianism), Tri-theism, or Arianism. You keep veering off and arguing against things that it is not. Try arguing against TRINITARIANISM for a change. Go do some good faith study and then come back with a real argument. They DO exist, but you won't take any nudges from me in the right direction.Tim (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I just went to the article on Sabellianism. You're being a little disingenuous:

Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God (for us only), rather than three distinct persons (in Himself).

That's exactly right.Tim (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make up your mind. "Dimensions" is just a replacement term for "modes or aspects". So what you've been arguing is Sabellianism, at least by the terms of that article. And if you hold by "three distinct persons", well, that's not monotheism. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. While aspects doesn't exclude Sabellianism, it doesn't exclude Trinitarianism either. The difference between the two is that Sabellianism takes turns. Trinitarianism is simultaneous. In Sabellianism God is sometimes Father, sometimes Son, sometimes Spirit. In Trinitarianism he is always Father, always Son, always Spirit. As for "aspects" -- that was Telushkin's term. I applauded it as the nearest approach I had seen to the actual concept. It was the first description that did not exclude the real deal.Tim (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Takes turns"? Not according to the Wikipedia article. Although I'm sure you'll change it now to fit your personal theology. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look at the article to see if it's right. My assumption before looking is that you are misreading it (as you are this page). But I'll check it out when I get some time. I'll probably wait till Sunday to change it if it needs it -- with solid sourcing. But I doubt it needs to be changed.Tim (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article. The article is correct. Look at the comments in "Later Teachings" about "sequential modalism".Tim (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal persons" (a quote from later down on that page) is absolutely 100% not a monotheistic view. So much for your claim that Shituf doesn't apply. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Shituf doesn't apply. Shituf regards separate beings. Trinitarianism teaches a single indivisible being.Tim (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that your mind is capable of equating "three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal persons" and "a single indivisible being". But then, Credo quia absurdum, right? The beis din made a mistake. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translate "I'm amazed that your mind is capable of equating "three distinct, co-equal, spatial dimensions" and "a single billiard ball". Again -- you are not trying to attack the real doctrine, but Shituf instead.Tim (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also -- the analogy to look for in Sabellianism would be something like "I am a brother to my sibllings, a husband to my wife, and a son to my parents." That's Sabellianism. My face, mode, or aspect has nothing to do with my inner relation but is an external relation as well. It depends on who I am with, and the time that I am with them -- one could be a friend, lover, husband, and enemy all to the same woman, but at different times.Tim (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the notice at the top of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trinity article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. I fail to see how your current discussion is about improvements to the article. Please take this discussion to your user talk pages. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Pastor David. The problem is that I have someone following me around making changes to anything I do on the subject. It wouldn't be a problem if she understood the doctrine. But I'll take the communication elsewhere.Tim (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions of a billiard ball don't speak to one another. They don't have different opinions. One doesn't ask another to do something or not to do something. You're rationalizing the Christian beliefs you haven't been able to let go of. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa -- I disagree with the Christian doctrines as statements of truth, but I insist on being truthful about what those doctrines are and are not. The dimensions of a billiard ball physically relate to each other. The persons of the trinity spiritually relate to each other. The analogy stands. That being said, I must, again, ask you to leave off the questions of my conversion. Statements such as "Christian beliefs you haven't been able to let go of" are quite beyond the pale. They are a violation of Torah, so please stop them. As for these doctrines, I'm honestly researching more accurate Jewish responses to the doctrine itself. Dr. Berger at YU emailed me some suggestions, and I've ordered a book by Lasker that may have what I'm looking for. I'll also be reviewing Dr. Berger's shiur on the subject.

I don't think that you are clear on the fact that I disagree with Trinitarianism and you do not. You and I both disagree with Arianism -- which Trinitarians also disagree with. You and I both disagree with Sabellianism -- which Trinitarians also disagree with. But between the two of us I am the one who disagrees with Trinitarianism; while you have yet to even address the actual doctrine.

There are Jewish solutions to the actual doctrine. I was looking for your help in researching sources. Perhaps Lasker's book will serve the ticket. So far you have simply been a distraction.

Judaism would be better served with on target discussion. This isn't rationalization. It's definition. I've painted the target in the brightest possible colors and you keep refusing to fire at it. So, join ranks with Trinitarians and blast away at their enemies -- the Sabellians and the Arians. But at least get out of the way of people like me who are targeting the real deal.Tim (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trinity[edit]

Hi Tim; thanks for your reply. One of the things that makes this tricky is that, even with changes, that section was recognizably derived from the source--so that, even though the words aren't exactly the same, it's clear where the ideas came from, which still constitutes a copyvio concern under WP policy (and the legal definition of plagiarism). I saw that you replaced the tag, though, so it looks like you're on it. :) My advice would be to start over completely, though, and rewrite the thing from scratch. It'd probably be easier than trying to bury the resemblence.

While I'm on the subject, there's also a neutrality issue; when you present each argument and then offer a counterpoint to it, the inherent emphasis is placed on the counterpoint, so that the article reads as being in favor of the Trinitarian theology. This is a sticky issue, since of course you don't want to have an imbalance in the other direction, either, which an unanswered list might do.

My advice is to convert the whole thing to prose, and to present extant discussions of the issue rather than something new. That is to say, quote a bunch of experts directly on both counts, so that both are clearly sourced to places where more info can be gathered--and reliable places at that (rather than just whatever Wikipedian wanders along and decides to argue one point or the other). This would help balance the article, and do a lot to boost its relative ranking on Wikipedia as well. :)

Good luck! --Masamage ♫ 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Converts Page[edit]

I have to say I find it somewhat humorous that you ask me to practice good faith, while at the same time call my edits vandalism on another user's page. Anyway, I have listed the dispute on a page to request 3rd party opinions and I've written a short summary on the talk page. I hope you find it neutral, but please feel free to edit the argument 2 portion of my comment. Divamia (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we work on researching these people so that this guy will have to stop vandalizing. From edit conflicts in past with him it is obvious he has a anti-Jewish slant. I suggest we use a couple sources (not too many) for each person. I suggest we don't give up I have dont that in the past with him/her.--Java7837 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raëlism#Relationship_with_religious_people mentions several clerics who joined Raelism w/o having articles for each person, also I think we should request a project be made for WikiProject Judaism to get some of those people articles if it be necessary--Java7837 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose making a subproject of WikiProject Judaism be made that works on making the articles needed and also works on articles being made for other converts and also Baalei teshuva, what exactly would you call that project? --Java7837 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea tell members of WikiProject Orthodox Judaism about this, they will especially be intrested about adding articles to the Category:Baalei teshuva if they are not already in that category already.--Java7837 (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be able to find some of the books you're looking for on Google Books. Divamia (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The project will list people who need biographies and books that can be useful for writing the articles about said people The group will also try to add already existing articles to the Baalei Teshuva or convert category if the articles belongs there. Also most convert articles should be listed on the convert list--Java7837 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a subproject of WP:JEW, also gut shabbas over here shabbas is several hours from now--Java7837 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An outside opinion has been posted on the talk page. That person seems to agree with what I've said. As a good faith gesture, I will leave the names in for a few weeks so that you will have had time to create articles for those people who you feel deserve one. Divamia (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, one more outside opinion has been posted that echoes my sentiment. Divamia (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brave effort[edit]

Only now have I been reading all the discussion regarding the Glossary article. I agree 200% with you about facts, about motives of editors, about sad parallels with the religions splitting and much, much more. I agree with your comments about the time consuming nature of the processes too. This is why I'm dropping by to thank you especially. You said many things that needed to be said, and needed to be documented. You took the time to do this, for the sake of human integrity in relating and communicating even when disagreeing. It appears that much of what you said was drowned out by noise. But I heard you Tim. I respect and admire both the way your mind works, and your considerate approach to other people. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Lol, yes both of us could be wrong, but at least I'd think I was in good company. ;) How you might have felt about things was my main concern. And thank you for asking about me. I'm feeling overwhelmed but resolved. Fortunately I have a supervisor for my book, and he's cracking the whip, which I need. I'm now aiming to work up journal articles, which is a more realistic way of documenting progress. I'm so new at all of this, I'm still struggling to live by, "if the cap fits, wear it." I expect you understand this phase. To me galley-proofing sounds very exciting and rewarding. But, even if you're used to it, well done! Congratulations! And ... let me know the ISBN, even if I can't afford the book, I'll never rest until I've read it. You have an amazingly nuanced mind, and startling clarity of expression. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"My book" is just an elliptical way of refering to my dissertation -- still a long way off -- on the Song of Songs.

I learned Greek at high school. Later, after my conversion I grabbed NA26 and fell in love with the apparatus. It sounds like your team have done a lot of impressive work. I think I tend to feel blind reading the NT in English, because I've become used to having the apparatus available in Greek. I still normally want the Greek text as well though, of course.

I do like your concept. NA in English is just a brilliant idea. I hope you set a new direction in Bible publishing.

For me, your cross references sound very interesting. Your price also sounds very reasonable. My problems are that I've borrowed up to my limit, and shipping to Australia adds to a price I can't really afford anyway. The only hope here is that my current situation means I probably should seek another loan anyway.

I've requested the product literature anyway. Guess I'll talk to my bank next. ;) Sorry for personal info you don't really need. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! :) Thought there was a chance you'd empathize with the finance thing. Good on you for releasing your text.

My thesis is that the Song is largely stream-of-consciousness of the Shulamite, deliberately placed in a "dramatic" setting (with chorus modeling reader response).

The significance is that the topic of the Song is her perspective on their relationship—not a balanced consideration of perspectives.

The dramatic setting—chorus and soliloquies (more often than genuine dialogue)—is designed to aid the reader to the conclusions above.

It is more easily stated, and seen, than actually demonstrated rigorously (hence my tardiness).

It has the advantage of explaining the allegorical reading—her (Israel or Church) perspective is also the topic of Song on that view.

I presume the Song is a canonical "What women want" as it were. It encourages women by helping them feel understood in their romantic hopes and frustrations. It shows men what they so frequently seem to lack the imagination or patience to discover for themselves.

Crudly speaking, it is the most breathtakingly beautiful (and insightful) "Agony aunt" column ever produced.

imo, that is ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've still got a long way to go, perhaps a year of writing at least. Mind you, I'm hoping to publish something sooner than that. The problem is exactly what you say (and I half hoped you'd notice) in a way it's so obvious it's not worth saying, bits and pieces of it are said, but not quite altogether.

However, I guess there's a bit a of a wrinkle in it all, because I agree with Cheryl Exum and David Clines that the Song is fundamentally patriarchal. I'm kind of trying to "dig deep" and see if the Song interacts with the cultural presumption that "it's up to the guys to do the 'asking out'." The Shulamite is very articulate, and she's also pro-active, but is it possible to discern a "boundary", where ultimately he "peers through the lattice", he "browses among the lilies", he "bounds like a gazelle on mountains of spice", he "climbs the palm-tree and grasps hold of its fruit".

But here's the thing, it is precisely this that delights her.

My sound-bites for this are, the Song is a:

Collage Portrait of Femininity

A Gynocentric Forrest of Androcentric Trees

It raises the interesting question of the possibility of expressing, so to speak, "woman-friendly" ideas, despite "sexist" language.

But just how woman-friendly are the ideas, just how sexist is the language; and is the language of romantic love essentially a different world to that of economic reality. Are these two worlds related?

So now you can see why I have all sorts of heart-aches. "The personal is political" as they say. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for even more of your mind on this subject. You call her Shoshanna, I call her Tamara, lol. But you are so right that's her autonym. Tamara is derived from his perception. Mind you, I call him David, so I'm even handed. ;)

Yes, the traditional interpretations are a trump-card that can be played twice -- to establish Shoshanna's centrality, but also to establish her role is a traditional one -- at least in the eyes of many very thoughtful commentators. But I think your caveat is very real, the natural implications of the language are not easy to characterise objectively, they achieve so many things (maximum picture with minimum words like most poetry). I really take your point that it might be impossible to prove the author's intention, in fact, I grow ever more impressed with the way the author stays off stage. It's just not true of any other biblical book I can think of. John's right in his gospel. Luke's in his work. And even anonymous Hebrews feels like it's written by someone with personality shaping the text. Perhaps Job is the closest I can think of. But the Tanakh does have layers within layers of characters and narrators, rather appropriately expanded in a similar way via the rabbinic tradition. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh thanks[edit]

Wow! Nice to have you drop in on that mess. I'm hoping the mediators will help settle things. I feel for them, the real issues are too black and white, so make the job difficult.

How's the publication process going? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the good news from my end is that I've started supplying well-paid training contracts on an infrequent but regular basis, securing my peace of mind for fortnights of dedicated research and writing in between.

I will most certainly be obtaining your book. Among other reasons for doing so, I found myself translating the UBS4 apparatus for WikiSource's Free Bible, simply to make that aspect of things transparent for the scrutinising reader. It wasn't long before I remembered you saying the Comprehensive NT was NA27, but in English, and realized I was merely retracing steps you'd already thoroughly explored.

Congratulations once again, I applaud all scholarship and publication that represents "redistribution of wealth" of knowledge. I hope (and pray) many hungry minds will compensate your labours by investing in the fruit. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in action[edit]

So... I take it you've finished editing your book, and you're ready to pursue this pointless effort again? -LisaLiel (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter[edit]

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenplay[edit]

If you get a spare moment some time, tell me more about this screenplay. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shituf[edit]

You write:

As far as Shituf is concerned, I only have two isses:

The definition we have for Shituf is the definition Christians have for Arianism.
Either our definition doesn't do justice to the Jewish intent of Shituf, or Shituf doesn't address Christianity.

And your "either or" misses a third possibility. This is the possibility that the deinition does justice to the Jewish view of Shituf, and that it does address Christianity from the view of Jews, and the Jewish belief about Christianity happens to be one Christians believe. You did not list this as a third possibility, but it is just as posibled as your two possibilities in (2). In (1), that the Jewish definition of shituf is the Christian definition for Arianism could well be just a coincidece, these kinds of coincidences often happen in the history of religion. You do not mention the possibility that it is a coincidence but in fact i think it is highly likely it is a coincidence! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priorities!!![edit]

Tim, you are a lucky man, your wife is too in love with the you-who-want-to-do-everything that she's not helping you set and keep priorities. That's a mixed blessing and a process, I imagine, I've never married, just trained as a counsellor (I asked them not to let me, lol).

Neumann interests me as a line tangential to my thesis, and full of personal interest. I'll note him down and look him up. A psychological perspective on religion is a good idea for the article too, it takes the pressure off the sectarian nitty gritty.

