Talk:Scriptural reasoning/Archive 3

Significant edit - 19 March 2009

I have today done a significant edit, aimed at resolving the various remaining major problems with the article (though I'm sure there remains much room for improvement). I examined the first 100 references to 'scriptural reasoning' thrown up by Google Books, and the first 150 thrown up by Google Scholar (filtered to remove the Journal for Scriptural Reasoning); I also examined the first 100 results from Amazon.com Search Inside. I have drawn upon all citations which were (a) anything to do with scriptural reasoning as an interfaith reading practice, and (b) where I could, either through Google, through Amazon Search Inside, through my Universities journal subscriptions, or by other means, check the relevant content. I can confidently say that the article now contains multiple third party references, including references for all the main points made, and that it does not exclude any significant feature or variant or point of view upon SR described or contained in those third party texts, including critical views.

Can I therefore ask if other editors are willing:

to remove the 'needs references' banner at the top of the article;
to remove the 'NPOV' banner, on the grounds that the article now fairly represents the range of opinion available in reliable sources;
to remove the 'COI' banner, on the grounds that strict adherence to NPOV is the appropriate solution to COI; and
to archive those portions of the discussion above that have to do with references, NPOV, or COI?

--mahigton (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'needs references' tag can certainly be removed. Also, it's probably ok to remove the NPOV and COI tags at this stage. Finally, archiving older threads should be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best version of this article to appear by far. I support PhilKnight's views. Thelongview (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks very much better with independent references. Well done. Muslim colleagues have been asking repeatedly for some mention of the Scriptural Reasoning Fatwa pointing to the published reference in The Baptist Times article by Jenny Williams of March 12th. After some negotiation with colleagues over the precise wording so as to keep any mention short and uncontroversial I'm adding a single line using the wording we have negotiated.

I don't know if at some point in the history section the SR Society can be mentioned somewhere pointing to that same published article. But since I have a vested interest as an SRS officer I shan't do that myself and will leave it to you whenever. There is a copy of Baptist Times article on the SRS website. --Kurteasy (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Kurteasy. Following your excellent suggestion, I've now mentioned the SR Society in the History section, in connection with the fatwa - picking up on the language of the Baptist Times article. I hope that makes sense, from your point of view? I put in the parenthesis about SRS not being affiliated to SSR, both on the assumption that this would be desirable from the SRS point of view, and to reflect the fact that the fatwa has not played a significant role for many Muslim participants in SSR - but I certainly won't argue for the retention of my wording if you think it needs changing or removing. So, if you think some other form of words would be preferable, or the deletion of that parenthesis and reliance simply upon the word 'independent', please do go ahead and make the change, or describe here the change you would like someone else to make.

I also, by the way, changed things so that we now link directly to the pdf of the fatwa. I realise I should reference the Arabic version as well.

In the light of these changes, how would you respond to my questions about the referencing, NPOV and COI flags, posed above?

--mahigton (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I should add three things:

1. Changing references to the fatwa so that they pointed direct to the pdfs was simply on the general principle that, where possible, one should link to the source itself, rather than to some intermediate venue from which the source can be reached.

2. If you, Kurteasy (or anyone else), had time, it strikes me that it would be nice to add some references to that Baptist Times article to some other points in the article; it's quite a wide-ranging, readable and helpful source, isn't it? I'm glad SRS got permission to reproduce it.

3. This makes me realise that a search of Google News to parallel my search of Google Books and Google Scholar might drag up some good references as well. I hadn't thought of doing that. Anyone willing to do a bit of a trawl?

