User talk:Jenhawk777/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Jenhawk777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Note

Please have a look through the links in the welcome message above, to get better oriented to how Wikipedia works. If you like I created a narrative overview here User:Jytdog/How that you may find helpful in getting oriented. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

talk I am totally lost and overwhelmed right now. I understand what you have said about that single comment. This article contains several unsupported statements and most of it is one sided so I was attempting to add balance and blundering about. I think instead of editing this one I will write one instead. It will be good experience. My educational background is in this area, I spent the last six months researching this very topic, and I have information on every category you list that is not included in this article. I don't know what I am doing on Wikipedia yet, but I know this subject, and I know how to write! I hope! We'll see! Thank you for your help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Jenhawk777, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Draft:Violence and Christianity have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, I am definitely still figuring this out. I rented an article for two days and put a bunch of it directly into the draft because I didn't feel like I had time to go through and decide what I would use and what I wouldn't, so I copied it with the intent of editing it afterwards. Is it okay if I restore what you took out with that end in mind? I will be careful. There is another article here already on this subject that has been marked for bias. I attempted to edit it first, but all my edits got reverted. He wrote me to explain why he reverted one paragraph--inadequate referencing--and I agreed on that one paragraph, but he reverted all of them without comment on the rest. I figure he has a point of view he is pushing and is not going to accept anything else so I am trying to write something more neutral and will then leave it to you guys to decide what to do with them both. I didn't know anyone was monitoring my draft! It is nowhere approaching done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Violence and Christianity

Hi - I'm sorry to say but this is not at all likely to be accepted. We of course already have an article on the subject - read WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The larger problem is that it doesn't meet our policies and guidelines. It might do as an essay but not as an article. It fails WP:VERIFY and no original research for a start. You might want to read this essay also.Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Your introduction, which we call a WP:LEAD, does not summarise the article but makes an argument. And "This approach will be used throughout this article" is something we can't say because no one owns an article. You may want an article to follow a certain approach, but someone can come along and so long as they follow our policies and guidelines and stick to the topic they can abandon that approach.

You might want to get some feedback on this by asking at the WP:Teahouse or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, don't just take my word for it. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to respond. I still don't think it will be acceptable as it's a duplicate article, but I urge you again to ask at the Teahouse. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a proper invitation for you. Click on the big TH to go there

Hello! Jenhawk777, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Doug Weller talk 09:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work!

@Jenhawk777: I just wanted to let you know that I noticed all of the hard work you put into drafting revisions of Violence and Christianity. You picked a controversial topic to start off with, but an important one. Controversial topics tend to attract low quality contributions, so other editors tend to be quicker to revert on these articles than typical ones. Don't be discouraged! There's still a long way to go to improve this article, though, so your efforts to improve it are more than welcome. Feel free to use {{ping}} or edit my talk page if you get frustrated or need help. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777 I sent you a thank you on your talk page--but thank you again. I tried editing the original article, again, and it was completely reverted, again--nothing kept at all. Is it possible to get a second opinion? Jytdog says it is all personal opinion but that is untrue. Every statement is a paraphrase of previously published material and is completely verifiable. There is no original work, there is no opinion, there is only compilation of the latest information. There is a reference at the end of nearly every sentence. If there are places where two or three sentences are strung together with only one reference at the end, it's because they all came from that same reference. The reason he gave for reverting is just not true. He reverts anything positive if the other comments in talk are anything to go by. I have gone to the talk page for that article and responded--but I don't think he's going to change his mind. When I put in the edit, I asked him to go ahead and make changes if needed or tell me what he thought should be changed--but he just took it all out. At least this time it was just the introduction. Please help if you can. Tell me what I should do.

Jytdog has sent me a talk saying I am not allowed to have my draft in draft because there is already an article on this subject and if I don't move it it will be deleted. Does he get to decide that? Can I not finish it and see what Wikipedia will do with it? I tried to edit the original again and it was reverted again and this time he is wrong. I followed sticktothesource exactly. I can't use direct quotes because it is new material still under copyright. I have to summarize. Does Jytdog get to decide what happens to my article before I even finish it? Is there someone I can appeal to? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you really need to ask at the Tearoom where a lot of editors will see your post, not just a few. It's set up to help new editors. Jytdog is trying to explain to you that you can keep your tespxt safely in your user space even though it duplicates an existing article, but not in draft space. That's just the way it's set up. Doug Weller talk 07:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanx Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft page

Hi Jenhawk777 - Draft:Violence and Christianity is something it looks like you have put a lot of work into. It appears to be a collection of thoughts about various things that you would like to incorporate into Christianity and violence; it is not actually a draft article. If this is true, it really should be in your userspace; drafts are for actually drafts. Do you know how to move a page? If not, I can move it for you.

There is some other stuff I would like to discuss with you about that document in the context of Wikipedia, but first things first... Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Pasted comment below, that was left on my talk page in this edit Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! I appreciate any and all help! I don't understand the comment that this appears to be a collection of my thoughts though. None of this is original material. It is all referenced. I take it you are the original author of Christianity and Violence? You don't seem to like any of my edits, but if you could help me understand why or what it is you don't like, perhaps we could fix this together. The article does not seem balanced or neutral to me, and clearly to others who tagged it that way long before I came along, so my goal is not to erase anything you have said but to balance it a little bit more. You are welcome to make changes to what I have added, but please explain them if you would. Thank you again! I will keep trying to honor what you have written while accomplishing the goal--if you will not give up on me! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! Quick notes on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. (See WP:TPG for the overall guideline)

First, it is good to keep discussions in one place, so I moved your response here, since you were replying to the above.

Next, in Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indentation; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense.

Finally, at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not "the author" of Christianity and violence. I am one of the people who works on it, yes. Each Wikipedia article of course was initially created by an individual, and any Wikipedia article is only as good (or bad) as the last editor who touched it, but all of WP and every article in it, is maintained by the community of editors. Because of that, it is important that specific discussion of article content be conducted at the Talk page of the relevant article, so that everybody can participate who wants to, and so it becomes part of the history of the page, easily findable by others.

You didn't reply to the main point of my comment above - namely your "draft" really belongs in Userspace. (There are different "spaces" in Wikipedia. Articles and their talk pages are in "mainspace"; policies and guidelines and other community governance documents are in "Wikipedia space" - things there start with "Wikipedia" or "WP" like this: WP:Consensus - that is a different page from Consensus which is an article in mainspace. There is also draft space, where actually draft articles go while they are being worked on, and there is "User space" which is each user's userpage, their talk page (like this one) and sandboxes and noodling - these all start with "User:"). Your notes should be at User:Jenhawk777/Violence and Christianity not Draft:Violence and Christianity. It is not a draft article - it cannot be, as there is an existing article on the topic. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and the instruction! :-) It is genuinely helpful. I thought I read the stuff on talk--but I don't remember any of this! There is so much--when you are unfamiliar with software language in the first place--that all the information is a little overwhelming. I don't know if I'm doing this right yet! But I am grateful you are persevering with me! I started writing my draft as a draft of a new and different article since I wasn't having any luck editing the other article. When I started it I did not know there was rule against it. I will change my talk to that page too. Thank you.~~~~ Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777

Argh. I fixed your signature at again. We sign at the END'. To sign just type 4 tildas. Do NOT type the "nowiki" markup. You do not need to write "Jenhawk777". The Wikipedia software will convert the 4 tildas into your username and the date. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

So here is the deal. The document at Draft:Violence and Christianity cannot stay in draft space. It will be deleted if you try to keep it there. If you do not want it to be deleted, it needs to be moved. Do you want to move it, or shall I move it? Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That's it? The decision is yours? I don't have any choice about this? I am not allowed to finish it and then see what Wikipedia decides? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please slow down. Please! One thing at a time. I am trying to preserve your work, and am trying to work with you. The document just needs to be moved from where it is, where it is in danger of deletion, to your user space, where it will be safe. It is just like moving a piece of paper from one spot to another. Where it is now, it is in the "production line" and it can never go into production (there is already an article in the place where it would go) and it needs to go in your personal space, where it is fine to keep notes. This is a really, really, simple thing. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you say you are trying to help. I will trust you are truthful and doing what you say. Go ahead and move it if that is the right thing to do. I can't say I have seen your responses as working with me on editing the article though. But as you say, one thing at time. Move the article. Then let's discuss your assertion my edits were personal opinion. That's wrong. If you can find one line that is just my opinion, I will grovel and apologize appropriately, because I don't believe there are any--or even if there's a paragraph you just don't like--let's change it. One thing at a time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The page is now moved to your userspace and is here: User:Jenhawk777/Violence and Christianity. Now, as I noted in the my first message above, it would be useful to discuss that document... I'll create a break so we don't have to scroll so much. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

break

OK, so now about that document. User:Jenhawk777/Violence and Christianity. One of the hardest things to get used to, when working in Wikipedia, is understanding what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. We have a policy, What Wikipedia is Not that attempts to lay this out for people. Don't know if you have read that yet, or grappled with it yet, but this is really fundamental. It tries to help people understand the mission here.

The mission is stated near the beginning of the body, at WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and it is this - to provide readers with articles that summarize accepted knowledge. And we do that in a community of editors.

The strategy by which we realize the mission, is that we find the most reliable sources (as described in WP:RS) that we can, and we summarize them here. We let the sources guide us, and we give space and emphasis in articles (what we call "weight") to various ideas, as they are found in reliable sources. (this is described in the WP:NPOV policy. No editor's ideas come into articles - doing that is what we call original research and it is not OK here. Also, carrying strong ideas or beliefs that you have in the real world, into Wikipedia, is also not OK. This is described in WP:SOAPBOX (which is part of NOT), WP:YESPOV (which is part of NPOV), as well as the very helpful essay, WP:ADVOCACY. Please do be sure to read those.

Wikipedia articles just describe - they just summarize - accepted knowledge. They don't make arguments. They are not essays.

One of the hardest things for people to adapt to when they come here, is generating content that follows the above. It is very tempting to try to turn articles into essays. This is not OK.

The thing that struck me, when I read the document you generated, is that it is set up like an essay, in which you make various arguments. That is not what we do here, per all of the above.

I know this must sound odd, but it is really how this place works. Would you please reflect on the above a bit, and re-read your document, and your edit to the article? If you can get better oriented to the mission and the strategies by which we try to realize it, I think the work at the article will go better.

I am writing about this here, instead of at the article talk page, as this is not focused on the article content per se, but rather about getting you oriented to how this place works. I hope all this makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It does make sense--but I actually thought that is what I was doing. I summarized the material I read and wrote a synopsis of it in the same manner in which it was written and presented. One of the pieces of advice on summarizing articles is to be sure and represent the work accurately. That is what I attempted to do. I did NOT--repeat NOT--include my personal views or interpretations. Every sentence I wrote is a summary of ideas from the work I reference. I presented them as they are presented--but perhaps that is the problem. By definition, they make arguments. What is the proper way to describe an argument without sounding like you are making the argument? Most of this is newer material still under copyright. I can't just quote. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. So when I read the document you created, what was really clear, is that it 1) discredits claims that Christianity contributes to violence and 2) argues that Christianity promotes peace. The whole document does this, as does each section. The document is an essay that makes an argument, and very systematically. You really cannot see this? Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course I can see it! As I said before, (it's somewhere--I'm losing track), my article was written with the intent of asking for it to be merged with the existing article--it was not written to stand alone. Combined with the information in the existing article--that combination would create balance. The existing article uses loaded language and is heavily weighted to one point of view--can you not see that? Surely you have been given multiple examples of straight out inaccuracies that exist in the article as it is because the information is so one-sided. The only way I can see to correct that--without removing information--is to add other information that is weighted in the other direction. Together they create one single balanced article. For example, the existing article discusses just war theory as though that is the only view of war within Christianity, yet there are four views of war within the Christian tradition--one of them is Crusade, and the problems with that are added--not defended. Much of this entire discussion of Christianity and violence presumes that Christianity is required to be pacifist in order to avoid the condemnation so prevalent in nearly every quote in this article--but pacifism is only one view--and it is never specifically addressed. It's only assumed. That is a legitimate flaw in the existing article. There are several of these. Yes, what I wrote is imbalanced--standing alone and by itself--of course it is! Because that is the view not presented in the existing article. How else is it possible to create balance and neutrality but to include the latest and best scholarship on the subject that does counter some of the older information in the current article? Jytdog I am adding a request here that we do move this back to the article talk page. I don't want to keep this private. I do want other people to be able to weigh in. What you have just acknowledged is that it is not my documentation or my style that is the real issue for you--it is the fact that the material differs with the POV already presented in the article. But that was the point. The existing article has a particular POV. IT is not neutral. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Whew. I was concerned that you thought that the document you produced is appropriate for WP as it stands. I am glad you are aware that it isn't. I understand are saying, about trying to "balance" the article by adding content that is strongly "the other way" from the POV that you perceive exists in the article now, but this is also not appropriate. Wikipedia articles don't make arguments.