As you mention, the traditional reading of the Song of Songs, is masculine gender for God for two thousand years. But as we know, the Song is not really evidence for any such thing. Of course, there are thousands of feminist articles that've claimed the Bible as a key pillar of european patriarchy, based the masculinity of its presentation of God. But I'm not sure it's really a good idea to add Katharine M Rogers, Kate Millet or Mary Daly and so on until things have settled down; even then, it's a matter of saying feminists outside religions tend to read God as masculine, where feminists inside tend to do precisely the opposite. The reader must decide which case is most plausible.

I hadn't heard the elo-im/Y-W- judgement/mercy idea. I have heard transcendence/immanence dimension proposed as reflecting male/female.

I do have my own views on the subject, and most of those are still incompletely formed, I'm not really looking for anything but sources that have comprehensive methodologies, rather than ideological convictions. Digests, as incomplete as they are, can be helpful. Although editors make judgements based on convictions that are not made explicit, most are genuinely trying to offer accessible genuine summaries.

I only have one aim at the article at the moment, actually, and that is to confront the deliberate obstruction that is being perpetrated. Please don't worry too much about helping me with sources, for two reasons. First, it is a very low priority article for me; and second, 'cause I think the process required to move forward to a point where I can actually continue working on it is going to be a long one.

Tim, you've been marvellous, forget, forget, forget Gender of God, concentrate on the many lasting things in your life.

But if you can't help yourself, I will gratefully accept whatever you send our way.

Kol tuv Alastair Haines (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion[edit]

Please see User:Rushyo/Regarding_Alastair_Haines. Thanks! -Rushyo (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As such, dear mediator, I'd request a neutral positive approach rather than a hammer of "I'm warning you." I've wasted a few hours on this already without being able to even GET to a positive edit because of all of the artificial confusion here."

I'm no longer a mediator in this dispute. I gave the, very mild given his personal attacks and repeated 3RR breaches, warning after my resignation. Alastair is bringing an ArbCom case against me, the most drastic thing any editor can do to a peer on Wikipedia. Please try not to inflame the situation further by commenting without first martialing all the relevant facts (and there's alot of them). -Rushyo (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rushyo, I never said I'd bring an ArbCom case against you. To my understanding, I haven't attempted sufficient process for such a case to be accepted. So why would I suggest that.

I ask ArbCom to take responsibility for personal attacks that other processes have only multiplied rather than settle. That will mention only Ilkali. Naturally, others will become involved, but I will be sticking to only one point. There's too much smokescreen to handle more than the core issue.

Once it is settled, and it's really not that hard, a number of people may well feel apologies to me are in order. I will think very highly of those who offer them. See you when I see you. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friend[edit]

Dear friend,

feel no priority to assist me. There are many good people around who can do this. But if you are doing so. Rushyo's advice is sound.

See Talk:Gender of God/Archive 1#Problems with the intro for the beginning of the issue. Back in April, Ilkali replaced text that had been stable for just over a year, I reverted. Discussion starts, Ilkali is slighting, I ignore slights and explain, he keeps smokescreening and nitpicking edit-warring all the way, eventually I call him on his manner and let his edits be. With a few last ditch attempts I stick to not feeding the troll. Ilkali's last words in the section are a classic personal attack. "You're not cut out for this." I don't quite know what he means, but it doesn't seem to be about improving the article.

Sometime later there is another incident, my own talk page comment to another editor is removed, and 3RR violation at that. Silly me lets him get away with that, I WP:WQA-ed instead. And so it goes on as I am surprised to see just how forceful he is willing to be without a single source and with arguments that do not follow logically. His main argument being majority opinion is that there's something wrong with my editing. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shituf[edit]

means associating another being with God the creator. Many Jews believe this applies to Christianity. Now tell me how this will in any way mislead anyone? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sl,

That depends on a few things. Are Jews completely ignorant of Christianity? A Christian reader would think so.

Is Christianity really Arianism or Tritheism? A Jew could think so.

Is the EDITOR misunderstanding the scope of Shituf? Another editor could think so.

Are the ACTUAL definitions in Wikipedia for Christianity and Shituf compatable? Someone who is neither Jewish nor Christian could think so. (Hint -- he'll need a caveat with a link).

We aren't responsible for what every reader could possibly take. We can't control that. But we can MITIGATE it when possible.

I personally believe that Shituf is MEANT to include Arianism, Tritheism, and Christianity as well; Christianity, because the sources SAY so, Arianism and Tritheism, because the sources DESCRIBE it so.

So I had two options -- either expand the scope of the definition to include BOTH what sources SAY and what they DESCRIBE, or to give a caveat so that non-Christian audiences won't get a wrong equivalence, or Christian audiences won't think the editors are bewilderingly sloppy.

And if neither is possible, give a caveat with a link and call it a day.Tim (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get you. You know our NPOV policy insists that we put in different points of view. Thjis is becuse people have diferent points of view. Different means not the same. Why should anyone be surprised that what Jews think of Christianity is far from what Christians think f Christianity? It is because people have different POVs that NPOV demands we put in all notable POVs. Your logic seems to be that because people have different POVs we should remove diverging POVs. That violates our policy. What tosefist source says shituf does not apply to Christians? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sl, I didn't care and I still don't care if Shituf REALLY addresses Christianity. If it DOES, then write a definition up top that does so. If it DOESN'T, then give a caveat. And, per NPOV, if no source allows a definition wording that DOES, then even if it is supposed to, give a caveat. We aren't trying to build ultimate truth here (nor even to decide it). We're just noting a difference in POV. My point is that the tosefists DO say that Shituf applies to Christianity. So, either have a definition that DOES apply to Christianity up top or give a caveat that there is a divergence here. The current article gives a caveat (and is therefore acceptable). All three of the Lisa edits have a definition that includes Christianity in the scope and therefore needs no caveat. Notice here -- ALL FOUR versions of the article are acceptable to me. I don't know why this is so tough for everyone because I'm astonishingly easy to please here: I want us to not contradict ourselves any more than we are required to by the sources at hand.Tim (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean by "caveat." Do you mean adding a warning, "but they could be wrong?" Are we supposed to put this after every point of view we include in an article? Some say God did not create the universe. If, after saying "Monotheists believe that God created the universe" are we to add "(but they could be wrong)?" Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The caveat is this: if Christians have a technical latin term meaning "Jews eat pork" and Jews are unaware of the term but define themselves as "non-pork eaters" then a caveat is needed EVEN IF JEWS REALLY DO EAT PORK. The application is made to "Christianity" then the self defined theism of Christianity either matches the one in the Shituf article or it doesn't. If it doesn't match, it doesn't matter WHO is right. It only matters that the two POVs are different. NPOV requires that we note it, or else the application to Christianity may appear to be absolute.

The caveated POV is simply that of the group named in the application. If it weren't applied to THEM, it wouldn't matter what THEY define themselves as.Tim (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sl, one more word to your example: "Monotheists believe that God created the universe". Since "God" is not necessarily a self defined source, we can't ask him about his POV. But let's say that "Monotheists believe that George Bush created the universe" and George Bush is actually around to give his POV. Well, if George Bush agrees with them, then we don't necessarily need to note his POV. But I strongly suspect SOMEONE will be begging to differ!Tim (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Jewish Bible[edit]

Tim, try following the links [4][5] or any other page on that website. Note the screaming caps, bolding, etc. Does that honestly look like a suitable source to you? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy -- I'm heading out for a while and probably won't be able to check it thoroughly until tomorrow. Feel free to undo my undo and I'll check it out at my earliest opportunity :-)Tim (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gender of God.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Re: Formatting[edit]

You're welcome. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OoOo... shiny![edit]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For: "Anything else would be the equivalent of doing far more than Wikipedia is set up for: pinning the proverbial tail on someone's sacred bull, and leaving the rest clamoring to pull down their own deity's jeans on a hundred different pages." (Talk:Gender of God) I can't say I really follow the metaphor, but damn, I like it! L'Aquatique[review] 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL! I can't stop laughing. Thanks for making my day!

And this is my first ever Barnstar!Tim (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Have a super Shabbat[edit]

Thanks- I agree a nice break is much needed from what is becoming the most ridiculous content dispute I've ever been involved in. Glad you liked your barnstar. I couldn't decide between the Jewish Barnstar and the Surreal Barnstar! I think I made the right choice, though. Tomorrow's actually my birthday, so I'm looking forward to a fun, hopefully somewhat sedate, Shabbat. I'm probably going to be offwiki for the next couple of days, so feel free to e-mail me if you need anything. Just go to my userpage and click the linky that says "e-mail this user". All the best! L'Aquatique[review] 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orhtodox Jewish Bible[edit]

It was that editor's repeated addition of links to afii.org (and other url's that go to the same site) to the external links section of Bible society that attracted my attention to him in the first place. If he continues, there are basically two ways to deal with it, try to get the site blacklisted or try to get him blocked. My understanding of policy is that we're supposed to try to engage him in conversation before we do that. So far, I haven't gotten much in the way of a response from him except vociferous insistence that the link should be there. If you and Malik believe that the translation should be mentioned at Messianic Bible translations, I won't oppose. He hadn't declared a conflict of interest until his last post at that talk page. I would appreciate your support in keeping the links to that site off Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Era[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that both the AD and CE notations are acceptable on Wikipedia, and as per WP:ERAS, it is not appropriate to change from one notation to another for no particular reason. Please refrain from doing so in the future, thank you. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Sorry if I sounded a bit robotic in my posting, I'm usually used to plan old vandalists making these types of edits. Appreciate your civil response and co-operation. Happy editing!. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome[edit]

You're very welcome Tim. It is you that deserves my thanks for bringing sanity to that page in the first place. People will be people, it seems to be a page requiring the patience of Job. Don't feel any need to be drawn into "fruitless arguments". There's so much more to life, and to Wiki.

As ever, all the best to you. You are undoubtedly one of the most diplomatic people I've ever met, but diplomacy, like all relationships is a two-way affair.

alastair

Wow! Nice work. Too much for me to interact with before work. I will enjoy engaging with your excellent, clear and diplomatic text, and the issues raised by others when I get home. It's absolutely tremendous that you're giving so much information so concisely. There's a lot of education involved in this discussion. Kol tuv Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, yes I did get your email and answered in the affirmative, I'll try resending.

Thanks also for your argument for underlying matriarchal imagery in the Song. I'm aware of other versions of what you say. I absolutely must interact with them. Exum (2005) regretfully admits the Song is patriarchal in her assessment. I agree with her, but don't think she covers every yod and tagin.

My thesis doesn't propose uniform androcentrism, far from it, but seeks to identify aspects of both symmetry and asymmetry. In fact, my main point is that the Song is decidedly gynocentric at the discourse level (without thereby becoming matriarchal).

However, symmetry, gender-blindness or gender-neutrality is more the "enemy" imo. Evaluating whether or not the assymetries attested in the Song are "equitable" in a moral sense is something I don't want to be drawn into. Yes, I think God's unfair to physically exclude men from the "core business" of humanity—bearing and nursing the next generation—but constructive participation in this, even initiation of it, are not precluded.

Anyway, it's the age-old issue of interacting with views that are right in what they affirm, but flawed in what they deny. David Clines suggests a male author for the Song because Shoshanna is too good to be true. I want to propose an authentic feminine voice, because Dodi is too good to be true! He answers the question, "What do women want?" ... well, at least what good Jewish girls of the period (whatever that was) were being taught to want. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wars and rumors of wars[edit]

You do tend to get into edit wars a lot. I'm just really happy I'm staying out of this one. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL! Well, this one was problematic. I had to find a methodology that would keep Messianic Judaism out of Judaism, and no one was proposing one. The stated issue was Mormonism, to be sure, but there was a horrific methodology problem they were proposing that could not be consistently applied without the OTHER effect of Messianism becoming a subset of Judaism. I THINK I've solved it with "New Testament related."Tim (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love the irony of the allusion Lisa provided for this section title. ;) Shalom Alastair Haines (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLSCM (spits coffee on monitor), so true, I think it is a pattern. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter[edit]

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention at ANI[edit]

Hi Teclontz and thanks for your note on my page, I have replied to that there. I need to notify that I ahve opened a thread about the edit war at gender of god at AN/I see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_at_Gender_of_God. Please note that this thread is not a forum for content issues it is just about editing behaviour and finding a way to edit peacefully together on the project--Cailil ^talk 22:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, your comments to SLR on Talk:Gender of God are not helpful in their current form - would you mind please refactoring. Please re-read them an refactor in a more civil form. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on the assumption of good faith and on co-operative editing through a building of consensus. When you were criticized by SLR with his thread entitled "Tims misunderstanding of NOR and NPOV" you created another thread called "Sls misunderstanding of NOR and NPOV" - such behaviour is tendentious. Please don't do something like this again as it considered to be "pointy" .
Before you respond please note my comment here is not concerned with article content - just editing behaviour. If there are content problems they must be raised civilly and without drama (see WP:EQ). Open RFCs, request WP:3Os, raise a point on a noticeboard (ie WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN or WP:RSN).
I must warn you that if the 4 of you are placed under civility restriction such edits would result in blocks. This type of block should not happen because there are multiple civil ways to carry on discussion without having to indulge in this type of behaviour. Please consider these points Tim--Cailil ^talk 22:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation Page[edit]

Im not sure what to do with the page you just created. Is this a should be user subpage that has unfortunately landed in the article space and needs to be moved? At the very least it looks like it should not be where it currently is. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines[edit]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Request for Arbitration[edit]

I do not want to prejudice the on-going Request for Arbitration regarding Alastair Haines and thus hope that the following message is taken in the spirit it is intended:

I would like to point out that, in my perception, the RfAr was brought by L'Aquatique with regards to the personal attacks Alastair is accused of against various parties (including myself, L'Aquatique, Ilkali and more) as addressed in the RfC regarding Alastair, rather than regarding edit warring or content disputes which have not been addressed through the dispute resolution process as far as I am aware.

Given this statement I am not sure if you might wish to reconsider the inclusion of the contributions you have made in the Alastair Haines case. If my statement has provided no additional insight beyond that which you already have then I implore you to ignore it wholeheartedly and keep your contributions on the page.