--mahigton (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent versions of the article are very good and I support 'PhilKnight' on removing the various bias markers. Your wording concerning the SRS is fine. I'm leaving it pretty much as it is or feel free to change that initial sentence how you want. But I've been on the receiving end of one or two howls of protest over the bit about the fatwa and the deletion of the Fatwa website from 'External Links' so have re-edited just that bit. Word of advice: anything to do with SR and Muslims is highly emotive stuff - whether we see it as paranoia or valid grievance, we all need to be aware of this and approach it sensitively. Partly because of these pressures on my relationships with colleagues as well as my lack of time, I'm sorry but I can't commit to giving a lot of time to editing Wikipedia regularly. But I'm happy to bring new published articles to your attention. I'll ask around or maybe you could ask the 'Interfaith' project on Wikipedia for new editors. --Kurteasy (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause a problem. I'd prefer the mentions of the fatwa to be contextualised by reference to the SRS, precisely because I am aware that this is an emotive issue for Muslims - and I know that some of my Muslim friends do not regard the fatwa as applying appropriately to their participation in SR. They would prefer the local context from which the fatwa emerged to be clearer. However, all I will do is clarify in the footnote which 'Society' is meant in Jenny Williams' quote; I'm happy, personally, to leave the rest as it is. Thanks for approaching this in such a helpful and friendly manner. --mahigton (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - since the proposal has been up for a while, and has been approved by Kurteasy, Thelongview and Philknight, with nobody objecting, I'm going to remove the flags. --mahigton (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History and Method

It would be useful for there to be a clear indication of what makes scriptural reasoning distinctive from other inter-faith chevruta (e.g. Hartman). This will have to await a suitable study in a reliable source. The article currently does not explain why there is a 'reasoning' in 'scriptural reasoning': it fails to elaborate the philosophical dimension. I'll think about this. Maybe someone else might have a go? Thelongview (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My latest edit makes a brief, initial stab at this. It does not have much content - but it at least places the issue squarely in the body of the article - and supplies abundant references that could be drawn upon to beef up that content in an NPOV way. What do you think? --mahigton (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this Discussion Page

Contributions to this talk page should be kept short and succinct please. Any contributions over 200 words, especially those that are not obviously focused on improving the article, may be viewed as obstructive and may be removed by administrators. Thelongview (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed disputed neutrality tag

I have removed the disputed neutrality tags. The discussion is now closed. See [archive]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelongview (talk • contribs) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History and Method

It would be useful for there to be a clear indication of what makes scriptural reasoning distinctive from other inter-faith chevruta (e.g. Hartman). This will have to await a suitable study in a reliable source. The article currently does not explain why there is a 'reasoning' in 'scriptural reasoning': it fails to elaborate the philosophical dimension. I'll think about this. Maybe someone else might have a go? Thelongview (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Wikipedia regulations state:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

"Should fairly represent all significant views" means that such viewpoints cannot be omitted or deleted or eliminated by editors of other viewpoints -- especially if they are employed by or connected to organisations having opposing viewpoints
The Scriptural Reasoning Society website constitutes a reliable source about itself and its own views, and these are cited verbatim without synthesis or elaboration
"In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" begs the question, that given that Scriptural Reasoning is a minority activity what is the majority-minority viewpoint here? The Scriptural Reasoning Society is a defined membership-based organisation with a defined number of members of about two hundred or more and a defined number of affiliated projects, and its resources make clear statements about the views of this organisation. Given that overall Scriptural Reasoning is a tiny activity of only some hundreds -- unless evidence to the contrary can be cited -- what is the "majority/minority" ratio being pretended here (The SR Theory Group has a membership of 37, and the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") has a membership of around 200)?

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed unverifiable claims, viz that there is a debate about who invented what. There is no such debate. There are the views of Scripturalreasoning, an editor whose sole activity on Wikipedia relates to this article, but these are not known (and thus not debated) by any of the international participants in scriptural reasoning. I have also removed the claims which suggest that scriptural reasoning is merely a species of inter-faith textual reading. The article currently does not properly specify the distinctiveness of scriptural reasoning, and that is a serious short-coming. However, it does not justify the false assumption that failures in this article license loose claims about the practice of scriptural reasoning. Thelongview (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scriptural reasoning society website is a primary source insofar as it comments on itself. It is thus not a reliable source. Thelongview (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue Allegations Against another User by User Thelongview