I've been watching the Christianity and violence article for a pretty long time. What happens, is that people swoop in who have very strong points of view. One person comes and wants to incredibly ramp the descriptions of violence done in the name of Christianity. The people watching the article do their best to calm that person down and tone things down and incorporate what is useful. Then another person comes and does the same thing (again, very passionate). Then someone comes along and basically wants to recreate Christian pacifism at the article ("Christianity is not violent at all!").

As a result of these waves of passionate people, the article is pretty ragged. It probably always will be, as people will keep showing up and wanting to shove it one way or another.

Thing to think about, is the scope of the article. Clearly something at the intersection of "Christianity" and "violence", but what does that mean, exactly? What the article tries to do currently, is just map out various meanings of that intersection. You can do the "mapping" through questions.

Most of the questions have started with Christianity and asked about violence.

Most of the article answers the question: "What violence has been done in the name of Christianity?" That is a legitimate question, and the article does it a ~pretty~ thorough job of answering it.

Some of the article answers the question: "Are there aspects of Christianity that promote violence"? This is pretty thin, but there.

Some of the article answers the question: "Are there aspects of Christianity that prevent violence or promote nonviolence?" This is pretty thin, but there. But most of this discussion in Wikipedia in other articles that are about pacificism or peace-making per se.

The article doesn't deal much at all with Christianity (or perhaps better), Christian communities as the subject of violence and how those communities have responded as Christians. That is out of scope by omission, but perhaps could be included.

It is a high level article, too. There are tons, and tons of articles around violence and religion, and in particular Christianity. (See Christian persecution for some of them)

What I am trying to say, is please be aware of what questions the article is currently addressing. What its "scope" is. If you want to change the scope, that is worth having a discussion about, before you try to change the scope. Please also be aware that you are one of many who have come wanting to make sweeping changes, and if you stick around, you will see that you are not the last.

Does that all make sense? Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the things you have communicated to me--at least I think it was you--somebody here!--is that it is an error for an article to do what you say this article is doing. I was told not to define my article's scope because someone else could come along and change that. BTW--I perfectly agree that is what the article is doing, it's quite clear, but "answering" the unspoken question (that you write out here but not in the article itself) is built on a few key assumptions, that are also never mentioned or explained. I don't know Wiki's standard on that, but in my world that is unethical. It's misleading. It conceals information the reader needs to fully understand what you are saying. And as you yourself say here--most of the article is directed at one idea, some at its supporting idea, and only a small amount at its contrasting idea. There. You have said exactly what is wrong with this article. It takes one approach, that is built around one view--and that approach that you say is thorough--is built on unstated assumptions--some of which are false assumptions and all of which are concealed from the reader. Some of those things you include as violence done in the name of Christianity are contested, and that should be included too. The negative view which is there should not be left out--but the alternate perspective which is going to be the way the future goes through all the many empirical studies currently being done on this subject--should also be there. This article is already outdated otherwise. I have read the other "talk" on the article's page and others do seem to be having some of the same problems I am having attempting to edit this article. Do you know much of what TourBus2020 argues for putting in this article is included in the article--just as he says it--in the Encyclopedia Brittanica? Yet it all got reverted out of this one. You say the article has a focus. I say the article has a POV. We are both right. My efforts aren't about changing the scope--unless changing it from one POV to a neutral one is what you mean. I don't want to make sweeping changes--just the ones you yourself say you support here on Wikipedia. Again, I don't want to talk here anymore. Would you please copy this discussion and move it to the Christianity and violence talk page? I will see if I can! We can continue there if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm, please don't personalize this, or for that matter, don't depersonalize things either. I didn't write the article, but you keep saying "you". Every time you write in WP, you are a Wikipedian. It is your article, too, so please say "we". It is "our" article. Not mine, not yours.

You are also obligated to learn and follow community policies, guidelines, and norms, as I am. So please take it easy, while you are learning. I had to do the same. There is a learning curve here, as you have noted. :)

I also encourage you to spend some time and read the whole cluster of articles around this. If you read articles you find when you search WP for christianity violence and for christianity peace you will get a sense of bramble of content that has grown up in WP over the years. Meta-editing across articles is important. Where does this article fit, in all that?

About the lack of "signalling". Wikipedia articles are not really "meta" internally. I noticed in your notes-piece that you have lots of "road signs", and in my own writing outside of here and teaching I use that technique a lot ("OK, I am now going to talk about X") but we don't do that here so much. The scope is generally defined by the page name (the title).

The name "Christianity and violence" is poor.... it is very ambiguous, and is one reason we get all these passionate people tearing through. This might be a fruitful topic on which to start a discussion at the talk page - asking folks what the scope of the article should be, and if the name of the article is appropriate for that scope.

What else... I don't know about the "outdated" thing so much. There are gaps... there are always gaps, and almost always there are ways that things can be improved. But I think the best place to start is to open a discussion about what scope the article should have, and whether the name is appropriate for the scope.

Finally, above you wrote You say the article has a focus.. I didn't say that. One thing you should avoid like crazy, is misrepresenting other people. You seem to be trying to make some argument by misrepresenting what I wrote this way... this is generally unproductive, and to be honest, that kind of behavior makes me back away from people, which is what I am going to do now.

In any case please slow down, take it easy, and work your way into things. Just talk about stuff. There is no need for big drama. It may well be that everybody (or enough of everybody) agrees on a scope for the article, and the article will start to change, but doing this kind of thing is like turning an oil tanker... not like turning a speedboat. Working in a community takes time. It does not have to be agitated. We can just talk about things.

I guess that's it for now. I will see you at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog I apologize. I intended no drama. I don't mean to take anything personally. If I have been saying "you" repeatedly --well, that is a sign I am more upset by this than I realized, so again, I am sorry. I did not mean anything ill of you by saying you said the article had focus. I went back and checked because that is what I thought you had said, but it turns out that was not a word you used. It's how I interpreted what you said. You said the article answers one main and two lesser questions, which in my mind is what gives the article its focus--but you never actually said that word. It was my mistake. I upset you by pasting this at the article page. I thought it was okay since you pasted and moved something of mine. I am guessing the difference is that was more public than this, but that's why I moved it. I am feeling trapped, boxed in and shut down. You keep telling me to slow down, but Jytdog, I can't get any slower than a dead stop--which is where I am and have been for days now. I have nowhere I can go with this as things stand. I have been effectively halted with no recourse. I am not saying it's your fault. It's just the nature of the beast here I guess. I thought I had something of value to offer, but it's no longer looking that way to me. It doesn't seem like that article will ever get that flag off the top of the page. And that's a darn shame. With a little more balance--and updated information--it would be a great article. I give up. You win. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice note. If by moving something of yours, you are referring to the document that was previously in draft space, I hope you noticed that I took great pains to get your consent before i moved it. If you are talking about something else, please let me know.

I understand that you are frustrated. Many people in come into WP fired up and passionate, and find things to be more difficult than they expected. This is why I have been asking you to slow down. Making big changes is a lot of work, especially when you are trying to a) learn the very basic logistics (how to use a talk page, etc) and b) understand the policies and guidelines and other norms that govern content as well as behavior. You have to learn to walk before you can run. Please be patient with yourself, and with others. (This is the downside of passion in WP. It drives people to contribute but it also sometimes drives them faster than they can actually go...) Listen to some chumbawumba - it will be OK! This is not about "winning". Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

okay I went and listened to your song so now I am laughing. Thank you. But I am not walking or running. I am sitting at a dead stop with nowhere to go. But at least I'm listening to good music.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Note

This was not appropriate. Do not copy what people write on your talk page and paste it into an article talk page. Do not ever do that. What I wrote above, I would never write on an article talk page. Not because I am ashamed of it, but because it is not specifically about improving the article. It was about getting you oriented. By pasting it there you made it seem like I wrote it there. That misrepresents me, and that is not OK.

In the future, if you want to paste a copy of a conversation elsewhere, ask the other people involved before you do it.

If you want to paste something you wrote to the Talk page, you are of course free to do that. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I did say there that I pasted it and moved it there so I don't think anyone thought you wrote it there. I felt like it was a discussion of the article and not just me. It was both. And yes, you moved a comment and told me afterwards. I didn't mind. You explained. It was fine. But in this I should have asked you first, absolutely. I don't even have a good excuse because even if I don't know Wiki's rules, I should have asked out of common courtesy. I'm ashamed and genuinely sorry. I don't know where my brain is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It is ok thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your graciousness on this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages at articles

About this - three notes:

1. logistics: for the threading to work right, if you start a new paragraph in your comments, you have to do the colon/indenting thing at the start of each new paragraph, not just the first one. Small thing, but just part of the logistics.
2. content of what you wrote, and logistics: in general it is useful to keep conversation in each section focused on one thing. This thread is about the proposed addition. You raise points about the overall structure of the article (with the Bible section first) which is fine to discuss, but for discussion to be productive, it is enormously helpful to have separate talk page sections for each issue. This is discussed in the talk page guidelines (WP:TPG for short).
3. content of what you wrote: in general, try to focus on content (see WP:FOC). The work we do here, is trying to craft content that neutrally summarizes reliable sources. Optimal discussion at article Talk pages is all about content, sources, and the policies and guidelines. If you find yourself typing "you" or another editor's name, it is a good sign that you have stopped focusing on content, and are "commenting on contributors" as we say. This discipline is all the more important when working on controversial content. This is also discussed in the TPG. You may also want to read WP:Controversial articles which is advice for working on articles that discuss things people are passionate about.

-- Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued patience and instruction. I went to the page you referenced talk page guidelines (WP:TPG for short) and cannot find what you have advised here; perhaps it is an unspoken convention. I did find this: "It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." and this: "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." and "[Talk pages] are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral." This too: "The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references." and "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale." It seems to me that my comments do comply with these. I was focused on content. An entire section of the article was removed without explanation.

What exactly is the full, helpful rationale for first, removing it, and second, for not telling me or explaining it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The 2nd bullet in the WP:TPYES section of the TPG says, in bold: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". (this is kind of a mantra around here). The WP:FOC section I linked to above is in WP:DR, to which I also pointed you.

The other stuff you quoted from TPG is all fine, and is what point 3 above is about.

The comment I diffed above wasn't really bad along these lines, and better than earlier ones. You are moving in the right direction! :)

What exactly are you asking me about, when you say "An entire section of the article was removed without explanation. "? I'll be happy to answer if you would be specific. thx Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The entire section on Military service has been removed--that's what I was referring to. It wasn't a big section, but it was a section, and now it's gone. Not that I don't agree it needs redoing--but I am concerned that things keep getting removed! First the lead now this! I don't want the article deleted! There is a large body of scholarship that takes the position intolerance within Christianity caused--maybe causes--violence, and that needs to be here. See--that's carefully stated--that's how the historians state that, it's intolerance that causes violence. And even that is controversial-- and not dealing with the objections to it is no way to present a scholarly review of anything--nevertheless anything debated. I don't want every section I try to edit to just end up removed! This stuff on violence NEEDS to be here, and the other side of the issue also needs to be presented. It is overlooked mostly. So why did the military service section get removed? Finding Kreider's article was a big boon! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, can´t keep my mouth shut

A little un-asked for advice, worth its' weight in gold and every penny you paid for it.

I read the WP:LEAD (some good advice there) of your draft and cringed a little, I think you should re-think your approach somewhat. The current lead of The Bible and violence may need expansion, but it seems like a good intro to me, like "ok, this is the base, everything else must flow from that". Starting with "controversial" is not optimal. Consider leads of subjects seen by many as controversial, Islam, Crusades, Holocaust, Jesus and many others, they don´t start with "is controversial". Further down in the lead of Crusades we find "Modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the Crusaders." Good, but that´s after a lot of other stuff. Note also that these leads are generally empty of who-said-what info.

Violence in the Quran might be good for some inspiration (I haven´t actually read it).