Similarly if you do not agree with my interpretation of what the RFAr is for then I will be happy for you to ignore what I have said. I only leave this comment with respect to the fact that you have stated you are still investigating the incidents underlying this and thus I feel this information may be helpful to you in forming your own positive contribution to the RFAr. -Rushyo ^Talk 16:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Any criticism is worth review and consideration. Thanks for understanding and I hope that your time spent on investigation yields insights that we can all use, regardless of whose 'side' they coincide with. -Rushyo ^Talk 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop[edit]

Honest to God, Tim, will you please stop this persecution complex you have going? I am not Wikistalking you, as you've claimed before. I don't know you. I don't care about you. The RfA against Alastair has absolutely nothing to do with some sort of constant war between you and me. He warred with Ilkali and he warred with me, and every single thing in the evidence section I posted is there for you to look at. Instead, you've created some sort of vendetta against me, and used an imagined vendetta against you on my part as an excuse for it.

Stop trying to convince everyone that the WikiUniverse revolves around disagreements you and I have had. Everyone who has had these problems with Alastair knows that this RfA is about Alastair for good and sufficient reason, and that it has nothing to do with anything but Alastair and his attitude and his actions.

I've almost given up on trying to convince you that you are wrong about this. You seem so utterly wedded to the notion, and it can't just be bitterness over the fact that my view of appropriate content has been accepted over yours in two articles.

You've never responded to the simple fact that my edits of Gender of God did not remove your content.

You've never responded to the simple fact that the RfC I brought about the Shituf article asks only that you not be allowed to insert Christian content into articles about Jewish concepts. I recognize that you don't think that's what you've been doing, Tim. Do you recognize that I honestly disagree? Do you understand that I have no objection to your editing whatever articles you want, Jewish or otherwise? That this isn't about you editing articles on Jewish content, but rather is about your proven track record of trying to insert Christian views into those articles?

You can delete this comment, but the diff will remain. I wish there were something I could do to pull you off the ledge. Your insistence on trying to paint everything in the world as a result of our disagreements verges on pathological. It isn't healthy, Tim. Get off this hobby-horse and do something constructive. Sheesh. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Alastair's arbcom case[edit]

"Ilkali initiated an earlier action against Alastair that resulted in a warning for everyone to play nice".

This is fiction. Check the page history - Rushyo started the RfC, not me. The only action I've taken against Alastair has been to report one 3RR violation and to start an AN/I against him (both, by the way, were after he'd filed a WQA against me - is this "personal targeting" too?). Another 3RR was filed by Abtract, the RfC was Rushyo and the ArbCom was L'Aquatique. Five actions by four distinct people. Ilkali (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the RfC against Alastair was indeed initiated by me... and the warning was '[...] I hereby warn User:Alastair Haines to be civil in content disputes, not to make false threats and accusations, and urge him to take this criticism constructively into making himself a better Wikipedia user [...]'. Full text: [6]. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines/Evidence[edit]

Hello.

Arbitrators request that evidence be kept under 100 diffs (otherwise it becomes overwhelming and difficult to figure out what is most relevant). You currently over 160 diffs as evidence; could you pick the best half for the evidence page and move the extras to the talk page as supplemental data, please?

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a question[edit]

On L'Aquatique's talk page you seem to infer that you have been in contact with Jerryofaiken off-wiki. Do you know how he found out about the ArbCom case?--Cailil ^talk 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reply - you should disclose this info (that you have contacted other people) to the ArbCom--Cailil ^talk 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim if you don't mind me saying so you should take some time off from this dispute. There are 2 million other areas to work. Ignore this part of the site for a few hours & enjoy yourself.

Regarding contacting other editors I would recommend you disclose the fact that you contacted Jerry yourself - it's important because when Arbs look at his contribs they will see that he hadn't edited here since January. If there is an explanation for Jerry's re-appearance it would be helpful to the case for it to be given. I'm saying this because I will have to mention it somewhere if you don't and IMHO it would be better if you did it.

Also don't throw your towel into the ring yet, you need to show patience with an ArbCom case it will take time before anything is done but something will be done--Cailil ^talk 20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha[edit]

[7]... It just wouldn't be as funny if it wasn't absolutely true!
In all seriousness, though, I've got quite a bruise forming on my forehead from slapping it repeatedly... L'Aquatique[talk] 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig[edit]

Your signature (like on the comments you put on Alastair's UserTalk this morning) still say Tim. I think you can change this in "my preferences". If you want, I mean. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here i am..[edit]

You are more than welcome to answer my questions as to why? Kudos has no place in truth...nor does spite.

If there is a 'chosen people', I would most definately say that they are in Ethiopia...NOT Israel.

--Desol333 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Interaction with Lisa (re Shituf)[edit]

Lisa,

Since your notes were so involved, I needed to sort through them in order to form as concise an answer as possible.

The trouble we are dealing with is one of religious analogue. The pieces on Wikipedia will only slowly develop in this area. The information is there, but it will take a while before they start to converge.

As for Shituf – one of the things I left out of the talk page before were secondary notes from those same Rabbis warning me that the Sephirot do indeed constitute Shituf. David Novak also made the same observation in his book. I understand that you disagree with Novak, but the Rabbis I corresponded with told me both in person and in email the same point.

There are analogues in religion – similar ideas covering essential philosophical aspects of infinity in relation to finitude. In Kabbalistic thought there is the Ein Sof and the Sephirot. In Christian thought there is the “one only supreme God without body or parts” (Westminster Confession of Faith; 1689 Second London Baptist Confession; etc.) and there is the Trinity. And, for that matter, in Hinduism there is the infinite impersonal Brahma and the billions of gods. These are analogues. The differences in religions are not matters of whether they have such analogues, so much as in what they do with them.

There are other analogues regarding special revelation and general revelation. General revelation is more of a bottom-up affair. We look at the created order and are able to form certain conceptions of the Creator from what we see. Special revelation is a top-down affair. God “reveals” himself. Take the Torah, for instance: is it the word of Moses or the Word of God? The answer to both alternatives is “yes.” In Christianity, is Jesus the son of Mary or the Word of God? Again, the answer to both alternatives is “yes.” Is a Torah scroll physical? Sure. It is physical, and finite. We read through it and reach the end each year. But although it is physical and finite in length, it is spiritual and infinite in depth – and so when we finish it, we are never finished with it, but have to go back, and back, and back, forever. This is how Christians see Jesus. That, by the way, is the subject of “incarnation” or the “two natures of Christ.” You were getting this confused with an entirely different subject called the “Trinity.” Just as a Torah scroll is physical and finite, the Christian analogue of Jesus is 100% human and finite. That is the human nature. He is not part human. He is all human. The Torah scroll is not part physical. It is all physical. Correspondingly, just as the Torah scroll is spiritual and infinite, the Christian analogue of Jesus is 100% divine and infinite. He is not part God. He is all God. The Torah scroll is not part the Word of God. It is all the Word of God.

The analogues for the Sephirot and the Trinity are completely different. Your mixing up the incarnation and the Trinity is like a Christian mixing up the Sephirot and the Torah. These are entirely different subjects. In Judaism, “God is Person” (I like the way Neusner expressed that). In Christianity, God is also Person – but He is Person in every “person” that is possible: first, second, and third persons. God is within us; God is beside us; God is beyond us. God within us partners with God with us to reconcile with God without us – itself an eternal process since that which is by definition “beyond” is always beyond. God is first, second, and third person – something in “I” working with “Thou” to reconcile with “Him.” God is not limited to any single person in a grammatical or rational sense. Judaism does this too, but we don’t formally express this as the “Three Person God.” We simply express this as “God.”

On a purely rational and philosophical way, these are accomplishing the same thing.

And yet, we don’t simply express this as “God” do we? No, we don’t. There is the Ein Sof. But the Ein Sof is by definition beyond us, singular in such a way that it cannot be “with” anything or anyone. God has no partners – not even us. To become “with” the Ein Sof would be to make it no longer “Ein Sof.” It would be like a Christian saying that Jesus is “God the Father.” No, he cannot be God the Father (God beyond us) any more than up can be down. Instead, he is “God with us” – Immanuel. God “beyond us” cannot be God “with us” unless he were to change, become finite, and no longer be “beyond.” And in both Christianity and Judaism, God does not change. God is not limited to “beyond.” Neither is he limited from “beyond.” And neither is he limited from “with” or “within.” God is infinite, without boundaries, without limitations, and without absence. He is within, with, and without. He is first, second, and third person. He is all these things and must be all these things because he is infinite. And if he were not any of this, he would be finite. Judaism has a similar philosophical problem of the infinite Creator. Because he is infinite, there are no handles by which we can grasp him. But he isn’t limited from us either. And that’s the problem. If God is infinite and we are finite, what are we interacting with? Does one interact with part of infinity? Well, no, because in neither Judaism nor Christianity can God have any “parts.” But are we interacting with all of God? Well, yes… sort of. “All of God” is in the tiniest grain of sand, and is simultaneously greater than all creation. But that computes with us about as well as 1=3. So we create these aspects of God in our philosophical system called the Sephirot.

To get to your Baal Peor point… the Rabbis are not condemning the belief that God is infinitely Person (i.e. Person in every possible way), but they are condemning the action of worshipping God as infinite Person. Okay – if that’s what you really want to say, so be it.

And you’ll answer, “no that isn’t what I’m trying to say at all.”

And I’ll answer, “no, that isn’t what you are TRYING to say – but it is certainly what you are ACCOMPLISHING.”

To be honest, the Sephirot are not as clean an approach as Christianity. These aspects really are parts. As such they must be created.

In Christianity, God doesn’t create himself. Neither does he have created parts. He is eternal, infinite, and entirely whole – one in every way that a Person can be; first, second, and third.

And he is whole with us and without us. He ultimately doesn’t need us, because even entirely alone, he is never alone.

What does this have to do with the article?

Glad you asked.

I finally had to leave the definition on Shituf alone once I saw that Novak was saying the same thing that the Rabbis offline were warning me about – the Sephirot are Shituf. If this article were being worked on from an NPOV collaboration of editors, this would be a simple thing to document (not only from Novak, but from other sources as well).

But this isn’t NPOV, and this isn’t a collaboration. This is a single editor effort, with a strong POV that doesn’t recognize subjective analogues, but instead must define all of reality, and indeed all other religions, from an objectivist Orthodox POV grid.

The truth, friend, is that Wikipedia is not about Truth. Wikipedia is about finding notable and verifiable sources from any POV they come from, and simply documenting what is there. That’s it.

And as I frequently point out – Wikipedia.en tries to do this in English.

But Wikipedia cannot do this in the environment the present article is governed under. At least, it cannot do this when two editors are clashing the way we are – with overhead nearly as infinite as the same Jewish God you and I both worship in an Orthodox way.

And that’s perhaps the greatest irony of all. We are both Orthodox Jews, passionately committed to our Lord and Faith and way of life as revealed in Torah – both written and oral. That’s not our problem. Our problem is not that we are committed to our POV.

Our problem is that you believe our POV defines all reality and is in fact itself the definition of NPOV.

And I know it is not.

But I also know that Wikipedia will grow faster and better without the tendentious overhead the two of us create. Is Wikipedia better served by my tweaking an article that has nothing to do with Judaism while you own whatever articles you want? Sure it is. At least we won’t endlessly clutter talk pages so much that we finally crash the servers.

And you know what? Judaism articles will grow in spite of your ownership. They have to – because you are finite, and you cannot contain Judaism to the sphere of your own time and expertise (as great as those are). The entire corpus of Wikipedia will grow around you until it towers around the tiny islands of Judaism you keep down against the rising tide. No amount of sand bags could hold back the Red Sea once Moses lowered his staff.

So I’ll improve other articles in cooperation with other editors in support of NPOV.

Good luck with your sand bags.

And in the end, Wikipedia will be okay. You have a lot of great things to contribute. You are a talented writer, with great learning and great research to offer.

I do too. And so I propose that we keep out of each other’s way.

This is the last time I will interact with you on any article under this name. And in fact I will make a point of not interacting with you on any other name. Wikipedia is better with the two of us acting separately than together. You get to keep any article you want. You can say anything you want, with no argument from me. And if you come into another article and an editor leaves – it might be me, or Alastair, or Bikinibomb, or Egfrank. Or it could just be someone else.

But Wikipedia has more sandboxes than you can even visit, let alone control.

I’m going to go play well with others now.

All the best to you.Tim (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi[edit]

Tetragrammaton in the New Testament might be worth keeping an eye on.

Seems a bonkers idea to me, too. But in any case, by the first century AD, even from Hebrew texts the Tetragrammaton surely wasn't being read as such out loud. Jheald (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...[edit]

Say, have you ever heard of this site...

http://christianforums.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.252.163 (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sorry[edit]

It's not a problem; the workshop is there precisely so that discussion can take place. Kirill ^(prof) 15:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea[edit]

Tim, you have spent a good deal of time trying to understand each person's position and harmonize those with the your considerable knowledge of sources in the area. You have been bold, restrained, assertive and apologetic as required. Best of all you have been patient and showed you value harmonious relationships as much as accurate text.

Like you, I grew tired of having to spend time showing to others things that should have been addressed by third parties long ago. As you've seen, I've taken a week off from time consuming and unpleasant discussions, which were opened after content disputes had already been settled, thanks almost entirely to your own single-handed and level-headed involvement. Thanks for the break you gave me, now enjoy your own well-deserved peace.

I trust you will enjoy continuing to make your insightful and constructive contributions freely with a new name. And may others take to heart the appropriateness of the name you gave to this account, and address the issues that led you to choose it.

For your amazingly generous personal support at a time of great stress, I thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judaism Newsletter[edit]

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, ~~barnstars~~, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God or god[edit]

Hi, Ilkali! I hope this finds you well.
I'm writing because I've noticed that you've been changing the word God to god in articles, such as in this edit: [8]. I'm not entirely sure if this conforms to the manual of style, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Feel free to reply to here or on my talk page. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L'Aquatique. There are (roughly) two words in English pronounced as /gɒd/. One is the proper noun God, which references the subject of the article God, and the other is the common noun god, which denotes all deities. In a sentence like God is a god, the first noun is the proper noun and the latter is the common. The MoS says that the former should be capitalised and the latter shouldn't, but people tend not to grasp the distinction and instead capitalise all instances of either word. I decapitalise the common nouns per the MoS. Ilkali (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seems straightforward enough to me. Thanks for your time, have an awesome weekend! L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 04:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are decapitalizing more than the common nouns, and decapitalizing proper nouns as well. In a monotheistic context, God is not "a god," but rather "God is the God". "God is a god" is henotheism. Monotheism comes from two Greek words, Monos (alone, only) and Theos (God). Henotheism comes from two Greek words Hen (one) and Theos (God). Monotheism has a context in which there is only one true "God" -- He is the ONLY God, and is God ALONE. Henotheism has a context in which there is one God among others. In Henotheism, the word "God" can be either a proper noun or a common noun, because there are other gods to share the term "in common" (hence the "common" in "common noun"). In Monotheism the word "God" is always a proper noun, and in most Monotheistic religions it doubles as a proper name (i.e. we don't go around using names like "YHWH"). In a monotheistic context, "god" is a common noun meaning "false gods." "God is a god" therefore, means "God is a false god" in a monotheistic context. It is a syntactic structure prohibited by the fact that there are no other gods "in common" with God. I invite you to observe the MEANING of the word "common" and to restrict yourself to that usage.Tim (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You are decapitalizing more than the common nouns, and decapitalizing proper nouns as well". Not true. I reiterate that you do not understand this terminology.