User Thelongview, please IMMEDIATELY remove the FALSE STATEMENT "removed unverifiable claims, viz that there is a debate about who invented what. There is no such debate. There are the views of Scripturalreasoning". The true facts are:

The very edit by user Thelongview himself states clearly the view that "Scriptural Reasoning was invented and developed by a group who now form the Society for Scriptural Reasoning"[1]
The above viewpoint expressed in his own very words by user Thelongview who is associated with the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning", is disagreed with and opposed by the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" ("Oxford School"), a registered charity and membership-based organisation of 200 or so members which clearly disputes and critiques the above view as a whole community - as may be confirmed from its website and statements by its Board of Trustees. Therefore, both user Thelongview's suggestion that "there is no debate" and his statement that this disagreement is the view of one person is disingenuous and FALSE, and must be removed IMMEDIATELY by user Thelongview

Moreover, given his status of employment and membership of organisations which are critiqued in the edit which he has now removed, the edit by user Thelongview - here constitutes a violation of Wikipedia regulations which state on COI:

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example, when 90% of an article about a particular company discusses a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the talk page.

Wikipedia regulations on referencing and reliable sources state clearly in relation to the critique referenced verbatim, that the published material by the Scriptural Reasoning Society constitutes a reliable source for the organisation's own views and declared information about itself. Wikipedia regulations, as stated above "Should fairly represent all significant views", and the edit by Thelongview violates NPOV.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed any material which is reliably referenced. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk now has a page in which the views of Scripturalreasoning are faithfully reproduced. References to 'trustees' (whose names or affiliations nowhere appear on that website) are spurious: the website material was clearly mounted online by Scripturalreasoning. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk, whose material is mounted by Scripturalreasonining, is not a reliable source. Thelongview (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scriptural Reasoning Society is not a registered charity. Thelongview (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Advertising of Scriptural Reasoning and Independent Notability

The article Scriptural Reasoning should not be used to promote and advertise the practice of Scriptural Reasoning, nor to make exaggerated claims about 1) the alleged uniqueness and pioneering novelty of Scriptural Reasoning (when there are other near identical practices), nor 2) exaggerated claims about the number of participants in Scriptural Reasoning
Promotional phrasing such as about Scriptural Reasoning being "internationally prominent "[2] as in the edit by Thelongview must not be used. The edit by the same user that "Scriptural Reasoning was invented and developed by a group who now form the Society for Scriptural Reasoning"[3] is contentious and disputed by the network that forms the SR Society ("Oxford School").
The article should not claim, imply or seem to suggest that greater numbers of people participate in Scriptural Reasoning than is actually the case. The evidence indicates a few groups, with a considerable amount of publishing activity from a single Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group (now SR University Group) of around 37 or so people. The Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford Group") has a membership of around 200, and some of the listed groups such as that at St Ethelburga's Centre, I believe are defunct (unless someone has more accurate or up to date knowledge).
In addition to the Shalom Hartmann Institute, there are various international organisations which have for many years sponsored interdisciplinary-interfaith chevruta-style reading of sacred texts (as well as Jewish-only reading), such as the Jewish Christian Muslim Conference and increasingly the Limmud International network of conferences -- as well as others. As coverage of all these forms would require their own article, it suffices to state that Scriptural Reasoning is just one of a number of types of such practices. Scripturalreasoning (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link to JCM Europe. There is no reference to inter-faith chevruta on this website. I also checked the Limmud website. Also no reference to inter-faith chevruta. Not verifiable. Out it goes. Thelongview (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Out it goes?" Well, I never actually added any in the first instance - so funny that. There are actually referenced links to interfaith chevruta-style text study certainly by Limmud, though the JCM website does not have much detail on its conference activities. In any event, I didn't and don't actually think it is necessary to list every single type of interfaith chevruta-study everywhere -- but simply to report that Scriptural Reasoning is merely one of a number of such practices which take place internationally. This Wikipedia article must not be used by you and others as a promotional brochure to advertise Scriptural Reasoning. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Referencing and Independent Notability