Minor thing. If you compare leads in Islam and Crusades you´ll notice that one is full of citations, the other has none. This is ok per WP:LEADCITE, a well-written article can do fine without citations in the lead. Basically, when editors passionately disagree on what the facts are, leads get a lot of citations, here is a beautiful example: [1]

And have a really good weekend! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh man!! Thank you thank you! I don't like the lead either! It's my third version--I can't seem to find my footing! First I eliminated the entire first paragraph--then I put it back but made it more concise--than I took half of the whole lead out and left the other half--I just can't find solid ground here. I will go and look at those sites you suggest. Perhaps they will inspire me! I will take notes! What do you think of my reasoning for changing the title? Thank you again! I genuinely appreciate your help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

General Remark on Contributing to Wikipedia

Regardless of how things wind up turning out at either of the violence articles you're plugging away at, I think you're doing very well for someone who's waded into one of Wikipedia's most controversial articles and tried to rewrite the whole thing. You've bit off a bite much bigger than I would, and I'm pretty comfortable with Wikipedia and have about 6400 edits to my name here. My point is, that even if you wind up frustrated or feeling like you're spinning your wheels with these two articles, I would hope you don't give up on Wikipedia just because of these two articles. The nature of the beast more or less guarantees that you'll face some frustration if you try to do what you're trying to do here.

If you want to keep working on your rewrite(s) as long as you like, more power to you. If you find it too frustrating at some point, like I probably would in your shoes, there's lots of great stuff to do here that won't require writing a whole book of talk page comments to get done. When I'm frustrated by too much discussion, I retreat for a while to being a WP:GNOME. I just pick some articles, from recently edited articles on my watchlist or in an area of Wikipedia where I know there are problems, and start picking away at all the little problems I find. I learn a lot this way (because I'm reading the articles as I go) and picking away at little issues often turns up bigger issues. The more obscure the article you work on, and the smaller the problem you're trying to fix, the less interference you'll have.

So, for example, the page I've worked the most on is List of minor biblical figures, where I've added a whole bunch of biblical figures that people haven't added to the list yet. There's also a ton of articles in bad need of help about individual chapters of the Bible, like Haggai 1, Haggai 2, and literally hundreds of others. So, if you ever need suggestions for small-scale work you want to do, or if you have technical questions, feel free to reach me at my talk page. If you want to ask someone else, Doug Weller, Jytdog, and PiCo also spend a lot of time around Bible-related articles. If you edit Bible stuff long enough, there really is a sort of community to it -- a lot of random editors popping in and out, but also some people who put a lot of time into Bible-related stuff too.

Of course, if you don't feel like doing small-scale work, that's fine too. I just know it's a big part of what keeps me interested in working here so that I don't get burned out on the work that requires long talk page discussions. Maybe doing whole rewrites is what you'll enjoy best. Every editor is different. Anyhow, however you decide to contribute, good luck to you and thanks for the effort you've put in. You're in the process of acquiring a very rare and totally unmarketable skill-set -- learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia norms. The way you've done it so far is a bit of a baptism by fire, but hey -- that's probably helping you learn even faster.

Oh, and WP:BIBLE can lead to a lot of interesting work leads, too, if you see yourself as the kind of person who could take up Wikipedia editing as a hobby. Anyhow, good luck! Alephb (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: Oh wow--thank you for this! This is really great. I was already thinking part of why I thought you were so awesome was that your comments made me feel hope. This one almost makes me cry! You're kind! Thank you. I didn't mean to start out doing this the hard way! I didn't even mean to become a wiki. I write on Quora the question and answer site. I was actually named a Top Writer there this last month, and I was doing some research for an article and ran across what I thought were some problems in a Wiki article that was already flagged--didn't think anyone would disagree!! Ha ha ha!! That tells you how completely ignorant I was! I had no idea I was stepping into the middle of a firestorm! Nothing like a baptism by fire huh? I think of myself as reasonable and fair-minded--but I am having to fight to prove it here! I will stick with who I am and hope that in the end that will come through to EVERYONE!!!  :-) I am learning fast and mostly the Wiki community has been supportive and helpful with just one or two difficulties--that's not too bad right? I wish I could save this for those days down the road when I decide your approach is exactly the right approach. Hiding in plain site! I love it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well--I think what we've done on the article has improved it. I am going to give it a week or so and see who else might have something to say--and what they say. I like the lead now--how about you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Do I like the lead? I think of this question in a somewhat backward way -- which goes back to the abstract / introduction distinction I mentioned earlier. For me (and I think Wikipedia in general) a lead is just there to give a very brief "just-the-facts" style summary of the article. Basically -- take this article and hit all the most important points in four paragraphs or less. I have trouble wrapping my head around how to summarize an article with its major subsection split into 21 sub-subsections. What I would really like to see -- and this could be a long way off -- would be for the article itself to be organized into a smaller group of sections. Right now "Explication" is sort of a grab-bag category. Sometimes a grab-bag category is unavoidable, but I think in this case we could give the article more structure. If we could find a way to group the explication content into, say, four to seven sections, it would be easier for me to hold the structure of it in my head. And then I would be better able to evaluate a lead. Or maybe we could do away with the heading "explication" altogether an find a way to work those materials into a few major categories. I think I need to put on my thinking cap and think a little more. I think once the article has a clearer structure, the lead will almost write itself.

Are you familiar with the concept of edit-warring, when two or more editors just keep going back and forth and changing an article to their preferred version? If Wikipedia didn't have a fairly structured system in place, every article that's remotely interesting would just get endlessly yanked back and forth. To avoid that, the Wikipedia community has come up with all sorts of norms. We're like a little country that way, and a new editor is kind of like an immigrant. (Forgive me if I'm re-explaining stuff you already figured out.) Anyhow, the great thing is that in most cases the Wikipedia policies are really very good, and they ensure that the people who are making the article better win in conflicts over people (many of them well-meaning) who would degrade an article's content. So there's a lot that's healthy about our highly structured way of doing things. The unhealthy thing -- the thing that probably hurts us the most -- is that it becomes very hard for new users, especially new users doing anything on a controversial topic, to get their bearing. A lot of it is like reading a legal code. And there's so much of it! And no one is clearly in charge! It's baffling. Part of the problem is cooked into the project -- if you're the Encyclopedia anyone can edit, then you need robust ways to keep people from flying in and ruining the project. And that means lots and lots of norms. A downside is that this really attracts people who like rules and winning debates, which can create a weirdly legalistic environment. But the alternative could be anarchy. Half the time I feel like we're too rule-driven, and then half the time I feel like we need more structure when I see people doing crazy things and nobody stopping it. There's whole parts of the Wiki empire that I basically don't edit anymore because they're unstructured enough that the sane people really don't have any way to wrangle the people who ruin things.

But, all in all, I find it really rewarding to be one of the people who produce the world's most-used Encyclopedia. Of people who average 100 edits or more a month (that includes little things like even typo fixes) there's only about 3,500 of us. That means less than 1 in 1,000,000 people worldwide have done as much editing on Wikipedia as you or I have -- we're contributing more than 99.9999% of the world to the world's top source of easy-to-use knowledge, with over 5 million articles. And the percentage of people who are working on major overhauls of articles is a minority even of that group. There's literally nothing else like Wikipedia. It's kind of amazing to be a part of something like that.

Anyhow, that's just a long-winded way of saying glad to have you with us. Keep on keeping on. I'll try to see if I can think up some useful suggestions for organizing the sandbox article, which in turn will help me see it clearly enough to see if I can come up with any useful ideas for the lead. Alephb (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Another forbidden comment coming up--the more I hear from you, the more I like you! I agree with every single thing you said here--except I haven't done nearly as much as any of those 3500 people--not anywhere close to you--don't be misled by the number of edits I have! I have only actually worked on two articles! I am still mostly clueless! Of course that could be considered normal for me...  :-) So the article did in fact have organization before but someone removed it--I thought it was you but I will go look at history and see who it actually was. I don't like it either. In that explanation about apologetics where it talks about "Bergman, Murray and Rea say there are to categories of apologetics--non-sectarian and religious--and religious breaks down into three--it was organized around that. So apparently someone else didn't like the use of the term apologetics either--and they took it all out so there was nothing separating any of it into sections at all. I did not think that was good--but I am still new here so I thought what do I know? Maybe it is good here on Wiki! What would you think of putting those divisions into sections back? That is the only reason that particular quote was included! The quote's still there and the reason for it is gone... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll rephrase, I guess. We are both in the top 0.0001% of contributors this month. In the long-run, neither of us is in the 3,500. When it comes to the headings, I think in terms of WP:CENTRAL is might be better to discuss that over on the talk page for the sandbox. That way we don't have these editorial discussions about the content all over the place. I'll start a thread there, because that seems to be where most of the indepth stuff is taking place. Alephb (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, your user page is your own, and you have control over what goes on there for the most part, but would it be all right if I put a link on your userpage that shows your subpages? That way someone could quickly get from your userpage to your sandbox. Alephb (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You have carte blanche to do whatever you want! Thank you for asking--but yes! Of course! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Putting the section headings back makes the lead make more sense I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious about why they were pulled out. I'm sure Editor2020 had some reason. I think I'll toss up a question about it on the talk page of the sandbox and see what s/he says. Alephb (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Clean out the old

@Alephb:How do I delete some of the accumulation of old conversations on my talk page?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

one more question, now that I have replaced the section headings, how do I set them off so they are separate from what follows? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

First question first -- :Honestly, I've never cleaned my talk page. You could just edit your talk page and delete the material, but preferred practice is to archive your old posts. There's a Wikipedia help page on archiving here: [2]. If it gives you trouble, I could look into it, but I've never done it myself.

Did you see? Jytdog's here and he set me up! Cool huh? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd wait till there's something like 100 conversations on my talk page before I'd do anything about it, because the nifty auto-generated table of contents serves me just fine. That way if I need to find something I can just "CTRL+F" it. But if you like things neater, you can archive it whenever you want. You could even just delete some of the old conversations, but the Spirit of Wikipedia would frown at you. I've only ever deleted things on my talk page on one of those occasions when a deranged person shows up angry to rant. Alephb (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you're asking about the section headings? Could you try to describe what it is you want to do some other way? I'm not picturing it very well. Alephb (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I put them back--it didn't make sense without any divisions of any kind--and the lead was disconnected from the body without the sections: the sections are : non-sectarian and religious, the war and sociology, and under religious there are three subsections. In the lead, my comments refer to those headings--is that okay? Without them it didn't make any sense. It's the three subsections I want to indent or something since the type looks the same. I tried to indent the two ways I've learned so far but they didn't work properly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I set up an archiving bot for you. It will move whole sections to archives once they have been untouched for 30 days. You can change the number of days it waits. It won't pick up things that aren't signed (which is one reason why signing is a norm, so that these bots can work). If you don't want it you can just remove it. (this is the same thing I have set up on my talk page) Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog! Hey! Thank you--you are so good to newcomers! Thank you again for all you have done. I have tried to cooperate with everything--I know you have given me nothing but good advice and I am trying to learn as fast as I can--I had no idea what I was getting into when I started this. I only wanted to do one article! That's all I came for! I had no idea did I?Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the way it goes here - like quicksand or a welcoming family, depending on how you look at. :) Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Or a little bit of both I guess. I am so grateful for the suggestion and the Google books references for apocalyptic references. I would not have thought of it on my own and it is really helpful. I have spent the last three hours going through the books on the list one at a time looking for references to what you mention in your other talk comment, and while I have found some truly interesting stuff--more than I ever wanted to know about American fundamentalism and the Apocalypse btw--creepy!--I cannot seem to find the specific references to the statements you refer to. I am in the Oxford Handbook of Religion and violence right now and while it talks about fundamentalism, and Revelation, and the New Testament's apocalyptic vision is only spoken of as a general theme and not a specific teaching by Jesus. I found one book that talks about Jesus' teaching on it--but you won't like it--it says Jesus specifically speaks against the whole idea of fighting for him or his ministry and rejects the view of a warrior god--so I am guessing you won't want me to use that one without at least finding one that says the opposite. And actually I agree with that. I know you think I am biased but I actually care about presenting both sides of any view. I WANT to do that. I don't need to be threatened to do that. Really.  :-) So if maybe you could see your way to give me the reference for the one you are referring to that says Jesus was apocalyptic and taught that view etc. etc. I would be genuinely grateful. I could quote you but that would probably not be copacetic!  :-) It would save me a lot of time looking through books I can't use. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I also wanted to ask--how the heck did you ever let this original article get past you?!? You are fussing at me for including theology--which is true but necessary--and this whole article is nothing but theology! And holy cow--even I think this article is one-sided! His representation of alternate views is what I would term "token." If you actually read through the entire context of this rewrite--surely you can agree it's better! Maybe not as good as you want it to be yet--but with your help we will get it there together...at least I hope I will have your help... Anyway--you must have been on vacation when this one was submitted!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I forgot to include this! So it's at the end instead of up front! All these little details are driving me to distraction! I'll get it though--eventually! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Reversions