""God is a god" is henotheism". "God is a god" is consistent with henotheism, but not characteristic of it. In English, "X is a Y" does not entail "There are other Ys besides X". It just means "X has all the necessary properties for being a Y".

"I invite you to observe the MEANING of the word "common"". Things denoted by common nouns do not need to be common. Please, read a textbook. Ilkali (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali -- I'll try one last time. The use of "gods" as a common noun requires a context in which there are other gods to share the noun in common (hence, the term "common"). In a present tense context, you and I are members of THE human race. In an evolutionary context we are members of A human race. So, "the human race is a human race" pulls us from a limited to a larger context. This is what you are trying to do with "God is a god." You are trying to take the monotheistic Deity into a broader context of all deities of all religions. In an external frame of reference this is absolutely correct. From that external context it is perfectly appropriate to say "God is a god."

But what about an internal context? Do we live on AN earth or THE earth? Is my wife A wife of mine or THE wife of mine? <-- Awkward syntax intended. Do we live in A universe or THE universe? That depends on your frame of reference. The same is true for A god or THE God. In an external frame of reference God is a god. In an internal frame of reference "God is a god" is polytheistic, and applies to religions in which multiple deities exist, just as "a wife" implies more than one, "a universe" implies more than one, "a human race" implies more than one, "an earth" implies more than one.

In any monotheistic text, whether the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Talmud, the Koran -- and in any theological textbook exploring those religions -- "gods" is not a term for actual beings that exist, but false deities. In an internal context "God is a god" is to hold God in common with a class of beings that do not exist. And here is the paradigm lock that you are presently in: to you God does not exist any more than any other god does. That's fine. I respect that. But you need to understand (as do we all) that your own frame of reference is not reflective of all frames of reference. There are paradigms beyond your own, in which terms are used in specific ways. The task of NPOV editing is to allow each POV to be natively expressed, but done so in a way that gives the same meaning regardless of the POV of the reader. To all non-monotheists, "God is a god" is perfectly acceptable. God is one of those deities people believe in. It's a bit odd to a polytheist, though, because he isn't sure from that naked statement which patron deity is being discussed. In henotheism, "God is a god" makes the best sense -- there is a primary and supreme (or patron) deity among others. In monotheism "God" (theos) is by definition "alone" (monos). As I said, "gods" are by definition nonexistent false superstitions in a monotheistic context. The relegation of "God" to a common class is offensive, as Lisa and Buster expressed to you. It's also inaccurate, as I've expressed.

You keep saying that I don't understand, or that I need to read a textbook. Look, Ilkali, that's the biggest thing that is keeping you from learning here. I don't know if it is deliberate or if you really are obtuse -- or (hopefully) that this is a simple blind spot based on the fact that you are looking at the topic from an exclusively external frame of reference. I like to think the last option, which is why I'm trying this last time to get through. If you are indeed an educated person, then you understand that framing in linguistics determines usage, and meaning. Our task, as Wikipedia editors, is to take each frame of reference and to communicate it accurately (as Lisa tries to do) in terms that have the same meaning to all frames of reference (as I try to do). In this instance Lisa and I have each disagreed with you -- and you'll note that we do so from different angles. Both of our angles agree that there is a problem to your application. We could differ on the extent, but we would each agree that there is a problem. And the problem is the frame of reference. "God is a god" fits ALMOST all frames of reference -- all but one... monotheism.

Is "God is a god" characteristic or consistent with henotheism? Most accurately it is characteristic with either polytheism (of which henotheism is a subset) or atheism. It is connotatively most consistent with henotheism (as I explained above), but works in those contexts. It is also consistent with a strictly external view of all religions, including monotheism. But an internal view is different. "God is a god" is neither consistent, nor characteristic of monotheism. You got the usage right for every possible context but the one the article in question is about.

All of this said, you can agree or disagree. I'm perfectly fine with your disagreeing. All I ask is that you comprehend the importance in framing in linguistics. My wife is not one of my wives. Externally, she is "a wife". Internally, she cannot be "a wife" in a monagamous culture. Externally, she is common to a class. Internally, she IS the class. "S is a wife of Tim's" is a statement that would have the police investigating me for bigamy.

If you persist in this, I will simply make your practice known to responsible editors if I encounter it elsewhere. I have no intention of edit warring, nor do I have an interest in imposing my own understanding over articles. It's simply a matter of letting third parties take a look when two editors disagree (such as you and I) -- and of both of us stepping aside while they find the middle ground. My internal application may be no more accurate than your external application. I could be flat wrong, you could be flat wrong, or each of us could be missing an essential piece of the whole. That's what third parties are good for. They are a fresh set of eyes. You see an impasse, you ask someone else to take a look, you make sure your point is expressed to the third parties, and then you step aside. But assuming that your frame of reference is the only legitimate one (either of us) is to only set us up for clashing with each other or other editors elsewhere.

And that's it. Personality plays a role here too. Lisa and I don't work well together. You and I don't work well together. All three of us have things to contribute and need to stay as separate as possible to keep from stepping over each other. As I wished Lisa the best, I wish you the best also. Please respect the fact that there are other educated, intelligent, and sincere people here. That's true of myself, of Lisa, and -- I hope -- you as well. Happy editing, and I would suggest that you correct less controversial "errors" that you find, so that you won't be slowed down in your progress by offended editors. There are a LOT of things in the MoS than need application (and in places the MoS will need fine tuning). That can keep you going for a long time. For my part, I'll try again, and keep trying till I succeed, to find places that are not controversial for me as well. If we are lucky, we won't step on each other's feet. Good luck!Tim (talk) 14:23, 7

September 2008 (UTC)

Tim. Thank you. Extremely well said. As clear as the bell from a church tower or a Mullah calling believers to prayer. I have not changed my belief, however, that the edits are vandalism of the highest order...intentionally irreverent and illuminate of an editing style that initiates conflict and hostilities. Wikipedia editing is not a contest to see who's entry will win. The editor in question is at odds with the World, as we know it. Sadly. his quarrel may not be with us! Allah abha!--Buster7 (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of "gods" as a common noun requires a context in which there are other gods to share the noun in common". Then the statement "there are no gods" presupposes that there are gods? Try again.

"You keep saying that I don't understand, or that I need to read a textbook. Look, Ilkali, that's the biggest thing that is keeping you from learning here". Such incredible arrogance. I am certain of my correctness because I have actually studied the material we're discussing, to the point that I've earned a degree in that field. You would not tell a physics graduate that he is wrong about physics or a biology graduate that he is wrong about biology. You need to learn that speaking a language does not make you an expert on it. Ilkali (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- then it is deliberate, eh? I could duel degrees with you, but that's beside the point. I could offer the title of a textbook I've actually written, or the seminary classes I've taught, but again that is beside the point. The point is that "there are no gods" is plural even as you have written it. And the point is that I have answered you in detail and with substance, and you've finally gone from belittling and dismissing to direct insult and an attempt to trump degrees. When I encounter your activity, I will report it to others who can safeguard their own subjects. I'll attempt to avoid your activity, because I find you most unpleasant to deal with and impossible to reason with. I can't even wish you the best without receiving an insult. As it stands, I have no intention of being another casualty like Alastair, and as such I have no intention of attempting to reason with you or to protect pages myself. Thankfully, most of the mistakes you have put in there are easily caught by others and so I don't even have to track them down. And you... you will be bucking a tide of what you perceive to be an ocean of ill informed humanity. Some will try to reason with you. Others will attempt compromise. Most will either avoid you or just revert your edits. And some of your edits will stick. But that's not my problem. Ultimately, making "God" into "god" doesn't do anything. It's defacement, but it doesn't destroy the essense of the articles you touch.

But I suggest that you don't go around trying to fool people into thinking you have a degree. If you could convince someone, it would only serve to lower their estimate of the school you attended, rather than to convince them of the correctness of inartful phrasing.

I'll be unwatching you now. Good luck bucking the tide. You'll succeed... for a while. But I guarantee you that if you don't watch your pages, and watch all of them, they'll eventually shift back to correct usage no matter how well you tried to embed your frame of reference. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. No single individual like myself has to guard anything, because you can't do more than a temporary defacement.Tim (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commendable effort, SkyWalker. The manna you offer has been refused...but it's nourishment is not wasted. Your presentations, here and at the Haines trial, are a fabric of benediction. The intended recipient may be too entrenched in his POV to hear, but I personally thank you for your effort and words.--Buster7 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question of Enforcement[edit]

I'm not clear about the enforcement of the arbcom regarding the Alastair Haines case. If someone is violating the restriction, how is that reported and who is that reported to? Thanks.Tim (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The decision provides for enforcement by block on the terms set out there. You can make a report at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard; just follow the instructions at the top of the page. --bainer (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record[edit]

For the record, and just so you won't accuse me of stalking you just because I edited Seven Laws of Noah shortly after you did, I periodically search terms of interest to me. When I searched "shittuf", that article came up. It's nothing personal. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Tim (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

afii[edit]

I replied on my talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Yahweh. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place below. Tiptoety ^talk 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Appears that another admin has unblocked you, though I will note I still feel you were edit warring (which can be done without violating WP:3RR)

Request handled by: Tiptoety ^talk 00:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SkyWriter (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I think. In any case, I tried to discuss this on your talk page, but I'm still blocked. If you don't mind, could you review the number of pages and the number of editors -- including an administrator (Gareth) -- who have been trying to reason with him? For some reason I'm still blocked, but that's not an issue right now. What we need is a better solution. A simple block for one day isn't going to solve the problem. SkyWriter (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post {{unblock-auto}}, that way I can resolve the issues around your autoblock. Tiptoety ^talk 00:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-auto}}?

Do not click "edit page" when coping the template, just copy it as you see it. Then paste it. Tiptoety ^talk 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok --

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

SkyWriter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

SkyWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Not provided

Blocking administrator: not provided.

Decline reason: Unblocked by another admin. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I tried. On the bright side, Alleichem won't be continuing his games for another 24 hours either. Sorry you got nailed. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that! Blocked for two reverts -- kind of funny when you think about it, especially since I reported him instead of going beyond the second revert. Oh well. Gives me a chance to finish some Dead Sea Scroll edits to my book. Have a good evening. SkyWriter (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'Aquatique tried to get me unblocked, but I'm still not able to edit. We definitely need to do something to deal with this situation. The user won't talk, he's multiplying the pages he's warring on, and it's tying up any progress we can make. Here's one series of edits alone -- Alleichem's edit on Yahweh.SkyWriter (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also discussed this with User_talk:Garzo.SkyWriter (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garzo and Sky. It's a little rude isn't it? " The user won't talk, he's multiplying the pages he's warring on, and it's tying up any progress we can make. " Have a look at my talk page, and the talk pages I have been on for every article and then say that statement. Lies, lies lies. Are you sure your allowed to edit? I know what's going on. I realised when you were banned for 24 hours. Alleichem (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did you realize -- and are you saying I'm Garzo? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Alleichem[edit]

An RfC has been started for User:Alleichem. Since you have been a party to disputes with this user, it would be helpful if you could post your opinion there. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already on it. Thanks. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sky...Please see my comment on Alleichem's talk...in Help me comment...I thought I was helping but I see now it may be a sockpuppet situation. But my kudo's to you and Lisa still stand.--Buster7 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buster! :-) SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser[edit]

I haven't been following the page. If you think there are edit patterns and behaviour that match previous sockpuppets, then make the case for a checkuser investigation to the top of the page at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mod objective, and then flag it with a template on the checkuser tracking page.

Difficult as the user might be, at least he seems to have learnt not to cite aliases nor hold discussions with himself.Jheald (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked the request slightly. For future reference: it has to be top-posted above the old archived complaint; it has to have a one-letter complaint code; it needs to have a special header template; and most important of all it needs to be added to the main checkuser page. All now done. Jheald (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you were right, he's now been confirmed as the same user, and will no doubt be blocked as soon as a friendly admin turns up. Jheald (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The friendly admin showed up :-). Thanks again for the help! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation link[edit]

Hi Garzo, I had hit this site www.pronouncenames.com which is a reasonable site for name pronunciation and so I added it into the external links, similar to howsjay, after reading through Wikipedia's external link requirements & conditions... did I miss something that it has been removed?

— Tweedledum and Tweedledee

(talk) 03:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to block my user account? I am not sure whats going on here :( Tweedledum and Tweedledee (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALASTAIR[edit]

Nope..have not seen or heard from him. sent an email about 2 weeks ago...no reply. Told him I would be busy till after US elections...not worried...should we be?...should I send a cabal, I mean cable?...I hope he was not consummed by one of the many evil DraGoNs that have been roaming about. Somebody should do something about them!!--Buster7 (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All is well. Hello both, I was thinking of you while my internet was unavailable. I have quite a backlog of email I'm starting working through today.