In order to pre-empt debates around "independent third-party referencing" it is noted and placed on the record that among the great majority of published references to this article Scriptural Reasoning:

David Ford (founder of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is repeatedly cited
Peter Ochs (founder of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited
Steven Kepnes (member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited
Chad Pecknold (member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited
Nick Adams (member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited
Mike Higton (member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited

In a couple of instances, referenced authors are also editors of Wikipedia Scriptural Reasoning. These points have already been noted previously by other editors and administrators.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate for this talk page to preempt debates. It clogs up the page disruptively, and will discourage administrative comment because of WP:TLDR. Please remove this comment and my response immediately unless it serves a purpose. Thelongview (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The note above serves very important point fundamental to the editing of Wikipedia Scriptural Reasoning, in highlighting the overwhelming referencing of the article from one tiny group of people who are involved parties in promotion of Scriptural Reasoning, and from one viewpoint ONLY -- The Society for Scriptural Reasoning, and the absence of independent third party viewpoints on Scriptural Reasoning. It also notes the self-published references of authors who are now acting as Wikipedia editors of Scriptural Reasoning. This Wikipedia article must not be used or abused by you or anyone to advertise or promote the practice of Scriptural Reasoning.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that these figures are cited is that they created scriptural reasoning (NB there is no claim that they created inter-faith chevruta). They also continue to reflect on it and develop it. They are all based in educational institutions, with records of publishing on scriptural reasoning. Of course they are referenced: who else would be referenced? Thelongview (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that so many of the references are from people involved in scriptural reasoning and hardly any from uninvolved third references --Kurteasy (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurteasy, what do you propose? Thelongview (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a life and so not as 'keen' on Wikipedia as one or two of my colleagues. But there are independent articles soon being published on the Scriptural Reasoning Society and SR and these should be linked to the Wikipedia one. Since you and me both run scriptural reasoning organizations neither of us should really be editing this article and it would be better if independent people did instead. --Kurteasy (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better, yes. But in their absence, and as the article is in need of drastic abbreviation, it is permissible for those involved in SR to edit the article. Please see the conflict of interest guidelines, which stress the need to follow policy especially strictly when editors are involved in the subject matter. I've said more on your talk page. Thelongview (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Books to search for references to 'Scriptural Reasoning' that are not by the people mentioned above, but that have some connection to the subject matter of the article (i.e. to practices of multi-faith textual study), yields the following that could be drawn upon. I have checked the first 100 results thrown up by Google, and included every relevant result (though there were one or two books with no preview available, which I couldn't check.)

Francis Xavier Clooney, Beyond Compare: St Francis De Sales and Vedanta Desika on Loving Surrender to God (Georgetown University Press, 2008), 28-31 - makes a positive comparison between the authors method and the method described in the Modern Theology articles already referenced in the article

James F. Gustafson, An Examined Faith: The Grace of Self-Doubt (Fortress, 2004), 37-39 - a critical discussion of 'scriptural reasoning' based on a reading of the series introduction by Stanley Hauerwas and Peter Ochs to the Radical Traditions series.

Stanley Hauerwas, 'Why 'The Way the Words Run' matters' in J. Ross Wagner, A. Katherine Grieb, C. Kavin Rowe (eds), The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays (Eerdmans, 2008), p.19, n.43:'"Scriptural Reasoning" is the name given by Peter Ochs to the work of a group of Jewish, Christian and Islamic theologians'

Christina Grenholm and Daniel Patte, 'Introduction' in Gender, Tradition and Romans (Continuum, 2005), p.16, n.14: criticism of views of Ford and Ochs.

William S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (Continuum, 2006), 11 - discussion of Paul's 'scriptural reasoning' which references the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning

'Postcritical Biblical Interpretation' article in Soulen and Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (James Clarke, 2002), p.140 - refers to Ochs. Not sure who the article is by.