Hi Jenhawk, this is Martin of Sheffield getting back to you about your last entry on the project talk page. I'm a great fan of starting at the end - then you know where you're heading (must be the programmer in me). Do you have any recourse? Well I just don't like the term for starters - everyone needs to look for collaboration, not confrontation. Jytdog is an experienced editor (100,000+ edits) and you can be sure he will be reading talk pages, they are public. I think he was a little hard, but I can understand why. If I can use an analogy, you are like a determined toddler trying to run before he has quite mastered walking, and have just discovered that paving slabs are hard! I would suggest working on the main article, but work on a section at a time and allow others the chance to review it. Rapidly adding 44,000 characters is swamping other editors and if they find problems they just do not have the time to go through with a fine-tooth comb. Effectively you were changing the old article to you new one by a back door. This is where starting from the end or the middle comes in. Instead of trying to write an exam essay from start to finish, just polish a section or two. Then when you've got the feel of what is needed and others fully appreciate what you're trying to do expand those sections and again engage with others. When all is well move on. Bit like a first date really! When the whole article has been polished then is the time to work on the lead which should be a simplified précis, not an exposition. I'm sure that if you work in this way Jytdog will assist, counsel and lead just like most editors try to do. We all started somewhere - my first edit was promptly deleted with the comment "like leaves in Autumn this keeps coming round". That was 6 years ago and I'm still here. Sorry if this seems a little critical, it is meant to be constructive. Kind regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not critical at all. I find it extremely helpful. You're right--I am like a toddler--there are just so many things I don't know. I thought "total rewrite" actually meant that--and maybe it will in the end--but not all at once apparently. They need a differently phrased tag that communicates that!  :-) Something along the lines of the "end result" of multiple edits being a total rewrite or something. I can understand the whole being "swamped" thing too. That was not my intention but I can see that was inconsiderate of the other editors. I won't do that again. Thank you for helping me see the other point of view. It was a back door! I did not think of that either! DUH! I thought I was just doing what others had suggested. My first edits were on Christianity and Violence and they all got deleted too--by Jytdog. I came back and did two sentences--they got edited--by Jytdog. I think he's a great editor--he's skilled--and I not only did not mind that, I thanked him because I thought he did what a good editor does: he genuinely improved my writing. I really do care about the content. I really don't care if I get edited completely out--but I do care that someone is committed to doing something! And not just blocking everything. I won't give up just yet. So--more perseverance and patience--and teeth grinding... I will do as you suggest and try one section that is particularly problematic. It contains original work, has almost no references at all other than Bible quotes, and a non-neutral point of view completely.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: I am doing my best to take everything you said to heart. This is--as one person pointed out--backwards to me! But I am beginning to get the idea of how Wiki actually works. I did what you suggested and did one section and I am waiting for any response from anyone--nothing so far! But it hasn't been reverted either! So that is real progress for me! Yet, I should say...it hasn't been reverted yet... Anyway, I wanted to tell you and see if you would look at the before and after and see what you think! It's under the Hebrew Bible, "against violence" I had originally edited in some references, but decided I was only doing that because it was already there and I didn't think it belonged there. It's actually what Jytdog said originally and I think he was right--so I took it out! How's that for bold! And I posted a query--two actually on talk--and no answer there either yet. I hope I can adjust to this leisurely pace! No deadlines! It's so weird for me! But I have fallen in love with the Wiki community.  :-) Thank you again--if you don't have time to mess with me anymore it's okay! I'm grateful for your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Martin, I've gotten my response. I need help. Would you mind going to the Bible and violence talk page, scrolling down to the bottom, and giving your opinion? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bible and violence, talk, section 10: supersessionism outside the scope". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 August 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Bible and violence, talk, section 10: supersessionism outside the scope, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

For the future, the Wikipedia policy on sourcing is that if there's something in an article that doesn't have sources, anybody can pull it out. And if somebody pulls it out, nobody is allowed to put it back in unless they find sources yet. If something is not directly supported by the sources cited, then it's unsourced too. So for future reference, there's no need to ask permission or seek mediation before yanking out unsourced content.

Once you've mentioned on the talk page that something isn't backed up by the sources it cites, you can just pull it out and leave an edit summary like "removed information not found in sources. see talk page for more details." Nobody will put it back in. At least, I'm pretty sure nobody will put it back in. We'll see. Any editor can remove any unsourced content without asking for permission of any kind first, and no editor is allowed to add back in unsourced content. It's not something that really goes to mediation because it's so clear-cut. Alephb (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Believe it or not, at the start of this, I was actually trying to cooperate and do what Jytdog told me to do. He said get consensus first. I know that's different from what you said, but I have had so much difficulty getting along with him, I thought doing things his way might help. Instead it made things worse. I won't be trying this again.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you're significantly rewriting an article getting consensus first is not a bad idea. But removing unreferenced stuff doesn't need consensus. Alephb (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, that difference wasn't previously specified. Another lesson learned. I am looking forward to learning something here without crashing into anything in the process--soon--I hope--soon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPG

Please review the above. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Next time you respond with something that is clearly unjust and personal I will switch to this page instead.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A Thought on Editing Conflict

I'm not going to tell you what to do here, but I think I should at least tell you what the current state of the Bible and Violence talk page looks like to me. This editing conflict will come to an end, because all Wikipedia editing conflicts do at some point. My guess is that we're nearing the end of this one. I'll list the ways this could turn out, and give my personal opinions. I could be wrong on this, but here's what I think I'm seeing.

(1) You and Jytdog have reached a point where you each seem to think the other person is editing in a pervasively biased way. These sorts of things are difficult to "prove" one way or the other. One way the editing conflict could end is for one of you to convince the other. As I look over the edit history, Jytdog first started objecting to elements of your editing around July 22, and has continued to the present day. If the two of you were to reach a similar opinion, I think it would have happened by now.

(2) The next way this editing conflict could end is if one of you basically gives up on the Bible and Violence article. But we are now approaching four weeks of disagreement, in which the constant thread is that you see your own editing style as neutral and objective while Jytdog sees your editing style as unsatisfactorily influenced by religion. So if one of you is going to let this drop, I haven't seen it yet.

(3) The third option, and the one where I'm guessing this is heading unless something changes here fairly soon, is to some sort of formal dispute resolution process, such as WP:ANI. I don't know this -- I'm guessing based on some experience. I'm not a veteran here, but I've seen a number of religion-related conflicts on Wikipedia, and have some feel for what happens in these situations. The result of an ANI, or some other method of resolution, is that other people from the community will look in and make some sort of verdict here.

People looking in on the situation simply won't read every edit the two of you have made back and forth, and they simply will not read all the sources the two of you have read. They won't because each of has only has so much time, and no one will be quite as interested in the details of you and Jytdog's extended conflict as you two are. You and Jytdog's disagreement make up a very large amount of text. If it's at ANI, each of you will basically be called on to summarize the state of the situation as you see it, and will be expected to provide diffs backing up your claims. They will have to form an impression based on limited data. Here's some of what they'll see.

You are what Wikipedia calls an SPA, or Single-Purpose Account (WP:SPA). You only do one thing here, basically. Jytdog does many things here. Your single mission so far -- to revise this article and to a lesser extent a few related articles, has been a source of ongoing conflict. Jytdog, on the other hand, has been doing an enormous amount of Wikipedia work on a wide variety of topics. Usually an SPA will lose in an argument over bias, for two reasons -- usually the SPA actually is the biased one, and the fact that you're an SPA will make it look that way. It is not against the rules to be an SPA, but it does put you at a disadvantage in an ANI or other dispute resolution situation.

To prevail in a situation that winds up in ANI or something like that, you would need to be able to make a stronger case, based in citations to Wikipedia policies, understanding how Wikipedian onlookers think, and so on. It is a somewhat lawyerish process. Jytdog knows these processes like the back of his hand. He has done over 100,000 edits. You do not -- you're still new here. I'm not saying that to judge you; it's just that you're continuing to bump into problems and probably would in a dispute-resolution setting as well.

To be honest, I think you are in the later part of a conflict that you are not in a position to win. Very often, if a content dispute drags on this long, an ANI case would result in one editor being blocked from editing, either in a specific topic area or on Wikipedia in general. I'm not saying we're there yet, but I have seen several well-meaning newer editors who got themselves into a conflict they could not win but just kept on arguing at great length. These editors are now blocked from Wikipedia. At some point, an ANI resulted in the community seeing their editing style as WP:DISRUPTIVE.

Disruptive editing is hard to define precisely, but reading the link might be a good idea. I appreciate the energy and effort you've been putting in, but I worry about where the current pattern might be headed. Alephb (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Bless your heart. This is really sweet. Thank you for caring and for worrying. Jytdog and I came to an end of the supersessionist conflict, but it got the references changed, and that's the main thing on that one. It's done, but my guess is we are fixing to fire up another one over the reorganization he wants to do. Let me ask you plainly--do you find what I have written on this article to be biased? If so I would seriously like to be aware of that.

When I told Jytdog that the majority of writers in this area are religious people, yet they are not represented as the majority of his references, I asked him if he skipped "Christian" references, but he didn't answer. Looking at them it seems clear he does. Such "cherry picking" is a good way to bias information without actually saying anything biased. I used the example the help-article on writing style uses: Darwin. It would not be copacetic to equate Darwin and his detractors because the majority side with Darwin, but it would also be non-neutral to avoid mentioning those detractors--and explaining their views without prejudice. Jytdog--in the other article we first met on--has built an article on nothing but Darwin's detractors. He hasn't said anything that in and of itself is biased--but the article is biased because Darwin isn't there.

He'll take over and do the same thing to this one I'm expecting. He intimidates people and gets his way. Jytdog is far left--no doubt about it--and in every assessment I have ever had, I am middle, moderate, centrist.

You know, my grandson came in the other day and said he had to do a paper and was told they weren't allowed to use Wikipedia because it has developed a reputation for bias and undependability in what it says because of that. School-childresn are now being told about it! It isn't just me that sees it.

I bowed to his committment to keeping that statement in and stopped talking about it. He has since reverted two more things and I have not reverted the revert. I accepted. He doesn't bother to explain himself. He calls something "garbage" and thinks that's sufficient. He has a particular point of view and if what you are quoting doesn't coincide--it's garbage and it's out. It doesn't matter what percentage of the views of the sources it represents--if it's a majority view--or one of Darwin's detractors--it only matters if he dislikes it. He assumes his word should be final. Then he uses the concept of consensus to tell you why you should keep quiet about it. He has accused me if things I have not done. He accused me of removing references that I did not agree with-- I have never removed anything except the bible quotes on peace--but apparently call someone a "Christian" here and that's sufficient "evidence" of crime-- nothing more needs to be said.

I am a "Top Writer" on Quora. I'm retired now but I still teach and write voluntarily in real life in various venues--like here and Quora. I enjoy Quora and have had several articles go out on the web--under my real name. Wikipedia has been almost nothing but aggravation from the start. It's too easy in this environment for bullys and dictators to run amok--the system has no checks and balances. If I am unable to accomplish my goal here, I will probably be happier and better off without wiki in my life. I am attempting to persevere because I think the article itself is important. A lot of people are still using Wikipedia--for now. It is getting a bad reputation because of people like Jytdog. Do you know he was referenced in a Breittbart article recently? It made Wikipedia look really stupid.

But I get what you're saying, and your heart is in the right place--you are probably even right. I should stop arguing with him because this little kingdom is his. If I get thrown off of wiki, I will tell you goodbye now in case I don't get a chance later. You have been a pleasure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Although I am concerned with the tone Jytdog takes sometimes when he gets into a long argument, I really I haven't seen evidence that yet he is far left, politically or religiously. As for cherry picking, I have noticed that you are both accusing each other of that. I have trouble figuring out just how "neutral" any particular version of the articles are because Wikipedia's concept of neutral is not the journalistic or everyday concept of neutral. It means taking as your base the main positions found in reliable sources. And Wikipedia has a fairly strict idea of what is and isn't a reliable source. So if I were to try to assess whether an article was neutral, I'd need to read what reliable academic sources say about the Bible and violence, and see if the article seems to match the reliable sources in tone, emphasis, and weight. Unfortunately, I have not done that. I've read a lot in the field of biblical studies, but not a whole lot of violence specifically. And I'm sorry, but I'm not going to put in the time to do the reading in the mainstream sources, because I think I know the Bible and its history well enough that I'm pretty comfortable with the opinions I have on the subject, and I usually try to keep only a small portion of my Wikipedia editing involved in editor controversies, to avoid burning out. I will say this, though. When I have seen him edit in the past, I have generally seen Jytdog do a good job of distinguishing reliable and unreliable sources in those parts of biblical studies that I'm knowledgeable about. In areas like this, where I haven't done the reading, it's harder to say.