A power surge due to a large fire in a neighbouring suburb affected my network in ways that took me time to work out and then to replace hardware. All seems good now.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHEW! Glad you're back and healthy! SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped by to ask about our dear fiend,,,,I mean friend! Glad to see all is well...--Buster7 (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MJ article[edit]

I'm happy to continue discussion of the content on the relevant article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough -- what happened to the discussion we started? It looks like it disappeared. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally put it in the GA review section, not the actual article Talk: page. I moved it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todah rabbah. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English[edit]

Thank you very much. Of course, I need some help. For me, for now, it is only one way to improve my English. I am very busy for now, and I must to improve my Englisch if I want to publish some of my articles in this language. Although I can read in Englisch, German, French, Russian, and several other languages, writting in every of these languages is not easy for me. That is the fact, that is the true, and I can not change it. What shall I do? Thanks for your willingness. I have a lot of work, but I want develope a wikipedia, espacially English wikipedia. I undarstand, it is most important wiki. I need to improve my Englisch if I think about my future. Of course. It is the fact, it is the true, and nobody will change it even to the end of 21th century. Thanks for your willingness. English is not only one language, which I trie to learn... but it is very personally, it is not important, I am not Pole, I am not Ukrainian, or Belarussian.. I do not know who I am... It is difficult to live with it. I was born in Poland, I love Russian language, but I need learn English. In fact, I am a cosmopolitan. In every case, I am very gratefull for you, and for your willingness. Alastair Haines is busy for now. I see it. He is not edit for now. With great regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MJ[edit]

Let's work together on this article by discussing changes in talk first. Please. This whole round of editing was started by jayjg posting unsourced material which completely changed the consensus intro from before that simply said it was "a religious movement whose adherents believe" to one that was "christian funded." I found the first intro to be rather neutral and agreed to it and it's been fine for months (as well as have other MJs), if not over a year. There has been a significant history by the greater Jewish editing community to post a disclaimer on the page in some fashion or another, warning all other Jews that its "Christian and not Jewish." I understand the sentiment, but I find it unnecessary in a truly NPOV article since many Messianics reject the idea of being called Christian, nor giving the impression that it's "Christianity with a kippa" as some have called it - as some have implied or outright said that it's a group of people still keeping Christian holidays, not eating kosher, not keeping Torah, but just wearing kippas in order to attract unsuspecting Jews. This is a gross mischaracterization of Messianic Judaism as a whole, and misrepresents a truly NPOV view on the sect. It is people from all walks of life, not just Christians, that are turning to MJ in order to keep the Torah for its own sake, in imitation of the early Christians who did the same and are considered a sect of Judaism (after all "Christianity" didn't just make itself up on the spot but rather came about from several gentile groups splitting off from HaDerech to form a paganized mixture called Catholicism, denouncing and persecuting the "sabbath keepers" and those who keep Jewish customs well into the 4th century and in every century thereafter of anyone else who sought to return to the Torah and those Jewish customs kept by the first followers of Yeshua). inigmatus (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, he's being careful. He posted that ridiculous citation from Artscroll once, and reverted its removal twice. That's only 2RR. I've reverted the page back to the version before he started doing this. If he undoes my revert, that'll be 3RR by any reckoning. He's clearly edit warring, but so far, he's doing it carefully, to avoid any technical violation of the rules. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Artscroll material? Do us all a favor Lisa, and before you go on the warpath, actually do a cntrl+f find search on the article (now that I just undid your change) for the word "artscroll" - you won't find it. I've never added the ARTSCROLL material back in Lisa. If so, then its unintentional. Please prove which revert you are referring to that violates 3RR. This is getting ridiculous. Can we just talk this out or do you have to turn this into a battleground here? You're making threats that are uncharacteristic of a good faith editor and I suggest you either talk this out with me, or take a break from the article altogether. inigmatus (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means an expert on wiki, but Inigmatus has posted properly according to the common wiki practices and rules. Using personal bias it appears that there are 3 orthodox Jewish (or more) persons using their positions, authority and abilities to force POV on others. Sabotage of the article under the guise of "editing" is laughable. The citations used by Inigmatus were proper, legitimate and factual, whether or not they acceptable from an orthodox Judaic perspective or personal perspective, is actually beside the point according to wiki rules. Even according to wiki definitions Messianic Judaism is a sect. In actuality it is neither Orthodox Judaism by your definition, nor is it Christianity by theirs.

Start acting like responsible editors, and admins and act your ages and stop using POV and religious bias, it is actions like these that make wiki an "unreliable" resource. It is actions like these that cause good editors to leave, because they consider their actions to be futile and just the target of some one's agenda. Wiki editors are supposed to be NPOV, unbiased, impartial. Right now NONE of you can claim that. I want to see an accurate article, but I do not want to see a biased hack job. Maybe it is time for a Non Jewish, Non Christian, Non Messianic Jewish admin to come in and clean house. -NoTsuris (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing proper about using an Artscroll quote about the exclusion of early Christians to cite a claim for the inclusion of Messianic Jews. It's wrong on so many levels. First, you have to assume that "early Christians" = "Messianic Jews"; then you have to assume that "early Christians" DOES NOT = "Christians"; AND you have to assume that "Christians" DOES NOT = "Messianic Jews" -- and you STILL can't get there. It's absurd. The fact that another screen name called NoTsuris is on my talk page trying to push something that is such a stretch only makes me question the identity of that screen name. I'm sorry, but I don't know who you are. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro source[edit]

SkyWriter, why do you keep deleting the correction to the Shapiro source? According to [9], the source clearly says:

"Messianic Judaism is a largely American Jewish/Christian movement whose origins can be traced in the United States to Hebrew Christian missions to the Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Jesus people of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the resurgence of American Jewish ethnicity during the same decades. Messianic Jewish congregations are composed of both those born Jewish who accept Jesus as their savior and their Gentile supports who adopt a "Jewish lifestyle.""

Tell me, for sake of clarity, and source accuracy, where do you find this exact quote:

"Messianic Judaism is a Jewish/Christian movement whose origins can be traced in the United States to Hebrew Christian missions to the Jews in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Jesus people of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the resurgence of American Jewish ethnicity during those same decades. Messianic Jewish congregations comprise those born Jewish who accept Jesus as their Savior, as well as Gentiles who convert to Messianic Judaism. Worldwide the Messianic Jewish Movement can be traced to the London Society for the Promotion of Christianity among the Jews (now The Church's Ministry Among Jewish People), which was founded in 1809 and is the world's oldest extant Jewish Mission. In the United Kingdom there are a number of Messianic Congregations. They fall into 2 "camps". One, the British Messianic Jewish Alliance, is the world's oldest such Alliance, founded 1866. The other is the Union of British Messianic Jewish Congergations.""

Where is that quote found ANYWHERE in the source? Please give me page number as I am not finding it at all, and your modifications to a verified accurate source to one that is made up is nothing short of vandalism. inigmatus (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For sake of resolving this bad faith that you seem to have of me, I have posted in WP:WQA for comment on resolving our differences. inigmatus (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sky, do you have to have a vendetta against me? Why the 3RR? The change was self-reverted by another editor before I could get to it, and no 3RR occurred. Why are you persecuting me? Do you want to silence me once and for all, or do you want to really work together on the article? inigmatus (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inigmatus -- I don't have time for edit warring. I have a real life, and can't waste my time trying to responsibly edit around all these games. Just stop edit warring. It's a simple thing to do. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit warring. Quit making it out to be one. Just engage in talk instead of reverting changes whenever you see my name listed in the history log. I value your input, so please post in talk. inigmatus (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of Alastair is under attack[edit]

Miguel Mateo is a coin guy. Al and I both do some copy editing for him...great editor, fantastic contributions. See my talk...he is asking for assistance with some editors that are gang-raping his work. I will investigate today and tomorrow to see "what's happening" but I may reach out to you for advice. You have much more experience with azz-holes than either Mateo or myself. Thanks!--Buster7 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do -- let me know when you have some links handy. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab on MJ[edit]

Tim, if you have a chance, would you mind adding your two cents at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-23 Messianic Judaism‎? Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sticking it out Tim. I'm glad we could all find an agreement on the lede matter. Shalom. inigmatus (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Input[edit]

I noticed you deleted a mention of the SSBE, would you kindly explain why? [10] If there isn't a appropriate reason, I have every reason to restore my edit. Thank you. Kiddish.K (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable. WP:UNDUE SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think the only Bible that uses Yahweh in both OT and NT, and well-known through all SNM (Sacred Name Movements) isn't notable? Ever attended Dropsie, or Hartfard University? Kiddish.K (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come and join in the discussion about this issue. I don't see how else we can resolve this. To me it seems very plain. Kiddish.K (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former cleric[edit]

You said someone was missing from the list, whom? Shmuel Golding, perhaps? --Java7837 (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Shmuel Golding -- what was his name before converting? The one I mentioned doesn't have any reliable sources to go by. No one has written an article, and he's okay with that. His personal spin is that he'd rather be known for what he's given than for what he's given up. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit about God in Christianity[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to message me about it. But I don't think you should have reverted it because, in my opinion, my wording was good enough, especially since false information is always worded dead wrong. If you think the wording is bad, fix it yourself, don't revert it to false theology. As far as placement, I put good information on the same topic where the bad information was so I don't see what your complaint is even if it's described in greater detail elsewhere. As for citation, you yourself said it was theologically sound, so instead of reverting could you give me time to add one or help me with it (I'm not one of those controlling people who are always on Wikipedia) since it's better than what was there (which didn't seem to have a citation either by the way). So if I can I'm going to switch it back and see if I can make the passage any better. But please don't revert it again and keep me posted. Thanks again for not being like most jerks that run this site. Thebestlaidplans (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He says it, but not meant in the way the article suggests- the word "beginning" as used in Rev. 3:14 is translated "Head" or "ruler" in some versions. Since we agree Jesus wasn't created, we can conclude that "ruler" (expressed as "beginning" in the sense of "Alpha"?) is not part of creation but presides over it. Thebestlaidplans (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'tis the Season[edit]

--Buster7 (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Can you explain your edits to Bible translation articles with notes like "'The Comprehensive New Testament (noted in preface and graph on back cover) ranks the Jewish New Testament in fourteenth place in a comparison of twenty-one translations, at 70% accuracy to the Nestle-Aland 27th edition". This appears to be a non-notable publication with little current supporting comment and appreciation - unless you can show me otherwise of course. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, thanks for your note. There are a number of academic studies out there that have measured formal equivalence levels, and noted alexandrian-byzantine correspondence (in a generic fashion). Of the academic studies I've seen, this is the most complete measure I've been able to find, and the byzantine deviations are all translated and noted in 15,000 textual variant notes, mapped to all of the translations in the study. I noted the measure here in order to back up the statements of "high correspondence" and "medium correspondence" etc. The correspondence notes beg the question of "who says so?" The CNT was the best academic study I could find to back up the statements that were aleady in the text box. However, I can see truncating the note to simply read "The Comprehensive New Testament (preface and graph on back cover)" without the percentage and rank, if you prefer that. If you have a more "notable" study that gives the same measure, I'd be happy with that as well -- but I've been unable to find anything this complete on this specific metric. Do you have an alternate publication in mind? If not, then this is the most notable source for this specific metric. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a more appropriate source - however it makes me nervous when I see a source that gives "itself" such high ratings on its own scale or measure. The "back page" you mention appears more like advertising / propaganda for the 'The Comprehensive New Testament' itself. I am going to get hold of a copy myself as the propaganda appears to have worked in my regard and has "got me to get one". I would be less confident at this stage to push this as authoritative at this stage, especially in that the sources I looked at suggested it as a brand new publication. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Just a thought but your talk page looks a bit conversation heavy and could do with some archiving. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I'll try to do that this month. My interests and activities have changed as well, so that makes a lot of sense. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bible translation accuracy[edit]

Just curious - if the NASB is the 2nd most accurate Bible translation, what's the first? The CNT itself? Evercat (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful[edit]

Tim be very careful. I'm sorry but I must ask you to redact what you said about me on Alastair's page. It is actually not true. I presented a very balanced case at the RfAr. I have also asked Alastair to provide me with diffs showing his concerns. This is a warning to you Tim to assume good faith - the manner in which you & Lisa are conducting yourselves has not helped Alastair.
And for the record no Sysop is bound to do anything except follow the policies of wikipedia - we are volunteers. Making demands of people who are being generous with their time is counter-productive. Also don't demand on another party's behalf that redress of a legal or psuedo-legal nature be made to any sysop or steward or 'crat volunteering here on wikipedia. That would be a legal action and not for us to handle - please read WP:Libel, WP:OFFICE and thier associated pages. Please bear in mind that perhaps we are not able to do anything here becuase we cannot - because we're the wrong people to ask--Cailil ^talk 13:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. I realize that Lisa's comments maybe frustrating you but please don't engage her in conversation about Alastair - it isn't going to help--Cailil ^talk 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to ignore her in the future. Thanks for the tip.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim this is not helpful at all. Please stop making generalization about other editors (ie "those not lifting the block") - it wont encourage outsiders to look at the case in a fresh light and that's what needs to happen. Leave it be (and I don't mean just for a few hours) and wait for a new pair of eyes to come along. It might take a day or two but they'll come--Cailil ^talk 01:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List[edit]

You seem to be making some very serious allegations regarding other editors on the talk page of the list of converts to Judaism. Your assumption, and I have to think it is only an assumption, that any US President could be notable for that and nothing else is clearly, I think, odd, particularly given the amount of media around which would help ensure that he would meet notability on the basis of multiple independent sources. Worse than that, however, is your accusation that, and I quote, "Further, I propose that only sincere editors be included in the contra list. There are editors who SAY that other articles must exist, and yet REFUSE to help create them. Such editors cannot rationally be included in that list, since they do not even believe in their own supposed requirement," is potentially both a very serious violation of the wikipedia principle of WP:CIVILITY, as no one is required to spend time on a subject at all, and seemingly an attempt to rewrite one of the primary rules of wikipedia, WP:CONSENSUS. I would very strongly urge you to choose your words more carefully in the future. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made statements on the talk page which are I believe clear accusations of misconduct, with are both violations of WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. I very strongly urge you to cease from using such language. Continued use of such language can, at least potentially, lead to the person using such language being blocked, and does nothing to make anyone else have the opinion that a person making such comments is reasonable or able to be objective on the subject. I once again urge you to speak more civilly, and more on point. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, no one is obligated to help anyone else in creating articles. God knows that as someone trying to assess and tag the various Christianity articles, I could do it and nothing else, including sleep, for at least a month and still not get done. In wikipedia, the burden is always on those individuals who seek to add content. If they want to create an article, they have to establish notability. If they want to add something to an article, they have to establish that it meets the requirements of the article. Basically, from what I've seen, you are the person who wants to include the names. May I suggest that you make a list of the names you want to add, and then consult Google, or its subfunctions Google news, Google books, and Google scholar and see if you can establish that they are notable enough for a separate article. If you can prove they meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, then it will be much harder for someone to remove them. But it is incumbent on you to do this, if you want to see the material added. And, unfortunately, NPA applies whether the other party is being a jerk or not, although in the latter it might apply to them too. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't use any term, as they will all almost certainly be uncivil. You can however clearly and accurately say what the person has done, possibly in a slightly prejudicial way so that others coming into the discussion have a sense of your response to those actions. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last statement wasn't particularly clear. If what the other party is saying is that he needs to see those articles exist before the names can be added to the list, he is well within his rights to do so, and he has no obligation to help create the articles. If the case is something else, please specificy. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Sorry if I wasn't clear. I've quoted this several times from the notability guidelines: "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." This is such a notable event. When the other articles have been created, they've stood unchallenged even though this was the ONLY notability for the individual. There are five or six of these now, and it's wasteful. Since they all have the same notability, then list them in that single notable event, without 37 articles. However, I've offered to help the other party if he demands it. I think it's contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, but I'm always willing to collaborate. But he needs to make up his mind."