I am also aware that there is a reference in Adrian Thatcher, The Savage Text: The Use and Abuse of the Bible (Blackwell, 2008), p.137 - describes SR briefly, refers to it as emerging from Cambridge, cites Journal for Scriptural Reasoning. Critical.

Apologies for a post longer than 200 words. I thought these might be useful resources for overcoming Kurteasy's worries about third party references. I shall try to do something similar with Google Scholar soon.

--mahigton (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I believe Scripturalreasoning has a conflict of interest in editing this article. This user's sole activity on Wikipedia has been to promote the Scriptural Reasoning Society. The username alone rings alarm bells. They have admitted (see archive 2) that they mount the material on the scripturalreasoning.org.uk website. This website lists no members and no trustees, and gives as its contact details (and registered charity number) data relating to Interfaith Alliance UK. This website also makes strong negative claims about other editors of this wikipedia article. There is no way to verify any of the claims made by Scripturalreasoning on this page, or in the article, other than by reference to the very website they manage. I have thus removed all such material from the article on the grounds of verifiability and reliable sources. For further info see their talk page where numerous others, including administrators, have expressed a view. Thelongview (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the statement by the user Thelongview, the statements are FALSE.

I am not a Trustee, nor an officer (Chair, Secretary, Treasurer) of ANY Scriptural Reasoning organisation. In contrast, note the EVIDENT COI of user Thelongview. I furthermore DO NOT own the website http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ NOR am I the IT officer registered to that website. The website is registered in the name of another colleague, HOSTED by him, and he is the officer who IS the operating host and in charge of the website. The FALSE statements by the user Thelongview and MUST BE WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY.

The Scriptural Reasoning Society IS a registered charity - authorised and holding the same financial registration number, banking R/C number, as its parent charity the Interfaith Alliance UK, the named Trustees whereof are listed clearly and publicly, together with contact details for both organisations.

The website lists an ongoing programme of activities at various affiliated groups, convened at different places of worship and institutions. The allegation that the Scriptural Reasoning Society is a fictitious organisation is just plain nonsense.

The user Thelongview has conflict of interest is clear in his consistent advertising and promotion of Scriptural Reasoning as a practice and of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning in particular.

The user Thelongview has consistently used the Wikipedia article Scriptural Reasoning as a vehicle to promote and advertise Scriptural Reasoning despite my REPEATEDLY instructing him not to do so -- as this talk page will show.

He has overwhelmingly cited in the Wikipedia article, both himself and other colleagues of his, who are members of the same Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of 37 people -- without reference to other viewpoints and independent third party sources.

Wikipedia regulations on NPOV and COI clearly prohibit user Thelongview's and his colleagues from the Society for Scriptural Reasoning abusing this article for promotion of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and the advertising of the practice of Scriptural Reasoning generally.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to archive

I propose to archive this page, as most of the contributions were initiated by Carpathy2009 who has been blocked for disruptive editing, and because most exceed 200 words. If any other editor wishes to reintroduce the discussions, please do not revert the archive, but start a new section. Thelongview (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't archive this page. Since some of the criticisms are about your editing your doing so will be interpreted by me and others as trying to cover things up. This article is controversial and this page should be visible to new editors and admins. Without commenting or agreeing with 'Carpathy2009' or other editors some of the points he made about lack of independent references and organization links of editors are valid. I agree with a lot of those points (though not all) and I have added to them since. If there is anything written on this page which breaks Wikipedia rules about rudeness or official word limits then independent admins (not me or you) should be asked to delete it. I hope some independent editors and admins will join in editing this article soon. --Kurteasy (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige. I made several requests for comment to administrators some time ago, and they declined on the grounds of too long: didn't read. Archiving has helped. (If you could indent your responses on this page, that would assist readability - thanks.) Thelongview(talk) 16:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]