On the other hand, I think there is some reason to believe that your editing shows a lack of familiarity with the kind of sources Wikipedia likes to use. For example, looking through the sandbox versions of your article I see an op-ed in the Boston Globe, the New World Encyclopedia, Bible Study Tools, Peter Leithart, the Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University, Liberty University Law Review, a lot of stuff with the name "Baker" on it, and Ellen Davis. I haven't done an in-depth analysis of all these, but generally it suggests to me that you and the Wikipedia community are not on the same page about what constitutes reliable sources. I could be wrong about a few of these, and I don't know exactly how much they wind up differing in the end from the more Wikipedia-approved sources. I've also noticed that when you introduce a source that looks like it might not square up with Wikipedia's approach, it is almost always a religious source. In other words, as you drive down Wikipedia lane, it looks to me like (at least when it comes to how you choose sources), you veer off only to the "right." Outside of how you pick sources, the way you word things does generally sound neutral. You do seem to be putting a lot of effort in attempting to be even-handed.

My general impression is that you and Wikipedia probably aren't in synch on some fairly fundamental things, although of course I can't read your mind. But just to give a sampling of how Wikipedia views some biblical topics, it is basically Wikipedia's position that the world is well over 6,000 years old, that the Exodus as described in the Bible never happened, that practically nothing in Genesis is historically reliable, that the book of Joshua is mostly fiction, that the book of Judges is historically not reliable, that the gospels are often historically unreliable, and so on. Wikipedia mostly works from secular academic sources, and does not attempt to check whether those sources are biased or not. Wikipedia does not seek the truth, but simply seeks to summarize what "reliable sources" say. Now, most of the writers Wikipedia winds up quoting on biblical topics are religious people, because there are almost no atheists or agnostics in the entire academic field of biblical studies. But those scholars are definitely, on average, far to the "left", as you might put it, of most believing lay people. Wikipedia is not concerned about whether the research coming out of the top secular universities is biased -- it just passes the information on.

In general, the Wikipedia community tends to treat the kind of scholarship that comes out of, say, Oxford or Harvard, as "neutral" -- these colleges hire professors from all sorts of religious backgrounds and do not impose any official ideological tests on them. In general, a school like Baylor, which deliberately excludes any faculty who are not Christian, is not generally thought of as a neutral institution by Wikipedians. In organizations that make their employees adhere to some particular religious creed, the organization has already in effect pre-determined what its faculty are allowed to say, making the organization basically an advocacy group much of the time, rather than a neutral scholarly source. Wikipedia does not generally treat organizations that explicitly exist to advocate a particular kind of view to be neutral.

So, yes, Wikipedia does have a particular viewpoint, despite the word "neutral." That viewpoint closely matches the range of viewpoints that would be found among faculty at an Ivy League or other major secular university, and does not match the viewpoint that would usually be found among scholars at explicitly religious institutions. I can see why this would be frustrating to some editors. In general, if I want to know what secular academia thinks, I read Wikipedia, and then go on to read some of the sources Wikipedia cites in its article. If I want to know what explicitly pro-religious groups think, then I go read them directly. There's some very smart and insightful people, like Peter Leithart, who I read from time to time, but who I would not cite as a source, because they're outside of Wikipedia's conception of mainstream.

I've been very long-winded. But I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, when Wikipedia uses the term "neutral" it is a very technical term, and does not at all match what the average Joe thinks of as "neutral." I wish Wikipedia were more explicit about this. Wikipedia really is a secular project, in some senses of the word secular. Wikipedia does a good job most of the time of summarizing secular academia's views, but whether or not secular academia's views are any good is another question.Alephb (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow this is amazing--and really helpful and it explains a lot. I have been functioning on the wrong definition of neutral for wikipedia--you're right. I thought that meant including both secular and religious views. I have to say Wiki's view only matches some of the views at secular universities--not all. Miroslav Wolf is at Yale. N.T.Wright is at Oxford. E.P.Sanders was at Duke. I have no problem with academics and their work--Christian or not--they are in pursuit of knowledge wherever they find it. But I had no idea i had to exclude all the work being done at seminaries and other Christian or Jewish institutions. Some of the best work being done in biblical studies is not being done in the universities, it's being done in the seminaries. Wow. When I got on google books I just started at the top and went down one by one--more than half of them were written by christians. And they all have to be excluded as a source? You're right. I don't belong here. That is not my idea of neutral at all. Representing one point of view is not neutral. But now I understand Jytdog's confidence in his position. I am glad to know Wiki does not support the idea of a 6000 year old earth etc.--but a lot exists--of legitimate scholarship between that extreme and pure secularism. It seems like if there were real neutrality, that would be included too. Maybe I have it wrong. Maybe the majority view isn't the "Darwin" here--maybe the roles are the reverse and the secular view is "Darwin" here on Wiki, even if it isn't the majority view, because it's the view of the "accepted scholars"--but even if that's so--"Darwin's detractors" should still get a voice somewhere. Otherwise that's not neutral. Okay. so, if I choose to stay, I have to be more careful about my sources. Good advice. However, so far, Jytdog has not thrown out anything based on it being an "iffy reference" --the last one he threw out was a quote from the article by Jerome Creach that I referenced over a dozen times from the Oxford University Press. It wasn't the reference he didn't like. It was the quote itself he didn't like. And it was a direct quote-- not my words. That's the one he called "supersessionist garbage". Why was that reference okay for the things he agreed with and not okay for the quote he didn't like? Is that copacetic on Wiki? That seems inconsistent with just reporting what the scholars say. I need to take a break from Wiki for a bit. It's not an academic environment which I'm used to, it's not actually neutral by any standard of what neutral means to my years of reporting "the facts" and I can't see where I can possibly fit in here--or how. I appreciate you taking the time to explain all this. It helps truly. I have been the one who didn't understand what I was up against. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not 100% sure I adequately explained the neutrality thing. Certainly, I wouldn't see any problem with using E. P. Sanders, for example, and I don't imagine many other Wikipedia editors would. (Did he come up in the dispute over Bible and Violence? If so I don't remember.) Certainly I've learned a lot from E. P. Sanders, and I think some of his thoughts on Paul are more or less the standard mainstream view today. I wouldn't say that anything done at an explicitly religious organization is always excluded, but most experienced Wikipedians really do tend to base the bulk of articles on peer-reviewed sources from institutions that don't restrict their faculty to any one religion. The exact borderlines of neutrality continue to be constantly debated and re-debated on Wikipedia. And there's certainly no ban on using individuals who are Christians as sources -- certainly the vast majority of individuals cited on Wikipedia biblical studies articles are either Christian or Jewish -- there's maybe five open atheists/agnostics in the whole field. Almost any source you use, I use, or Jytdog uses here probably has some religious affiliation. It has more to do with the kind of outlets they publish in. A professor of mine, who I won't name here, was very much an evangelical Christian and published in a number of mainstream publications, even though some of his views aren't mainstream. Where he has passed through peer-review in reputable (by Wiki's standards) publications, his work is used on Wikipedia. I actually stumble across things he wrote occasionally on Wikipedia. I wouldn't cite him as a source because I know him and I don't like the conflict of interest involved in a student citing his teacher on Wikipedia, but I'm certainly fine with the use of his work on Wikipedia, and I haven't seen any sign that anyone disagrees here.

I did not understand why he threw out the source as "supersessionist garbage." That strikes me as excessive. I wish he had explained himself in more detail rather than just responding with a quote. On the other hand, I've spent more than enough time lately in Wikipedia editing conflicts and I really don't want to spend too much time on the long conflict over the Bible and Violence. I've already been involved in getting a troublesome editor kicked off Wikipedia lately, I've been pulled into another dispute resolution today, and so on. I've been trying to do more non-controversial editing lately, because I'm just not here mostly for the conflict side of Wikipedia. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't have a whole lot of hope that the Bible and Violence article is going to be a good one in the foreseeable future. It's just so loaded that I don't see it happening. So I'm trying to focus my efforts on other things lately -- plus I'm in the middle of a major move from one city to another, so I only have so much time.

Thank you for the time you put in, and the large amount of effort you've put in. I'm sorry things didn't work out more amicably. Alephb (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You did do a good job, and while I can see some of the sources are iffy in the sandbox version--I don't think any of those were transferred over to the edited article--because they were iffy in my mind as well. But no one called into question any of my actual references in any edit I did. What was called into question was the content itself--'always' the content. Supersessionism seems to be the favorite accusation--but there is no scholar anywhere in the world who claims the OT and the NT are equally violent--so how does one tiptoe around that actual inequality, without ever mentioning it, while pretending it doesn't exist, yet write something approaching a decently accurate article? Would you stick your neck out here to say what you think needs to be done to the article? How is it "loaded" and how would you "unload" it? It's okay if you don't have time for this. I understand. I feel sufficiently beaten back that I don't think the article is ever going to improve either. Not when no one is allowed to speak the truth lest they be called "supersessionist" and are attacked. I don't blame you for not wanting to get into the middle of it. Really. It's perfectly understandable. But I am interested in your insight into what the article actually needs. I am apparently not it. But maybe you are.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a technical question. I have a questionable reference in the "Ancient Near East cosmology and archaeology" section in my sandbox version. I use another Encyclopedia because I liked the statement. I am confident I can find it elsewhere if I have to, so I am wondering if I have to. Is it okay to reference another Encyclopedia? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I could have been clearer. When I said "it's loaded" I just meant the topic is loaded with a lot of controversy that bleeds over into the editing process. So there will always be Christians wandering over to the article feeling it is too harsh on the Bible, and there will always be atheists wandering in feeling that it is unfairly making the Bible seem gentler than what it is, and a lot of those editors will have a significant emotional stake in it. Because there are plenty of subtle ways to bias an article like this -- one can just keep adding decently-sourced stuff but do it disproportionately in one direction -- and because it's very hard for an average editor to see the bias unless they've read a ton of books on the topic, it's a very hard article to keep in good shape. As for myself I prefer to focus on sourcing issues, because that's where I tend to be strongest. My weird thought -- and this might be naive -- is that if we pay close enough attention to sourcing we'll solve a lot of other problems at the same time. On most articles, I think half or more of the problems can be fixed by fixing simple errors and strengthening the use of sources.

I really don't think of the New Testament as less violent than the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament commands less violence than the Old Testament, but it portrays God as engaging in a lot more violence, if in addition to the apocalyptic stuff you also count hell. Only in the New Testament does a concept of hell appear, where large portions (possibly most) of humanity are tortured forever. But that's just my personal reading -- I haven't really combed through a good cross-section of reliable sources on this, and so I won't try to impose my personal reading on the article. You may be right, and perhaps my personal opinion is out of line with the majority of scholarship. My guess, though, is that if I did such a reading there would be room for adding some statement to the effect that the New Testament does not command believers as often (or perhaps even ever) to commit violence, and that it tones down some of the Hebrew Bible's more violent ideas about justice.

The New World Encyclopedia is a problem because it basically rewrites Wikipedia passages, but for a regular scholarly encyclopedia there is no problem. We can cite them. Alephb (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I went and looked and it is the New World--so new source. More reading on leviathan ahead! I also think that is an excellent point about Hell! I think that should be included in this article and I wonder why no one thought of it before! You're brilliant! I had not thought of it that way--and clearly a lot of scholars don't including Creach whom I quoted--I was only thinking there is no war, no violence against women, and only one murder--that kind of thing. There is difference of opinion on whether or not the Jews had a concept of Hell, but I believe the majority view is they did not--(where did Jesus get it then?!?)--and if they did--it isn't mentioned much--not like the NT. Sheol is mentioned some--but its meaning is what's debated. Does it actually mean Hell or just death? Anyway--it should be added--definitely--probably in both testaments it should at least get a mention.