You make what others, including me, could easily see as a couple of mistakes in the above. You assume that your opinion that a conversion is so inherently notable is accurate. I have never seen anything in policy or guideline to support such a contention anywhere. If you know of anything different, please let me know. Also, you make blanket statements "when they have been created, they have been unchallenged, even though this is the only notability of the individual." I cannot know if this is accurate, as you don't cite your evidence or sources. However, even if the only other notability one has is a single magazine article or newspaper article and it is independent of the subject, that qualifies. Also, although other stuff may exist, that isn't necessarily grounds to say that this should as well. If you want to propose the deletion of the other articles, by all means feel free to do so, for the reason given. Alternately, you may try to add material regarding these subjects, and maybe those in the names you seek to add, to the Conversion to Judaism article. Certainly, if the material is verifiable and encyclopedic, it can be added somewhere. However, it is not necessarily going to be to where you want it to be initially. That's the way it works around here, for better or worse. Also, I very much urge you to cease the reversion war on the article. Right now, your additions would be seen as being, according to what appears to be the current consensus as it now exists on the subject, the "at fault" part. Continuing to re-add the material could and very likely would result in either the article being protected, your being blocked, or possibly both. Consider this a formal warning to cease to reinsert the information without a clear consensus for it to be included. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your presumptuous comments which you added to my user talk page have been deleted. Please be advised that showing the, really, arrogance and bad temper you clearly displayed in those comments will do nothing but further alienate others, something at this point you cannot easily afford. You seem to be making a very serious mistake that your opinion of the matter, seemingly against consensus, takes priority over the existing consensus. You are very clearly wrong, according to policy, in that opinion. Continuing to act in the way you have just acted could also be potentially cause for other forms of disciplinary action. I would very seriously urge you to drop the apparent arrogance you have regularly displayed regarding this subject and learn to behave a little bit less confrontationally and dramatically. John Carter (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You stated that you have a willingness to be corected. Then you should realize that what you seek to add to the article does not qualify for inclusion in the article at this point according to the existing consensus regarding policy and guidelines. And I once again urge you to drop the arrogance and accusatory comments you make. They do nothing but cause other editors who deal with you to, unfortunately, have a harder time not having a significantly diminished opinion of you. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy at WP:CONSENSUS is arguably the most important policy in wikipedia. The apparent consensus is not to include the material. And you have now, with your exremely rude insistence on using all caps, which is a blatant violation of WP:TPG, along with several other aspects of your behavior, which also run contrary to policy and guidelines, actually achieved what I had hoped would be avoided, specifically, alienating one of the few people who seemed to be willing to speak to you comparatively calmly. You, yourself, seemingly are incapable of doing so. I am now formally requesting that you cease sending any further communications to me on my talk page. Personally, given your repeated ill-mannered, arrogant, demands, I have no reason to actively want any further contact from you on that page, and request that you limit your comments to the talk page of the article in question. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? John, I'm not the one who threatened you, but you who threatened me. I'm the one who appealed to guidelines and requested correction. You have neither appealed to guidelines specific to the content nor have you been open to correction. I don't think that, in comparison, I'm the one being arrogant. I've asked for even handedness, and if you don't want to give it, that's fine. But that IS how collaboration occurs. Please refrain from threats in the future, and simply discuss the issue in a collaborative way. Lead by example. You are an admin. That's not just a power, but a responsibility.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Passover and Easter[edit]

I'll be away from Wikipedia for a few days, and I wish everyone a lovely Passover and a Happy Easter. All the best to you and yours.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating our policy against legal threats.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

In reference to OTRS ticket 2009040310049955. — Coren ^(talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

It would appear I have mistakenly identified you as the author of Alistair Haines's publisher's email. In any rate, your explicit not-threat would have been more than adequate to have you unblocked. Please accept my sincere apologies for both the original misidentification and the delay in responding to your request (the latter being caused by my being away with family. — Coren ^(talk) 13:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: — Coren ^(talk) 13:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I have asked Coren to tell us what edit of yours he believes constituted a threat of legal action. At any rate, if you indeed do not intend to take legal action, I suggest you make the following statement below to make things clear: "I do not intend to take any legal action against Wikipedia or any editors or persons associated with it. Accordingly, I unequivocally withdraw any statement that could have been construed as a threat to that effect." Sandstein 06:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: I never conceived of taking legal action against Wikipedia or anyone else on the planet, and unequivocally state that I know of no statement to that effect. If any is ever shown to me, I'll be happy to withdraw it. If not, I'd appreciate at least a "oops" from the admin involved. That's not a threat of legal action -- it's a request for some civility. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing things now (just back from my family for the Easter long weekend) and will respond shortly. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coren -- and welcome back.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi Coren, I've been away for a few days. Did I miss something? My only point on Alastair's page was that we should err on the side of civility when a question of WP:LIBEL arises. Even if an admin doesn't think a statement is defamatory, he should delete it as if it were -- unless for some reason the statement about the user were absolutely essential to be maintained for some reason. That's not a legal threat. I think I also said that I certainly believed WP:LIBEL did indeed apply. Suggesting that we follow our own policy isn't a legal threat.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Coren to reconsider the block here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ottava.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, could you also help me figure out what the heck happened? I went away for Passover for three days and was a little stunned.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many admin see something that appears to be "threatening" and is similar to something "legal" and deem it as a violation of WP:NLT (No Legal Threats), which results in an indefinite block until the "legal threat" is resolved. It is one of the sketchier of the blocking justifications and tends to cause problems. You were caught up in it. In order to protect yourself in the future, try to keep to words that are less blatant - instead of "libel", say that the language is inappropriate or inflammatory. That way, there are no excuses or possible mistakes. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've actually been trying to help mediate a NLT with Alastair Haines -- and now we're both blocked. As far as I know, he's rescinded any legal sounding statements he's made and stated that he is making no legal threat. For the life of me, I don't know why the uncivil statements he's complained about aren't just removed. We do have a policy on that. Although I can't speak for another user's thoughts, I can certainly say that making a legal threat has never even occurred to me. I'd be grateful if someone could show me what they think is a legal threat.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see my post to Coren[11]. I think Coren actually explained his reasons on ANi and in the block log. He (mis)identified you as the proxy who contacted OTRS off-wiki in regard to Alastair. But I've asked if there's another reason--Cailil ^talk 14:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been talking to editors and admins on and offline to figure out how to get both sides to drop their weapons long enough for the emotions to cool down, and I've followed as much advice as I could get (as best I could, I know I couldn't follow yours as well as I'd have liked). But I've not contacted any editor or admin named OTRS.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel stupid. I just looked up OTRS and found the Wikipedia OTRS. I did not contact Wikipedia OTRS. Is that the way to resolve my own issue? I really never learned the ins and outs of this.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do in regard to OTRS is to do nothing. At least right now - Coren will be able to shed some light on this soon, I hope. My advice now is to leave the situation with Alasatir alone for the time being - it's really out of our hands - go back to editing as productively as you can--Cailil ^talk 15:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But Alastair and I seem to be tied at the hip on this one. I can't imagine his actually asking someone to make some kind of legal threat at the precise time that he was changing his terminology to remove any perceived threat. In any case, I'll ask around offline and see if I can figure out what the heck is going on.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calil -- it might be helpful if I have an idea of what was said or who said it. What precisely was the legal threat? Do you have the text or part of it?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know I'm looking into this. Posted a query to Coren's user talk. Durova^Charge! 16:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Duvora. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calil -- could you send me an email? I think I've gotten to the bottom of this. Coren jumped the gun on "what", but I can see how he mistook me for the editor who asked for help. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, actually until I see some info from Coren I don't want to comment any further. I'd also recommend Tim that you don't make comments about editors - think about Alastair's objection to certain edits, if users just avoid making any kind of personalized assumptions there wouldn't be a problem - so please relax until Coren sheds some light on the matter. If you want to send me an email go ahead but I am not privy to the OTRS ticket - all the info I have is the info Coren posted--Cailil ^talk 22:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quandary: it's been a day and no word from Coren yet. All else being equal, I'd rather not head to the admin boards about this because of the potential for drama. But it isn't fair to SkyWriter to keep this on hold, since s/he is being polite and cooperative. In order to check this out properly it seems to be necessary to either get word from Coren directly or to get word from somene who has access to the OTRS queue he's cited. Any suggestions? Durova^Charge! 22:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor having the OTRS checked, if possible. I know nothing about how that works, but I think User:Cirt does, and you to seem to get along fairly well. Would it maybe be possible for him to check it? I honestly don't know one way or another myself, but, if things don't change pretty fast regarding Alastair's unresponsiveness, like by tomorrow morning US time, I'd definitely think that would be a reasonable option. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really avoid placing Cirt in any kind of delicate position. Cirt is currently a named party in an arbitration case, and under scrutiny. Yesterday the community scrutinized a block that Coren had made. The circumstances are such that if one were determined to construe mischief, it might be arguable that political overtones could exist in connection with those two circumstances. There ought to be plenty of other people whose opinions would be absolutely above doubt. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the arbitration, actually, but forgot it for a second here. Stupid me. But anyone else we reasonably get along with who has OTRS would probably work as well. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have OTRS but am not in the right queue. Know anybody? Durova^Charge! 00:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about OTRS, I'm afraid. I see User:Avraham, who I have infrequent contacts with, and that's about it. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Ironically this helped get me off of my tuchas outlining my next book. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that gracious reply, SkyWriter. That takes a lot of pressure out of the situation. John, at OTRS one gets into certain queues and the tickets one can access pertain to those queues. So although I have OTRS access I don't have the right access. Am thinking what other options exist, besides the admin boards (where it's pretty certain that someone with access will notice, but also quite likely that drama would ensue). I never go on IRC; someone might be there (anyone else reading this page who does go there?)... Nobody at WikiVoices has the right queue access; I've already checked. This doesn't seem to pertain to an arbitration case or I'd email the arbitration list? Fielding ideas here. Possibly Coren's offline because of the holiday. Durova^Charge! 01:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the holiday would have something to do with it. In any case, I think I've been putting off this holocaust bio long enough. Even outlining it is tough, but the man I'm working with is 95, and delaying it isn't fair at all. Better to delay me on Wikipedia than my older friend on his real life. I'd appreciate it if everyone erred on the side of Alastair here when you get a chance. I really felt we were within a few days of having the entire problem solved on every possible angle. Alastair was budging. Calil was offering to help with strikeouts. I'd backed up the material I needed from another content dispute. Even my in-laws were great during the holidays and the stock market was up ;-). This last was just... unnecessary. I feel like the ban just wasted the time we've all spent getting this close to rapproachment on a very long Wiki-distraction. Do your best, and enjoy the evening. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of Intention on Alastair's Page[edit]

The NLT impasse regarding Alastair had two elements. 1) the statements Alastair regarded as "defamatory" and 2) Alastair's use of the word "defamation." To solve the impasse 1) I encouraged Alastair to treat the "defamation" as "incivility" (and withdraw any perceived threat per WP:NLT) and 2) I encouraged the Admins involved to treat the "incivility" as "defamation" (and delete the material per WP:LIBEL).

Both of these needed to occur, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

I've recently found, however, that quoting Wikipedia guidelines to an Admin is not a healthy thing to do (probably no more helpful than quoting them to any other editor). In one instance an admin threatened to block me (just a few sections up) for a guideline issue on an article, and even called me a precocious teenager on the admin noticeboard (if you need me to link it, I can do that too). In another instance I was blocked for NLT.

Folks -- this isn't complicated. Assuming good faith is something that most editors and admins do here. If an editor fails to do it (including myself), it's disruptive. If an admin fails to do it, things escalate way beyond control (because the admins are supposed to themselves be that control).

I've asked for guidance and suggestions here from both editors and admins and tried to condense all this, but it really just boils down to all of us having a regard for guidelines more than for our individual honor. Violating NLT, violating LIBEL, violating AGF do nothing more than create disruption on Wikipedia and wastes everyone's time -- both editors and admins.

The first part of the Alastair impasse was successful. He withdrew any perceived threat. That took way too much time. The second part would take an admin about an hour: going through "Gender of God" talk archives, the Alastair arbcom, and Alastair's talk page and doing a "civility strikeout" on any unnecessarily uncivil statements toward Alastair. As I said, this isn't complicated. We can fight and bicker for months on end, or we can all take a little step toward each other and treat a massive waste of time as the simple civility problem it's always been.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A clarifying statement of facts[edit]

Hi all,

I appreciate there is some confusion here as to the nature of the block. Unfortunately it seems Coren is unable to respond, caused by (at best guess) the current Easter holidays, which has led to him not editing over the last 72 hours or so. As I was both involved (in a way) with this issue, and have OTRS access, I feel it appropriate to make a statement. I apologise if any part of this comes across as vague; however, as the contents of OTRS correspondence is considered privileged and confidential, I have to toe the line very carefully in what I say here.

On 3 April at around 18:00 UTC, OTRS received an email sent by someone, who was both "a user of Wikipedia" and someone who conceded they had a professional relationship with Alastair. This email was, quite simply, a continuation of the sort of content that Alastair has been writing which ultimately led to his indefinite block and subsequent ban from the English Wikipedia, claiming that Wikipedians had defamed Alastair and demanding that the allegedly-defamatory content be removed within 30 days.

My reply to the email, sent on 7 April at around 12:00 UTC, was:

Thank you for your email. All content on Wikipedia pages is governed by a
consensus of editors, and as such we're unable to help you, particularly given the
status of Alastair as a banned editor due to repeated and continuous complaints of
being "defamed".

As a Wikipedia editor, you would be best to seek a resolution by following the
steps at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR>, as the email response team cannot
and will not intervene in disputes such as this.

I also drew the Arbitration Committee's attention to the email and reply on April 7, by way of an email to their closed mailing list. At this stage, Alastair was still banned from the English Wikipedia, and as I noted in my email to their mailing list, when I said "I felt it was pertinent to let you know as I believe he has, or plans to, appeal his ban to the Committee". I received an acknowledgment of receipt and thanks from Kirill Lokshin the same day.

It came to my attention two days later, on 9 April, that Alastair had been unblocked following a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard. I brought the most recent email to the attention of Arbitrator Coren (who also had OTRS access), who I requested notify the Arbitration Committee of this development in light of the email I had sent to the Committee two days prior. Coren agreed with my (personal) assessment that the email in question meant that Alastair's block should be reinstated indefinitely. As far as I can tell, the issue of whether Alastair remains blocked or not in light of the email sent to OTRS is not significantly disputed; rather, the block of SkyWriter is.

The person who emailed OTRS identified themselves as a Wikipedian, and by extension of the action taken against Alastair, it was only logical that the same action be taken against the emailer. Coren felt that the "duck test" applied that it was SkyWriter, in the absence of any IP or other identifying data in the email, based on behaviour, the exact content of the email (which I unfortunately can't post here for further analysis due to the privacy policy; as I said in my opening, I had to be really careful what I've said and what I've omitted so far), and also a section on Alastair's talk page from SkyWriter which matched up both linguistically and content-wise with the email received. I concede I agreed with his summary of the facts and the subsequent conclusion he offered.

SkyWriter contends clearly and without twisting words that the emailer is not him; I'm inclined to offer him the assumption of good faith and take him to his word. Given the above dialogue, which includes the statement of non-involvement and also the various retractions of any perception of legal threats on the issue, I would support an unblock of SkyWriter. However, given Easter is nearly over and hopefully Coren will be returning to active editing shortly, I think it would be equally-courteous to offer him the chance to add to my thoughts prior to any unblocking. However, that decision is entirely up to consensus.

As an important clarification, I speak only for myself in the above summary, not Coren nor the OTRS team nor the OTRS administrators or (obviously) the Wikimedia Foundation. I am open to being contradicted or else have my statement scruitinised by other OTRS volunteers as to the facts it portrays.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, thanks for your note. I know you aren't able to give too many details, but could you at least tell us what the actual threat was? You left that part out.

I did my own duck test and looked through the Admin discussion at [12]. The only thing I could find was this from Bali:

Well, this [13] sure makes it look like he was involved somehow.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I clicked on the link all I got was my wishing everyone a Happy Passover and Easter, and Coren's immediate response blocking Alastair as if he had made a threat.

What puzzles me the most, though, is your response. If I understand you correctly, were you saying that you were not allowed to delete any potential defamation precisely because Alastair had claimed to be defamed? Isn't that kind of a Catch 22? I'm unclear exactly how a person is supposed to get such things removed if they can't ask the admins for help.

In any case, back to the duck test. I've solicited a good bit of free advice on how to cut through this conundrum, and it's quite likely I've used some of that advice in my own wording. None of that advice had anything to do with legal threats. The best advice I got was to 1) get Alastair to follow the WP:NLT guidelines so that 2) the Admins would follow the WP:LIBEL guidelines. That reminds me very much of the Catch 22 in your own answer.

And that's exactly what I did. I asked Alastair to follow the WP:NLT guidelines. He did so, and got unblocked. I then asked the Admins to follow the WP:LIBEL guidelines. Then we both got blocked. Alastair did not ask me to write anything at all, BTW, either on or off-line. I didn't ask anyone to write anything either. The initiative came from me, and Alastair did his part.

But, again, no one I know of would have even thought of a legal threat, and I don't see one in your note. Is it possible you inferred something that wasn't implied? That's certainly what happened with myself here, and may have been the case with your correspondent as well. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three questions:

Did Daniel or Coren or anybody else ask SkyWriter whether he was the author of that email, before Coren blocked SkyWriter indefinitely?
Independently, I found an OTRS volunteer who has no connection to this matter who agreed to review the ticket. The question I asked him was: "Do you see any legal threat in it?" Simple yes or no; it's not my business what the content is. He reported that he did not, and afterward I suggested consulting with a second OTRS volunteer who had access to the same queue. So my second question is, Daniel, do you see a legal threat in that ticket? Simple yes or no.
Third question, also to Daniel: (especially pertinent if you chafe at answering question 2 as a simple yes or no, and want to invoke the long history of Alistair Haines etc.), imagine yourself in the position of an unblock request reviewer. Did Coren provide adequate explanation of this block?

Very curious about this. Durova^Charge! 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see, if the identity of the emailer is unknown, how this can be used as evidence. It could for example be the case that a third party maliciously decided to muddy the waters and seal Alastair Haines' fate (as well as Tim's) by cutting and pasting words from Alastair's talk page to make him look bad. Unless Alastair has sent something himself in which he clearly identifies himself, it's quite unclear how to come to any definite conclusions. The thrust of the email, as hinted at above, does not seem consistent with what Alastair said at great length after the email was sent (April 3), while he very gradually came to terms with the phrasing and content of Durova's suggested unblock statment, an epiphany of sorts. Is there really any kind of precedent for a "duck test" for anonymous (?) emails, if that's what they were. It's all far too like an Agatha Christie "poison pen" detective story. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Math. I'd agree that it was something akin to an epiphany. We've all worked very hard on this, trying to hit every possible angle to resolve the NLT in a way that it wouldn't crop up again. Calil was offering to check into any diffs Alastair wanted revised, and had even stopped a user from posting ad hominem attacks on Alastair's page for six months. Alastair had revised his own wording as he had been advised, and I was revising my own words as I was advised (though not as briefly as Calil asked). Another editor actually helped me by showing which policies applied and why. It all seemed to be drawing to a well sought after resolution all around -- a resolution nearly everyone earned and deserved. And it looked like a permanent one as well. With the ad hominem being stopped, and a few diffs to clear up, there would be nothing left for Alastair to complain about in the future. I can't see any reason for Alastair to blow everything up on the verge of getting exactly what he wanted (i.e. the diffs corrected). It's almost as if someone wanted to move the debate from Alastair's page to mine. But I'm easy -- I'll throw in practically any wording people ask me to if it will end something amicably (and I'll mean it). I would appreciate it, though, if this latest block proves... trigger happy... that Alastair not remain blocked for something that 1) may have never been a threat (as Duvora's source suggests) and 2) makes no sense for Alastair to have done. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SkyWriter: The OTRS team does not intevene in situations where editors are in dispute about content on the English Wikipedia. This policy is not negotiable, hence my response. If a consensus of editors, or in this case administrators, won't remove the content, there's nothing OTRS can do. This was the reason for my response to the email. The fact that the email contained the same sort of content that Alastair had been spewing out only means that it's very unlikely consensus would changed based on the contents of the email, should I act on them.

Durova: 1) No. 2) I disagree with this unnamed "agent" in their analysis, and do believe that demanding that alleged defamation be removed within 30 days does constitute an actionable statement per the 'No Legal Threats' policy. I also ask that you name the OTRS agents you requested review this ticket so I can cross-check that your statement is an accurate representation of theirs. 3) As an action in response to an OTRS ticket, yes, he did, given the circumstances. What is regrettable is the unavailability of him in the last 72 hours or so.

Daniel (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel: he has been offline all day. Bear in mind he wasn't familiar with all the complicated background here, and wasn't at liberty to give me anything more than the simplest of replies. We did plan to double check with a second OTRS volunteer, in case something like the wrinkles you describe did emerge. Since it seemed possible in a long and tiresome dispute that some kind of good faith misunderstanding occurred in either his reading or my understanding of his very abbreviated summary. Email me and I'll gladly supply his name; two heads are better than one. Durova^Charge! 03:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel -- in what way was this about a content dispute? Uncivil, ad hominem, or defamatory statements never qualify as legitimate content on Wikipedia. To treat it as such violates Wikipedia guidelines and common decency. Please state exactly which potentially defamatory statements you seriously regard as "content." Besides, this wasn't an article about Alastair. This "content" was on talk pages. Exactly when are talk pages regarded as "content"?

Further, you are being unnecessarily vague, and it's not making any sense. As for legal threats, what exactly was the threat? A request without an "or else" is not a threat -- it's just a request. Please state clearly and unambiguously what the threat was, and how this person claimed to be me. You have me completely at a disadvantage defending myself against a phantom letter that doesn't even sound actionable to begin with. I believe I've been rather patient here, but I think it's fair to at least give some specific charge of an actual threat. I'll be glad to rescind all threats other people didn't seem to make, if that makes you happy -- but you've given me no real way to respond, and nothing in reality to respond to.

Seriously -- with a straight face -- tell me exactly how I'm supposed to remedy this?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Clarification of the Mess[edit]

The Alastair case was (and apparently still is) much less complicated than all of us have made it:

He didn't like the way someone talked about him, and no one liked the way he complained about it.

Apologies for the emphasis there, but that's basically it in a nutshell.

Here's what should have happened:

1) Alastair apologizes for the way he complained and we all show goodwill and delete the statements he doesn't like. or 2) We all show goodwill and delete the statements he doesn't like, and then Alastair has nothing left to complain about.

Either way, the problem would have been solved last year.

All the rest of this is... not helpful.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, first of all Alastair got blocked for this before - NLT is non-negotiable. What is also non-negotiable is volunteers taking legal responsiblities onto themselves. This is just not going to happen. Any legal or semi-legal or pseudo-legal acts have to be done by the office.
If there is a problem with certain edits (ones that I have asked Alastair to list in diff form about 5 or 6 times now and I'm still waiting) he needs to specify them. If he does this we can examine them under the site's policies and remove them if they fall under the criteria for remval in WP:NPA or WP:TALK.
Alastair also repudiates the ArbCom finding in a very unclear manner. He need to resolve that himself or there will be no progress. All the above is what I've meant by Alastair having to come half way--Cailil ^talk 12:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that Alastair was blocked for this before -- but he had just repudiated any legal action. And if I understand the timeline here... didn't he repudiate any legal action after this phantom email? Even if the email did contain a threat (which we're still waiting to find out about), his repudiation of all legal considerations would cover that as well (at least for himself). There is also the question of if Alastair knew about the email, what he would have known, and when he would have known it (kind of the Nixon test). This block could have surprised Alastair as much as it did me.

In any case, thanks everyone for popping in. Special thanks to Duvora for being a calming influence.

My question now is -- what now?

What, specifically, did the phantom email threaten?
If the answer is nothing, Alastair should be unblocked.
If the answer is something specific, did Alastair know about the email or commission the email?
If yes, his public repudiation of all legal considerations covers the email too, and Alastair should be unblocked.
If Alastair did not commission the email, he should be unblocked.

I think the only way Alastair could remain blocked would be if:

He knew about the email in advance.
The email contained a specific threat.
His repudiation of all legal actions or intentions does not cover the email.

We cannot know about the first point unless the email or Alastair claim prior collusion. And even then, there is the question of the credibility of the email itself.

We have mixed answers on the second point. Daniel and Coren insist there is a credible legal threat but refuse to say what that threat is. There is no "or else" in any of their descriptions -- and Duvora's source gives the opinion that no legal threat is present.

But the third point is the clincher: Alastair publically and completely repudiated any and all legal intentions. That includes his part (if any) in any phantom email.

I cannot see any rational way to retain a block on Alastair. The email doesn't seem to be from Alastair. The email doesn't seem to contain a legal threat. Even if it did, Alastair repudiated all legal threats -- which would include even those inferred by Daniel or Coren.

In other words -- there is no way to even imagine that Alastair should be blocked.

I think this was an emotional reaction to prior events. I don't think Coren is to be blamed for an initial emotional reaction. It's like offering to pet an abused puppy and getting your fingers nipped. In this case, Coren is the puppy. There is no blame. But neither is there any justification. We need to all take a step back this holy week, all say "oops" and "sorry" all around (whether warranted or not), shake hands, and come out editing.

Any takers? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim and welcome back! I agree with you that it would be good if the mystery email could be clarified. At the moment these events don't seem to make any sense at all. Mathsci (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mathsci. In Coren's defense, he seems to have gotten pretzled by the time sequence. The email came before Alastair repudiated all legal intentions. But Coren found out about it after Alastair repudiated all legal intentions. Objectively, even if Alastair Haines claims to be the author of the email, his later repudiation of any legal intentions would have covered anything in it. But subjectively, to Coren (or any admin), this would seem like something new because he found out about it afterward. The timeline covers this email in the previous unblock, and doesn't apply to a second block.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this comment--Cailil ^talk 17:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're his publisher?[edit]

You're Alastair's publisher? Wow... that explains a lot. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Lisa, do you really have to keep doing this? I've been trying to diffuse this situation for months now, and you keep throwing a monkey wrench in. I am not Alastair's publisher. You and I are writers, remember? Not publishers.

And while I mentioned that, why aren't we two working on a paying job instead of wiking around here?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW[edit]

Just wanted to say that I feel like everyone is visiting me in an intensive care ward. You don't have to be here, and I appreciate the time everyone is taking to stop by.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		Civility Award
		For unflappable patience and civility responding to a mistaken block until the blocking administrator returned and lifted it with apologies. A comedy of errors and a holiday weekend delayed the correction much longer than would ordinarily occur. For good sense and optimism that could give a happy ending to anything, please accept a well-deserved barnstar. Durova^Charge! 15:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks! And thanks again for being a special calm in the storm. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in the future. If you ever find yourself in a situation like this again, please drop me an email. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Hopefully I won't need to! :-) SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sky[edit]

This post is a twofer - firstly to mention that the wiki-inhabitants of Sydney are having a 'meetup' (well actually 2!) - and I wondered if you might be interested in popping along. We're a friendly bunch of writers, developers, and sort of hangers-on (that's me) and it'd be great if you happened to be in this neck of the woods if you fancied it (I'm just making wild assumptions here based on your contact with Alistair, so apologies if you're shivering in far away reykjavik or somewhere!).

Secondly, I've followed the broo ha ha above, and I think there are probably still lessons to learn, and obviously Alistair's block needs to be reviewed fully as quickly as possible.... I also chat about wikipedia stuff on another site called 'Wikipedia Review' which, though it has a bit of a reputation as rather anti-wiki, in my opinion offers some really good wheat amongst the chaff. It's also the only online forum I'm aware of where discusison of what might be called 'meta' stuff is encouraged. Anywhooo... I started a thread about this situation, and thought you might like to know - it's here. Hope you're well regardless, and cheers for now! Privatemusings (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An update for you, Sky :-) - I've mentioned the whole situation here, as part of the 'arbitration process' - the 'highest' level of dispute resolution here on the wiki (or maybe the lowest, I suppose it depends which way you see things ;-) - it seems likely that the arbitration committee (made up of about 14 users) will have to say something one way or another in order to resolve this - input is allowed / encouraged from one and all (although the briefer the better, I find!) and your thoughts may well be valuable. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration[edit]

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. MBisanz ^talk 05:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus, it had no boobs ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)sorry, am finding this whole thing a bit ridiculous, and boob jokes are just one chap's way of wading through it :-)[reply]

Actually Tim I need you to read through your statement again carefully. This is now the third time 9and you're the third person that) I've had to point out the difference between a block and a ban in this case. Please do not be so casual about these terms. A ban is very different from a block. No ban exists. Indefinite blocks are actually temporary measures made in the express hope and belief that they will be lifted--Cailil ^talk 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- I was under the impression that Coren intended for Alastair to never come back. I'll try to trim it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deuterocanonical or apocrypha[edit]

Hi SkyWriter,

You said an apocryphal book was one whose canonicity a publisher either rejects or places in a secondary status. You stated parenthetically that the secondary status canonicity was deuterocanonical. But this is not what deuterocanonical means; it means (among other things) fully canonical. I'm not really aware of any bibles with apocrypha sections populated by books that the publisher considers deuterocanonical.