I wish I had your optimism that great sources would solve the problem. I haven't found that to be the case. Like I said, the last thing that got thrown out was from an OUP article that is considered okay for other quotes--just not the one he didn't agree with. That's a kind of editing that has nothing to do with sources and everything to do with pov. I am not asking you to do anything about it. It's not a fight worth having. I did not attempt to put it back in. I am just using it as an example that it isn't always the quality of the sources. Even though I think that, I also do think your criticism about me and sourcing is a fair one. When I veer to the right in choosing a reference, it has been because I have gone looking for something that in my mind created balance. That is not a good method for Wikipedia. In the past, in most research I have done, I am looking for something specific--it's not as open as this: go see what everybody says and distill that. It's--go find what so and so says about this and find someone who disagrees and write it up. That has sent me off into the edges of the fields into the weeds-- so no more of that. I will be more careful. Thank you. It's helpful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Go find someone who disagrees and write up both sides sounds like one journalistic way of doing neutrality. It would be extremely useful if there were a site that did that well. Like on climate change, for instance, or evolution, or some other hot-button topic. I would love to see a reasonably well-summarized survey of the best arguments on both sides of climate change, for example. But it ain't gonna be Wikipedia. Vox.com, for example, does a really good job of writing "explainers" of a certain kind of moderate-left position on political views. They're not interested in doing right-of-center explainers, probably because they think they really are writing at the rational center, and the US as a whole is too far right. If there were a companion site on the other side (maybe there is and I just don't know), and you could see them side by side, that would be fantastic. Of course, once any institution tries to do neutrality, it's going to arrange the two "sides" around some kind of "center." For Wikipedia -- to grossly simplify -- that's Harvard, Oxford, Vetus Testamentum, and the Journal of Biblical Literature. But different people will put that center in different places -- another option would be to make the center half-way between JBL and Answers in Genesis, for example. Whoever controls the center controls the debate, and as a result we get all these arguments about the precise definition of "point of view." This will all get sorted out when the Republicans and Democrats finally work out their differences, the wolf lies down with the lamb, the lion eats straw like an ox, and so forth.

Whether "the Jews had a concept of hell" all depends on which Jews we're talking about. In the Hebrew Bible people, in general, just die and go to Sheol, although Daniel does have an idea of good and bad resurrection, and there's a few interesting passages here and there, but no full-fledged concept of heaven and hell as destinations for dead souls. Daniel is very late -- the scholarly consensus places it around 160 BC. In earlier books, people just die and apparently wind up in Sheol, whether they were good or bad. Later, a more developed set of concepts about the afterlife developed, and at some point the Hebrew term "Gehinnom"/"Gehenna" starts getting used for the bad afterlife -- Jesus uses it, yes, but the Mishna (ca. 200 AD) used it too, and nobody accuses the Mishna of copying Jesus. It seems to have sprung up in Judaism. In the first century, the afterlife, and whether any soul survived death, was controversial in Judaism. It still is. I'm fuzzy on the exact details of hell's history as a concept, but it doesn't seem that Jesus invented it from thin air. The resurrection was a hot concept in his time. Alephb (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: I didn't come up with the idea of hell as a greater violence. I've read things along the same line by Christopher Hitchens, out on the strongly-atheist side of things, and Gary North, out on the so-utterly-conservative-that-he-scares-all-the-most-conservative-people side of things. Except in very special cases, I wouldn't cite either of those two as a source. Neither really interacts (or in Hitchens case, interacted) with the mainstream world of biblical studies. I didn't mean to give the impression I came up with the idea. I probably heard it from one of them, or from a preacher friend of mine, first. So when I said "my personal reading," I should have said, "an opinion I have that I really don't have a reliable source for, but didn't invent either." Alephb (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think you were taking credit for inventing it--but you deserve the credit for reminding me of it. I sort of felt like--DUH!--of course! The discussion over Hell and resurrection in Judaism is a fascinating one I think. It was a hot topic wasn't it? And still is! Oh joy! More controversy! Those that believed in a resurrection--not all--believed it would be everyone at once at the end of time, so it's an apocalyptic belief--which is also missing from the OT section. The Week magazine is one that does the side by side as well--there are others who are attempting it I think, but seeing the other side may not be a popular approach for many!  :-) I will keep those four sources at the forefront from now on. I used them all--I just branched out as well. I'll stop being innovative! Say if you have time with your move and all, would you take a look at the Genesis to Exodus/archaeology section in my sandbox and see if you can tell me what it might need? I know I need to replace the New World reference or remove the comment--but anything else you might see would also be appreciated. You know this stuff.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Blogs

Just for future reference, avoid using blog sites as they are not reliable sources, nor are they allowed in general on Wikipedia per WP:NOTBLOG. Since you're working with Christian related articles, the most common blog sites editors have confused as legitimate sources are http://www.earlychristianwritings.com, http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com, http://www.newadvent.org, and https://carm.org. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to say thank you when I first saw this! Sorry! And thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Better late than never

Hi again! I noticed just now that you tried to ping me a couple of times in september at Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Reorganization_Ideas, but since you misspelled my username (extra e), I never noticed, I wasn´t watching that page at the time. I wasn´t ignoring you, and I do have a talkpage and everything. I noticed the discussion started again, if I have something to add, I will. I´d try to get user:Alephb interested, they´re bloody amazing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Awww, shucks. Life has gotten busier lately, and I've been concentrating on Wikiproject Wiki Bible in my spare time, but I just might take a peek and see if I have anything useful to the conversation. The long, long conversation. (And, as for pronouns, he is fine for me. Or they, if it gives you less memorizing to do.) Alephb (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought so, statistics and ale is part of your username, but I generally think the polite thing is not to guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, if I could type worth a damn my entire life would be easier I'm sure! Sorry for the mess up on your name. Thank you for assuming it is better for me to be back! We'll see. I am waiting to see what Jytdog does with what we agreed upon last night. It doesn't really matter what organization we follow so long as we can agree on something, so I decided to just go with what he wanted. He pretty much hates everything I write, but is sometimes willing to edit it--and he is a genuinely gifted and quality editor. He makes everything I write better--when he gives it a chance. That's the way good editors are! So we will see what he does with it! Thank you for the welcome! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity, "Better late than never" refered to me saying something about your pings in september. But of course your return is a good thing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oooohh--so you weren't really welcoming me back at all!  :-) That's cool--I misunderstood. Thanx for the explanation about September. So --now that you got the pings--do you have any input? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Too me it looked like you might read it like I was critizing you for not editing for a while, and I wanted to be clear that wasn´t the case. Text-only communication is hard sometimes, huh?

You do know I am just teasing you right? Pulling your leg, yanking your chain, all of the above, because you are considerate and I think a kind person--so obviously you deserve some abuse!  :-) Honestly? I haven't yet felt criticized by you even when you have been working hard to try and give me a clue! Communication is hard, humor almost seems impossible, and sometimes I need a little humor! But you and Alephb have been nothing but awesome--ever. I am in the process of reorganizing everything in my sandbox around Jytdog's suggestions. He said there was no consensus on it, but I think there can be if someone puts it together in a way people can see. I think I can make it work in combination with your past input and some of mine and hopefully get agreement. I asked a couple of questions on the talk page there. If you feel like you are able, I am interested in your answers to them. If you don't want to answer there--maybe you could come here and tell me. What you think carries some weight with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Outline

@Alephb: @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: @Tahc: @The Four Deuces: @Editor2020: @Martin of Sheffield: @Approaching: @PaleoNeonate: @Jytdog:

We seem to be making progress toward agreeing on an approach to organizing this article--thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång especially--and Alephb--and what is now being called the "Plot" approach. I got so excited I redid the entire outline in my sandbox here and I would like to ask everyone who cares about this article to look over the Table of Contents and get a look at what this Plot approach will likely produce. Please have an opinion! Hate whatever you need to--but please don't hate everything! Tell me something I can do too!Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jenhawk777/sandboxJenhawk777 (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC

Something else I´ve never done, only commented on a few. I took a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. Consider "advertising" at places like wikiprojects (perhaps bible, christianity, judaism, religion), point-of-view noticeboard and reliable source noticeboard. Perhaps Bible talkpage as well. I´m a "he", BTW. Didn´t you see that there´s a thread about porn on my talkpage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize sincerely for making assumptions. It's just that you're so nice... :-) And it's not like there aren't women out there with an interest in porn--not as many as men maybe--but about one out of three at the last thing I read on it--who knows if that's accurate? I should have known you are a guy--we get along so well... Well I'm glad to know you. I didn't know what else to do--this particular angry god seems all powerful. Do you happen to know how to go about posting the Rfc on those boards?Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Don´t worry about it, on WP you can never know. It´s a little funny that my last comment at Alephb is under "Pertinent info". I edited your boardposts a little, made them wikilinks. I will comment on the RFC, I just like to see a few comments not from the terrible three first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I´m being slow with Samuel & Kings, but when I´m done, are you still up to doing the sourcing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. It's easy to tell I am still learning. There has been so much to learn--so quickly! Yes--the irony of my timing there has struck me as well. The terrible three--would that be us?!? Hah! I of course am the totally peaceful one--(said to someone capable of appreciating both irony and satire...)

Yes, I will do the referencing. If you can endure my biased evangelical Christian references, I can find decent discussions of those subjects, I'm sure. There should be plenty of material on those books--easy peasy. I don't ever want to have to look up or have anything to do with Numbers ever again.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at The Bible and violence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion public at the Bible talk page.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk pages are for discussing editor behavior (as well as other things). This is a notice about behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This is so far from reasonable there are no words. I made some changes before putting some of the material back. I did not simply edit war with you. You did. You ignored my efforts and simply yanked it all again, and if all the various notices and complaints on your own talk page are any indication, that is the norm for you. Please leave me alone. This is harassment. Pursue discussion of the article at the article's talk page and don't concern yourself with disciplining me for imagined offenses. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Som vi säger i Sverige.

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

BTW, that [3] was funny. Almighty Dog... HAH! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope you genuflected when you wrote that...  :-) Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and all of the above to you and yours as well! Happy everything! Thank you so much for the good wishes too. I will not start on those references till after the holidays probably. My family actually expects me to pay attention to them. So demanding!  :-) I would like to get those three paragraphs replaced first as well. There is a partial rewrite with incomplete references--but hopefully the "bad" ones removed--in my sandbox. If you have ten minutes, I would be grateful if you would tell me if it seems like an actual improvement to you. If you are okay with it then I know it's okay. Anything you say to change will be changed! Vóila! You can be Captain of the starship and say, "Make it so!" Because you don't generally! But I am asking in this case. So--in English--and what language is that by the way--what does the heading mean? I speak a little German and spanish, my ancestors were Danish and I don't know a single word of it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Did not genuflect, but this may be the first time I´ve encountered the word in conversation.

• (Deuteronomy 7:2) means first appearance, right?
• "parallel" to what?
• "priestly use" as in priestly source or Priesthood (Ancient Israel)?
• "where physical violence may or may not be in view" not sure what this means, in view of the storyteller/speaker?
• "divine violence which is seen as a "response to and correction of human violence" Oh yeah? What about Uzzah and his 50 000 predecessors (1 Samuel 6)? But I digress.
• "Hamas also sometimes appears as a cry to God in the face of injustice." I wouldn´t mind an example here too.
• "whose behaviors are destructive and life-threatening and whose activity is linked to their arrogance and disregard for God" I hope the source is good, this may be to theological.
• "the alien" a stranger/strangers perhaps?
• The long quote cited to [15] sounds like religeous interpretation to me, but if the source is ok.
• Never heard of Axial Age but it´s an article.
• "but it is best seen", why "best"?
• "Prophets like Amos..." this section sounds a bit rambling, is it a peace through war/righteous war argument?

Depending on where in the article this ends up, wikilinks are needed. My personal preference is that names of scholars should have some description, of course wikilink if possible. Best to me is something like "Historian and author William T. Cavanaugh", I think even the wikilinked are improved by description, but I don´t know WP chapter and verse on this, maybe I should ask somebody. That felt like more than 10 minutes, but it´s worth every cent you paid for it.

"Merry Christmas and Happy New Year", below "As we say in Sweden". As hinted on my userpage, the language is swedish. Sweden and Denmark has a lot of history in common, history meaning "wars", mostly. Sweden won all the wars (that´s a lie, but we did win the last (for now) one). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This is awesomely amazingly wonderful! Oh my gosh you rock! Thank you so much--do you know--'historian and author blah de blah' was something the almighty dog removed early on and ridiculed as sounding like a high school essay?! I will go through putting some of them back--maybe if they have a wikilink and not if they don't. This is worth a lot to me! At least a dollar a minute, as Brer Rabbit would say. :-) The long quote on peace sounds religious to me too, but everything I find on God promoting peace IS religious--Everything--and I went through several pages on google books before I gave up looking. I went with this one because it lists things in a similar manner to the rest of the article. Peace is referenced 300 times and hamas 60--it deserves to be included don't you think? The dog will flip, I know. I don't know what to do about it. I will keep looking.