Your statement about secondary status (never mind deuterocanonical) may be true, but that is no reason to eliminate the mention of the word "doubt" that your edit erased. The provided reference specifically mentions that the apocrypha are works whose canonicity is doubted.

You pointed out that the article contains a paragraph on the Gutenburg bible and another one on the Septuagint, and that these do not contain apocrypha sections. It could be argued that these editions have no place in the Biblical apocrypha article. But I think they are of some interest in that they provide a contrast to the practice of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries in that they place the books called apocrypha in the Old Testament. The brief paragraph on the Gutenburg bible provides background and contrast for the paragraph on the Clementine Bible which follows it. The paragraph on the Septuagint provides a counterpoint to the practice of Western bible publishers with whose work this article is most concerned. Rwflammang (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

take care in how you quote others[edit]

Tim, I realize you are concerned for Alastair but please could you take more care in how you quote and paraphrase other editors. What Coren said and what you say they said are very different.
In general when talking about others or detailing what others have said or have done then sometimes saying very little is best, and sometimes saying nothing at all is even better. Alastair's current issue is being dealt with in confidence - hence my suggestion that it is left it to those involved to discuss it. After all discretion is the better part of valour--Cailil ^talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Thank you very much. Currently I am working on - Textual variants in the New Testament. It is also subject of your interest. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Karl Alter - ending of this article is not good - "he gave more material for the future textual criticism". Maybe "he gave more material for the scholars who worked in the area of the textual criticism" or in other better way. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture[edit]

Hi Sky, i appreciate what you're doing. I'd like to come to a consensus rather than an edit war. Here's a great book on dispensationalism, see if they have it at the library: Gospel and law: Contrast or continuum? : The hermeneutics of dispensationalism and covenant theology by Daniel P. Fuller ^[1] Osprey9713 (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both need a sabbatical from wikipedia. No matter how hard either of us try to improve the article, all our work will be lost. This is why I usually give up on wikipedia. Enjoy your sabbattical. Osprey9713 (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God in Christianity.[edit]

Why did you restore the artical?

The artican is smelling strongly like a plug for Trinitarinism with just some token refrences to people that don't belive in the creeds on Nicea. In face the explanation of god the father jesus and the holy spirit is right out of the Trinitarin playbook!!! 216.180.189.229 (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to Tim[edit]

I'm impressed how much time you're spent editing wikipedia. It seems that you are passionate about the bible and do diligent research. I recommend that you put all your ideas into a book, because arguing on wikipedia is like arguing with fools, and they will just erase all the hard work you did over night. Who knows if your edits will stick, even if they are good edits? Why not write a book instead? No one will remember you or your contributions if they are only in wikipedia. Write up a manuscript, submit it to zondervan and then you might change some people's minds. Osprey9713 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the book about? Osprey9713 (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture[edit]

Why don't you provide sources and examples that prove your view instead of conducting a smear campaign against me. Osprey9713 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[John 10:32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Glossary of Christian terms[edit]

I have nominated Glossary of Christian terms, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian terms. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Vassyana (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Glossary of Jewish terms[edit]

I have nominated Glossary of Jewish terms, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish terms. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Vassyana (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cush[edit]

Tim, would you mind going to Cush's talk page and weighing in? I want to start an RfC about his antagonistic behavior and anti-religious bias and prejudice, but apparently at least two people have to bring it up with him on his talk page first. -Lisa (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush[edit]

Hi. Users who file RfC/Us are expected to sign under the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" to clarify when they certified the dispute - merely listing your username is insufficient, and will result in the RfC/U being deleted and delisted as uncertified after the 48 hour period. If you wish to go ahead with this RfC/U, please sign (using 4 tildes so that both your username and timestamp appear) in that section. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism[edit]

Is it your belief that all of Judaism is religion, because it all begins in one way or another at Sinai? I consider this a valdi view. But when I say that there are othe Jews who do not consider Judaism a religion, I do not see why you return my good faith with bad faith of your own. is it not possible for someone to disagree with you, and for you to accept a valid diference of opinion? When I use the phrase "beliefs and practices" YES it is meant to refer to religion for those who define Judaism as a religion. But rhe reason I suggest "beliefs and practices" is that these can refer to non-religious beliefs and practices that others identify with Judaism. My intention was to find inclusive language. I have stated this on the talk page. yet you suggest my intetnion is otherwise. Why do you attack my intentions?

To be clear, I think there are some Jews who would view, say, Baba Kama as not being "religion" as such. Yes, these are people for whom religion = creed + ritual. Tort law falls outside of that. I guess you do not agree. But does that me you simply reject the sincerity o those who believe this? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your comment on my tlk page. Thank you.

I hope you can add more to the conversation on the Judaism page. Some people are reacting against what they call "exceptionalism," the claim that Judaism is in some way unlike Christianity or Islam. This concerns me, because I think Judaism is different from Christianity and Islam in certain ways and a good Judaism article will educate readers as to how (and of course, there is no reason why the Christianity article cannot calim that Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam in important ways, or the Islam article say that it is different from Christianity and Judaism in important ways). A second issue is the simple one of sources. Many have accused me of being overly zealous in my editing and comments, and do not understand why I am making such a big deal over what they see as a tiny semantic point. I reacted so strongly against the poriginal edit because it was made by a person who presented no sources to support it, and has still provided no sources to support it. Now, I can provide sources saying judaism is a religion - I have never denied that judaism is a religion. But i have been calling for more inclusive language in the first paragraph because I have read reliable sources that say that there are some significant views out there that Judaism is not a religion (Rackman, possibly Soloveitchik) or that Judaism is several things, religion being just one thing.

You are concerned with bias. I think the only thing we can do is to kep looking for reliable sources with significant views. It would help if you could provide more sources. And We can encourage people who disagree with me, or with you, to provide more sources too. I am not upset that people disagree with me, I am upset that the people who disagree with me do not provide sources. Disagreement - debate, conflict - can be a good thing, if it leads people to bring in a wider variety of significant views from reliable sources. Even now, people are proposing new wording for the lead and they are doing it based on their own bliefs which to me is the Wikipedia version of a sin. Any new wording should reflect the sources. If people are disatisfied with the sources I have provided, they should provide other sources nd we should discuss them and then come up with wording that reflects the sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your comment at the bottom of the Judaism talk page. Now you understand what is at stake! Changing "beliefs and practices" to "religion" is a way to deny nationhood. Now, you may still object to "beliefs and practices." That's fine! Propose other wording! But we have so many sources that say that Judaism is not just a religion, it is also a nation, and a civilization, the thing about judaism is that al three things are stuck together like two sides of a page of paper - it is not that we are a nation that happens to have a religion (like, Ireland is a nation and they have the Cathoic religion) - our nationhood and religion are inextricably tied together. This all started because editors Blizzard and A Sniper insisted that these be treated as separate things in separate articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of what you say. With one exception. "The religion contains legal, national, linguistic, territorial, and belief elements" - I would not say "the religion" (and thus reduce Judaism to a religion), I would just say Judaism, for example, "Judaism contains national, spiritual, ritual, legal, linguistic, and territorial elements" or something like that.

Do I understand you correctly that Blizzard should not have changed the earlier version (bliefs and practices) to "religion," or at least not without discussion? Then of course I agree with you. I honestly have no idea what evangelical Christians think of such language ... personally, I consider it purely neutral, neither good nor bad, it depends on what the beliefs and practices are (and to be honest, there are some Jewish beliefs I think are bad, there are some I think are good, but i consider this a separate matter). My preference for "beliefs and practices" is that in addition to spiritul and ritual - or, if you prefer the word, religious beliefs and practices, the phrase also refers to national, legal, linguistic etc. beliefs and practices.

I agree with you that "It's probably easiest to speak of what Judaism contains rather than what it is." I think this is a very constructive idea.

Blizzard's justification for her edit was, she wanted to make the lead to the Judaism article more like the lead to other articles. As a Wikipedian editor, I really do not agree with this approach. I think that every article can be different. The body of an article should reflect whatever the significant views from reliable sources say, and the introduction should introduce the body. Different bodies will call for different introductions. You may be right that the introduction currently is too cumbersome. But in simplifying it, we need to be careful that it still is true to the body of the article.

Your comments, which agan I want to emphasize I find very constructive, make me wish I had more time because there is more content that needs to be in the article:

principles of Rabbinic theology, as expressed for example in Baba Metzia 59 a and b (the oven of Aknai), in the idea that in heaven God and Moshe Rabeinu are studying Torah too, Sanhedrin 34a, that any verse of Torah can have many interpretations - these examples suggest a relationship between Jews and God that is very different from what is found in other religions. I am not trying to claim that Judaism is uniquely unique, just trying to put my finger on important things that need to be explained because they may not make sense immediately to non-Jews
Rabbinic hermeneutics, I mean the different methods, techniques one uses to interpret a text. Here is an example where Judaism is not just ritual and creed (I don't want to get into an unnecessary argument over semantics, "religion" is just too vague that is the only reason I do not use it now). When someone takes an English course in university they learn methods for interpreting literature like Shakespeare. Well, the Sages developed methods for interpreting texts. They happened to use these techniques on sacred texts but the fact is one can use them to analyze any text.
principles behind parts of Jewish law that are not "religious" i.e. contract law and damages. These are not just interpretations of Torah, they reflect a set of values concerning relations among people comparable to civil law in the US, UK, France, Germany .... my point is that there is stuff here that is comparable not to Christianity, but to the US, and it too is an important part of Judaism

I know people have put a lot of work into the article but I think right now the aticle focuses disproportionately on ritual aspects of Judaism. I do not think any of this should be removed, but I think other aspects have to be added, and the above are just some ideas.

So maybe one solution to dealing with the introduction is to discuss for a while instead what work needs to be done on the body, what other elements of judaism should be represented. Then it will be easier toknow how best to introduce the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarean text[edit]

I guess you are very busy. Of course you are, but if you will have time in the future, can you tell me what do you think about the Caesarean text-type. Just only opinion. If you have time of course. You can answer even after 2-3 months. That is no problem for me. Thanks and sorry that I taking your time. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re AH's ban[edit]

Tim, I appreciate that the result of the second RfAr concerning Alastair may not reflect your opinion of the situation, but I am asking you to cease commenting about it on wikipedia. I realize other editors are attempting to use Alastair's page to give their POV of the issue but this is inappropriate use of a banned editor's page. While I realize you wish to register your support for him, such comments[14] will, in fact, attract people of the opposite view and create an ad hominem conversation which is directly in contravention of the community's wish (established in the policy WP:BAN) that banned editors be allowed to leave (and return) with dignity. Please reflect on this--Cailil ^talk 00:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF[edit]

Per your comment, You've seen Wikiwatcher's comments (as everyone else can see) and haven't said anything to him about it. This is not a good example of AGF. Making unsolicited innuendos about other editors on article talk pages is not considered civil by many. BTW, since you're obviously defending Sl, note that when he canvassed for assistance, he usually did so by focusing on a particular editor, not just an article. Here's a typical example, where the editor solicited had edit warred with me on a totally unrelated article, but in doing so earned the respect of Sl to join in. That would lead some neutral readers to see this kind of canvassing as uncivil behavior. Hope you agree. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to hog up article talk pages, especially ones relating to religion, with comments about editors. I felt a user talk page comment was more civil. But rather than ask me to tone down some of my comments, all of which are in response to comments (most quoted) by Sl, you may also want to ask how I managed to remain civil despite Sl's losing it here (see paragraph halfway down beginning, "I wrote 'I wonder.'") If you're curious, it's because I don't take bait easily. My only question, is how an explosion like that was ignored by others, and on a religion talk page. That's heavy. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moses[edit]

Any chance you could comment on an RfC in talk:Moses? I am proposing to restore a section that was deleted due to it being a shortened merger from a much longer deleted article of the same subject. This section was deleted. A few editors when it was deleted wrote, "Not particularly high quality material, undue weight to one national tradition . . ." although, as you can see, it was well cited. The deleter of the section will not consent, yet saying that a restoration needs consensus. Any thoughts would be helpful if you have some time. Thanks. ---Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS[edit]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Alastair has a son, Felix, born this Holiday season. Im sure he would like to hear from you

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year to you :-). Alastair and I are on facebook too. Felix and my daughter both have the same birthday. One day we'll have to take a trip to Australia and have a collective birthday party... just before some snorkeling.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

An important project WP:WEaPOn (about Paid Operatives) I have initiated is up for speedy. Can you assist? I want to play by the rules but they seem stacked against an honest effort to record a history of an event as it happens. Urgent. TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No action required page restored.```Buster Seven Talk 06:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Happy Thanksgiving[edit]

Happy Thanksgiving, SkyWriter!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```*Buster Seven* *Talk*	A traditional Thanksgiving dinner.

Laffer Curve[edit]

I'ld like to remind you about the policy against edit warring. Users are forbidden from reintroducing contested material before discussing and achieving consensus on the talk page. Especially, users are forbidden from reverting more than 3 times in any 24 hour period, you appear to be on the verge of doing so. I have initiated a discussion on the article talk page. Please participate there, but per WP:BRD, please do not reintroduce the material without a consensus of the editors participating in the discussion. LK (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policies OR and SYN[edit]

Dear SkyWriter, I truly believe that you are a reasonable person and that you are here to improve the Encyclopedia. However, your additions to the article Laffer curve show that you are not taking seriously enough, our policies No Original Research and especially Synthesis. I don't have much time to edit now, so I won't be getting involved in Laffer curve anytime soon. But please, please do read and take to heart those policies. Especially, I would like to highlight for you in WP:NOR, where it says, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.", and "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" And in WP:SYN, "If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." LK (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the discussion to the article talkpage. If you would like to continue, please continue it there. LK (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-law-continuum-hermeneutics-dispensationalism/dp/0802818080

[1] ttp://www.amazon.com/Gospel-law-continuum-hermeneutics-dispensationalism/dp/0802818080

[1]