Swedish--we are probably distant cousins... :-) My father was a first generation American. His father was brought here as a new born in the early twentieth century. It was probably because they lost that last war--or maybe not! Your English is amazing btw. Very impressive. Thanx again for all of this. I will try to make it so Captain! (Not a Star Trek fan?)Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I did what you said--or at least intended--I hope. I either removed the quotes you thought were too theological altogether or I got more references and changed the wording slightly. I think your comments have definitely improved it. Sigh--perhaps I will learn this someday before I die. :-) I removed the quote from Creach. It would not be worth fighting for. But I wanted to answer--1 Samuel 6 would not be a disproof of his theory since that number is highly disputed on the one hand, and the story can be explained through other means. Alephb is getting me some dictionary references and then I will make my offering with suitable obeisance to the local deity in hopes of not being reverted yet again. You have been so good. I can't think of enough ways to say thank you. Swedish! How do I say thank you in Swedish? I should learn--since I'll probably be repeating it a lot! Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My "oh yeah?" to Creach's argument is quite personal, overall he has a reasonable point (I think). I have even bigger problems with plague nr 10, but of course collective punishment like this is not a biblical invention/monopoly, see for example Nine familial exterminations. Collective punishment may be like slavery, something pretty much all cultures "invent" at some point in their development (unless some other culture interupts their development before that).

For something completely different, I´d like to recommend a novel:[4]. It´s really great. And funny. And it has Danes in it. BTW, "starship", "make it so"? I have no idea what you are talking about [5]. Seen The Orville, btw? I like the green blob. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must: [6] [7]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can stop laughing long enough to type! OMG! I may have to post those videos everywhere! I saw mommy kissing--good Lord! It's totally irreverent and hilarious! I loved it--but seriously--it's not good to make fun of Jean-Luc Picard--reverence must be maintained about truly important things...  :-) I have not watched Orville! The ads look like it is funny. Do they make fun of Jean-Luc? I'm just not sure I could support that... Thank you for the book rec--is it a historical fiction? Do the Danes get whupped by the Swedes?  :-)

It's perfectly reasonable to take plague nr.ten personally--everyone should, really, and take the seriousness of that to heart. If this God is real--He can be truly frightening! But if He is real, it also means He doesn't see death as we do. It's an interesting conundrum.

Please don't ever feel the need to apologize for humor! Survival may depend upon it! Even making fun of me--if it's not mean ridicule--is perfectly fine. I do it all the time! People are just funny! Make it so, make it so, make it so... Now I'll be singing that forever! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think McFarlane is more of a Kirk-character, but I´ve never actually watched TOS, just the others.

Historical fiction, yes. Sweden is old (ca 1200 AD or so, unlike younger nations I wont mention we can´t pinpoint an actual year. Fun fact, Norway has an independence-day. Guess who they got independent from...), but Denmark is even older. The book is around 1000 AD, so there´s no actual Sweden. So proto-swedes and Danes gang up on English and other rabble. Serve in muslim Spain for awhile. After leaving Spain, discussion goes something like this: At sea at last! We should sacrifice to the sea-god for safe journey. Good thinking. What about Allah? Yeah, him too. And the wossname of the church where we took this big bell, St. Jakob? Sure, better safe than sorry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If my own family are any evidence, I would wager big money that is word for word what happened. :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Danes are ok, though: Rescue of the Danish Jews. If you can get your hands on Matador (Danish TV series) with english text, give it a shot. A little like Dallas but with much nicer people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Terms

"These are the"... Was that deliberate or subconcious? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A little awkward but Markbassett said he thought it needed an intro, I didn't, but was trying to accommodate everyone as much as possible so I wrote one-badly worded line. It's been there since I put the section back--I didn't add it to deliberately aggravate you know who. I would never do such a thing! How could you imagine it? Heh heh heh (evil laughter echoes...)  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Subconcious, then:[8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I feel twice as stupid! I think I've been sensitized--I think any comment is a criticism--sorry--I'll get over it! Definitely subconscious--I completely missed the allusion. But it made me smile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I´ve perhaps been to obscure. A smile was the intent, so good. But I know what you mean. When you wrote "Well that was totally worthwhile!" on Talk:The Bible and violence my brain immediately screamed "sarcasm!!!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's so hard to tell in print sometimes isn't it? But as you read on it became apparent that was sincere--right? Right?? Once I got the allusion, I smiled--once you got the compliment, you did too--please just say yes whether it's true or not--I need the win.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, context is everything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So! Yes it is. I have something shocking to tell you--Aleph knows nothing of Star Trek! How can he keep going?Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, not everybody heeds the word of Rodenberry. Please show forbearance to the followers of Gaiman, Pterry, Herbert, Tolkien, Lovecraft or whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate them as well! I am a fan of Tolkien's from back before he was as well known as he is now. I cut my teeth on sci-fi--please! Although I am not a huge Harry Potter fan--what's up with that? But it baffles the mind when someone says to me, "I just don't like scifi/fanatsy." That's like not liking chocolate--or worse--beer!?! But I understand there are people out there who lay claim to such craziness!  :-) It takes all kinds as they say... Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I watched an episode of Star Trek, or Empire Gallactica, or something like that once, but I fell asleep. Never heard of Gaiman, Pterry, or Herbert. Tolkien I've heard good things about, but never read. As for Lovecraft, I'm a bit fan of some people who are big fans of Lovecraft, so maybe one day I've have to take a look. Alephb (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not limited to sci-fi, I like all kinds of things. Do you have a favorite literary genre or have eclectic tastes? Any favorite authore? TV shows? Movies? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm watching Dark this very moment, so I suppose that's sci-fi. When it comes to literature, I'm a big fan of the Brothers Karamazov. I'm starting The Idiot soon. I've bought it, but procrastinating. And what about you? Alephb (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Groan... I can't abide the Russians! I've tried and tried but they just annoy me! I know, I know--they are classic works of great art and skill--I have no doubt--but there are several great authors I just don't like--Faulkner for one. I tried three times to read "Look Homeward Angel" by Thomas Wolfe and just gave in to despising his style and characters and topic and method and everything else about his book. I also don't like the well-loved Ernest Hemingway. I've read all of Steinbeck and appreciate his characters and skill, but I can't say I actually liked a single one of his books either! I have favorite books more than favorite authors. Tolkien's trilogy is at the top of my list. I think Mark Twain is one of the most under-appreciated authors out there. I've read everything he ever wrote. One of my favorite books of all time is 'to kill a mockingbird' but that's because it describes aspects of my childhood so well--and it's a powerful story. I suppose if I have a favorite author Jane Austin would be right up close to that. I used to say she was under appreciated too, but she has risen in esteem in the past decade I think. Her characters change and grow--not easy to write convincingly. Man--I should have warned you--Lit was one of my undergraduate majors! Never ask an English major what books they like! There will go the rest of the evening! :-)

Weird fact -- if "the Russians" all sound the same to you, that might be because a lot of the classic Russian lit stuff was all translated by Constance Garnett. There's like 70 Russian books out there circulating in English that she wrote. She might be your entire problem with Russian literature. Unless you're reading them in Russian, of course. Alephb (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely NOT reading in Russian. I have a remmnant of Spanish and German which I have not used in years and have forgotten mostly. I lived in Argentina in childhood and learned Spanish alongside learning English, kept up with it for awhile and was truly fluent when living in Europe as an adolescent, but have no call for it in the states for ages now. Everyone speaks poor English here.  :-) I have some German--lived in Wiesbaden for about three years--and a truly tiny amount of Greek and Hebrew from the development of English studies and religion studies--beyond that I think I can say thank you in French and that's pretty much it! My oldest son speaks Romanian and Russian and a couple of things--but whole other alphabets involved!! Hard!! Not doing it!! But that is a totally interesting fact about the translator--and that does make such a huge difference doesn't it? It might very well be her style I don't like. Some paraphrasing is necessary in all translations--hmmmm--I wonder if there are better translations out there--maybe I should test this theory. :-) I need more to read since I am hardly reading anything for Wikipedia and Quora these days--that was sarcasm in case you missed it! I am perusing 36 different books right now!! Taking notes on all of them! And I always end up buying some! I really need to quit that too. I need book-buyers anonymous. Wouldn't help would it?!? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey--there's no article on her--should we write one? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I just screwed up the spelling.

OH good! That I can totally relate to!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Never heard of Gaiman, Pterry, or Herbert." Ok, that´s hard to forgive, but I called for forebearance, didn´t I. Anyway, Lovecraft is in the public domain, so I can recommend The Rats in the Walls, Pickman's Model and The Call of Cthulhu for short stories, The Shadow Over Innsmouth, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward and At the Mountains of Madness for longer ones. A Cure for Wellness, while not based on any particular HPL story, was nicely lovecraftian. Jeffrey Combs, beloved by trekkies, has done several HPL-inspired films (I´m not saying they're very good). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Bible and violence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: So is it another Rfc? A third party appeal? Which way do you want to go to try and drum up support for your personal dislike? To quote Wiki on referencing: "Thereafter, the same named reference may be reused any number of times.." and "When an article cites many different pages from the same source..." I fixed the one duplicate. You have no grounds for changing the others.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You still have no idea what you are actually reverting, do you. You created the dupe because you yourself cannot keep track of the random names you assigned the refs. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be right. Everything you say may always be right. That may sometimes get lost in how it is said. I looked for instructions on multiple references on the same author and could not find instructions on it anywhere. So I asked at the Teahouse and what I did was what someone suggested there. I am pedaling as fast as I can trying to learn what you have acquired from over ten years of experience, and since you don't explain generally, you don't teach, but you do insult and bully and ridicule on a regular basis instead, it sometimes seems impossible to please you. Good faith effort simply isn't enough. It's clear you have taken a dislike to me and I am sorry for that. Honestly I am. I admire your work. But I could be a good editor here too--perhaps with a little support and instruction and less needless fighting--and time. I apologize for my part in any conflict we have had. I apologize for what I don't know and for making stupid mistakes that seem obvious to someone of your experience. I understand that's part of why one of Wiki's instructions is "Don't bite the newcomers." I will no doubt continue to blunder along trying to learn through trial and error. I apologize up front. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Pionius

Alephb started it less than a month ago, you added the the bulk of it (evidence:[9]), and, the internet being as it is, if you google "Martyrdom of Pionius" it´s the first result. That´s pretty cool.

Hypothesis: I'm a Borg who assimilated you into the Wikipedia-collective:[10] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Resistance was futile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Free idea: I'd like to tell a joke about how the medieval economic system was doomed as early modern capitalism began to appear. The punch line is "resistance is feudal," but I'm really not sure how to write the darned thing. I give it to you two in hopes one of you will one day be able to turn it into a complete joke. Alephb (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Graebergs can do it, after all, the Borg are Swedish. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Isaac of York walks into a tavern... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I love it already. :-) Hey did you get the question I left on your talk page? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you--I see that you went and found it for me--thank you so much! I have already used it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The exasperation of editing Wikipedia

Hello - you say on the article talk page that you are disappointed and exasperated with my alterations to your revision of the section in Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. I know the feeling, it comes with the territory. A few years ago, this article as well as all the articles on persecutions of Christians by the Romans,with the exception of Diocletianic Persecution, a featured article,were absolutely atrocious,absurdly bad. You can go back into the article history and see what I mean if you are curious. So I put in a great deal of time and effort in re-writing them, including Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, and I will admit that it is rather irritating to me that you obviously feel this article needs to have lots of work and revision done on it. My feeling is that it is more or less OK as it is and we would be better off improving other articles elsewhere. But obviously I cannot enforce that, I do not own the article and we will have to work around our feelings of exasperation. I see you have collaborated with Alephb, who has made a tweak to the article - Alephb, is Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire a topic area you are familiar with? If so can you please help us out with whatever contributions you can and also I would like a third party to "adjudicate"as it were between me and Jenhawk777, thanks.Smeat75 (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I am the least knowledgeable of the three of us about this topic. I do know more than most. But I already see the two of you here discussing points that I'm just not that familiar with.

I don't think the specific details of the issues the two of you are disagreeing over are the real problem here. Me and Jenhawk have a disagreement over how controversial, already-written Wikipedia articles are best edited, in terms of how fast they should be edited and how drastic of a rewrite is appropriate to drop in a single edit. I've discussed this at great length elsewhere, and I'm reluctant to keep doing so. I don't think I can be of much help here. I am sympathetic to the frustration you both are feeling, but I'd like to focus on areas where I think I have a higher chance of successfully improving things.Alephb (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well hello and welcome! The article is more or less okay--it's good actually. The changes I would like to see are small. I really have nothing to add to the body of the page and would only like to see those small additional ideas in the reasons section. That's it. You have done good work, and I don't mean to come off as overly critical of what you have done so much as having something to offer that the article didn't have yet. Aleph and I have just spent months dealing with a very contentious situation in another article and right now he is very tired of controversy so I am guessing he is going to decline participation here. But we aren't really having any controversy I don't think. You've been brilliant. And you're right, exasperation comes with the territory. After our initial communication when you were so reasonable I developed an expectation that some of the key points I brought up would be included in your revision and instead the only things of mine that were included in your rewrite were restatements of what you had already said. The page doesn't need to have 'happy' changed to 'glad'--what you wrote and how you wrote it was fine--it was just incomplete. But expectations always cause trouble! And that is mine not yours.

I have a version in my sandbox I would like you to look at. The references aren't finished but I think the composition is. The first paragraph is mostly mine, four paragraphs are mostly yours and there is some combination in the rest. It is organized around main ideas without actually stating them since you didn't seem to like that approach. It includes all your points--and Gibbon. I use Ste.Croix--without the reference you objected to. It adds my three main points--without the superstitio which I agree to leave where you have it. It's short. It hits all the main ideas about both Christianity and Rome. If you have any objections, we will figure out together how to accommodate them. I won't make any more changes to the page itself until we come to a consensus between us. If you would like to do the rewrite yourself--including the points raised--I can easily accept that. I completely understand the emotional investment of months working on improving a difficult article. [[11]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well there you have it. I knew Aleph would decline--but that's okay. We are doing just fine. Aleph's right, I shouldn't have rewritten the whole thing, I should have just started that separate article--but then I thought you had it adequately covered, except for a couple of points, and that a separate article would never get accepted. So like a bull in a china shop I was bold and jumped in with all the material I had for a whole separate article! I didn't start out looking at your article thinking it needed editing so much as the topic needed expanding elsewhere. What I did was a compromise which basically meant it didn't do anything very well. But you are responsive and I will accept what you write if you would just please add the preeminence of Caesar/the state and how that conflicted with monotheism, the significance of privatization of religion--which is what we have nowadays because of that--and the Roman caste system and how that impacted how they reacted to Christianity. Then we can be done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If the two of you can work through things well, more power to you both. There may be cases where starting with a bolder, more substantial rewrite than I would personally prefer might work out fine. But I don't think I, personally, am much help in those kinds of situations. I wish you both the best of luck. Alephb (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Jenhawk777 - I have never been asked to comment on something in a user's sandbox before, I suppose the place to respond is here. There is a lot in your sandbox, is what you are now proposing to add to the article the top part down to the first line drawn across the page, i.e. from "Before 250 AD" down to ""Away with the Christians to the lions!"? If so, it is immeasurably better than the first version you put in and I have no problems with it at all.Smeat75 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes--in one version of this somewhere I said it was at the top! Jeez! If I can't keep straight what I've done where, how can I ask anyone else to put up with me?! But you have--and yes just down to 'the lions!' It is better, and that is all you and your very excellent negotiation skills! You held the line and required me to do better meeting your standards, yet you were flexible enough to allow in new material. I don't see how anyone could have done better than that. You deserve a barnstar! I am going to see if I can find one good enough!

I do a lot in my sandbox--as you can see--and I ask people to do stuff there all the time. One more thing that makes me a little weird! :-) (But I think maybe weird fits in just a little bit on Wiki!) Thank you for your kindness to me and for your commitment to quality here on Wiki. You made me better, together we made the article better, we worked it through between us, and this seems like a win all around. I will go now and install that. Consider me a friend from now on please!Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar!

Very nice of you, I am glad we were able to come to an agreement which was not only good for us but for the project. Best wishes Smeat75 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chronicle of Arbela, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arbela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

How to Write in a Reference

Below are various examples of how a reference might work. They're set up in the following format: fix what you would type into your text editor, and second, what would display. I think doing that will be clearer than explaining things, but if that doesn't work I'll explain.

<ref>Simple reference</ref>

<ref>Reference with ''a'' little '''formatting''' in it, and a <s>clink</s> link to a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiSn2JuDQSc YouTube video].</ref>

<ref name="AttridgeHata1992a">{{cite book|author1=Harold W. Attridge|author2=Gōhei Hata|title=Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jVyzbHAJ_hAC&pg=PA224|year=1992|publisher=Wayne State University Press|isbn=0-8143-2361-8|page=224}}</ref>

<ref name="AttridgeHata1992b">This time I write a little bit between the first > and the beginning of the {{-template thing: {{cite book|author1=Harold W. Attridge|author2=Gōhei Hata|title=Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jVyzbHAJ_hAC&pg=PA224|year=1992|publisher=Wayne State University Press|isbn=0-8143-2361-8|page=224}}</ref>

If messing around with that a little bit doesn't help, I might have to explain in more detail later. But now, I have to head off to work. Alephb (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the difference between number one and number three? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If I understand your question right, in number one I just typed some stuff in, while in number 2 I used the template that the Google Books reference tool generated for me. I guess the difference that really matters is the difference between 3 and 4. Alephb (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming you've been using the Google Books reference tool to make your references rather than typing them by hand? Correct me if I'm wrong here. Alephb (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I type them by hand--that would be why there are often errors that have to be corrected--because I am a crap typist. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a google reference tool... I have to go back to my keeper now--I'm not really allowed out on my own...  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Holy cow. You are doing an enormous quantity of unnecessary work. Kudos to you for even bothering to stick around under those conditions. What you want is this: [12]. Let me know if you have any questions about it. What else do you find timeconsuming here? Are you aware of Visual Editor?

This is like finding a road somewhere and learning that someone built it with a shovel. Alephb (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Before we get too far off topic, has your "how do you write stuff into a ref tag" question been answered to your satisfaction? Alephb (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well--that would be me you see digging my way to China with that shovel... :-) I have been using the cheat sheet that Wiki puts on the help page and have been following the directions on it--doing one reference at a time--slowly. Perhaps now my previous behavior--just trying to keep track of authors and page numbers--while I am trying to write something, makes a kind of weird sense, because yes, it's very tedious to write all the references the way I have been doing it--especially when you realize there is a reference on nearly every sentence. When I did all those references for all those books of the Bible on B&V--that is exactly how I did them. I took the phrase being referred to, looked for it on google books, found a decent one, went back and forth getting the reference right--then went to the next sentence. It took forever!! No wonder it was such a pain! But I didn't know there was another way. So --don't let the irony escape you here --wiki is a skill set that has to be learned, and now that I have finally learned this one skill well enough I can do it without checking the cheat sheet anymore--now you're telling me there's a better way--and I should learn it instead. I'm not crying--really--well maybe a little... Why oh why does Wiki post stuff at 'help' that isn't helpful?!? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to know about that 's' thing you did, and you are saying that I can type anything in between the first ref with the > after it and the double brackets that starts the cite book section, and it will just be hanging out there with nothing to set it off, all by itself, and that's okay? And no I don't know what visual editor is either. I really do go look stuff up. I really have read a whole bunch of wiki's help pages. Apparently they have less to do with the actual reality of writing on wiki than one might hope. Sigh... Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• to both of you

Quick note, that there is a very easy and fast way to do citations, which often also provides a link that allows readers to more easily find the source being cited.

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite book", you can fill in the "isbn" or the "url" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):

(ref)Attridge, Harold W.; Hata, Gōhei (1992). Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 0814323618.(/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I use that method sometimes outside of Google Books. Although, when I'm in Google Books, I really like the Reftag tool. Not sure why. Alephb (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog?!? This is helpful--and really nice--and I'm a little bit stunned. I don't quite know what to say. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I wrote down what you said and will try it next time I have the courage to write anything here. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If I'm referencing some webpage, I sometimes use Wikipedia:REFILL. It´s lazy but it usually works ok. Save the refs as bare url:s between reftags and then use the link under "To use reFill yourself". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bible and humor

I created it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

First you're supposed to say, "Let there be light"... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

True story: I was going to write "Fiat (Article in Latin)", but google translate made me unsure what the right Latin word would be, since "article" has many meanings.

Do you watch Lucifer? [13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just can't drum up any empathy or even minimal sympathy for a character that is supposedly the actual devil. Jeez. He has clearly obtained a personal image consultant.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the word you're looking for is libellus or pagina. BTW, if you're into that, we have an entire Wikipedia written in Latin; vide. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks BenKovitz, and sit vis vobiscum (though my favorite latin is FABRICATI DIEM PVNC)!. I actually edited the Vicipaedia once: Disputatio_Vicipaediae:Pagina_prima#Main_page_tab Just reading "disputatio" again makes me smile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your favorite Latin phrase is another allusion to sci-fi isn't it? You should have titled the page "Libelous libellus" -- 'humorous pagina' doesn't have the thrill of alliteration... I am spending way too much time on Wikipedia ... Hi BenKovitz! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood, actually. (Properly FAC DIEM, PVNCE, I think. What the world needs now is surely an authoritative Latin translation of Dirty Harry.) BTW, when I double-checked libellus yesterday, I found out that it's actually the root of "libel"! I had thought the similarity was only a coincidence, but it seems that people in Ancient Rome were writing and passing around short articles intended to damage a person's reputation, and eventually this meaning found its way into English. I learn something new every day on Wikipedia… :) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Clint Eastwood via Pterry. "The Watch's current motto is "Fabricati diem, pvnc". This is nonsense in Latin, and doesn't actually mean "Make my day, punk", although it looks as though it ought to; this is the nature of most "Latatian" in the books" Ankh-Morpork_City_Watch. Sit vis vobiscum though, that´s sci-fi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was guessing it was Terry--Eastwood never even occurred to me! I had to go look the other one up. And so I will say 'right back at ya' big guy' (allusion to eighties TV)... :-)

Yes BenKovitz! Libelous libellus--for a page on humor! A pun--though maybe not a very good pun... Are there such things as good puns? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons. Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

More biblical geekery

Any insight on this? Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Bible_fiction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I found it really funny that you added Shakespeare at "Humor", since I recently been having a long talk with a Shakespeare-fanatic at User_talk:Xover#Oh,_c'mon,_it's_a_good_book!. Shakespeare-fanatic meets Gaiman-fanatic... And I threw him a little Picard. We got along surprisingly well since there are actual Shakespeare-scholars who write about Gaimans take on Shakespeare. Like the Bible, S has something of an omnipresence in every kind of fiction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Went and looked at both of those. I have not found any mention of Zippora so far in any of the books I am using--but now I will go hunting!  :-) Her story would fall under the "gentle gender" humor Walker mentions where the presumed power and social order is reversed. Surely that's got to be somewhere! If you are brave enough to check Rashi, I will look too.

Shutter, I think it was, includes a reference to how much Shakespeare supposedly took ideas from the Bible, but I didn't include the quote because it's speculation in my view. My Shakespeare professor believed it and taught it--and he was an excellent professor--but even so... Not Wiki-worthy I didn't think. It probably really is true though--his audience would have been familiar enough, perhaps, for them to recognize those allusions which would have given them extra weight which might be why S. used them. He is certainly chock full of humor though--even his tragedies contain some. There may be books out there demonstrating the connection between Shakespeare and the Bible--I just realized I hold that opinion and have never actually looked for any books on it! Would you like to do that? It might be usable.

I agree, it's a tossup who gets alluded to more in our culture--Shakespeare or the Bible--but I would guess Shakespeare. Most people are pretty ignorant of the Bible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean Zippora--Moses' wife--or did you mean the story of the midwives and Pharoah that I think is what sparked your interest in this subject in the first place? I found them both in books on humor but the comment on Zippora is lame. I will keep looking if Zippora is what you actually meant. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean do you know any biblical film or TV-series that include Zipporah at the inn? I'm just curious, I'd like to see that, if it exists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons. Focus on: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Interesting article

Is the Sky Blue? How Wikipedia Is Fighting for Facts by Redefining the Truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibly of interest

I just added a bunch of articles to the "Bible sidebar", perhaps you would have fun with some of them. [14]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Very cool! I am definitely going to look at those. The ones on ethics and women especially interest me of course. Thank you. And any other articles you want Arbela'ed just let me know. Something new would be good for me. I am getting heartburn over an attempt to reason with people who don't want 'their' article touched even though it reads like a personal blog. I have been trying hard for cooperation in the talk page. I even told them I wouldn't put anything directly in the article but would work entirely in my sandbox where they could edit and criticize till we came to consensus, but I couldn't even get agreement to that. 80% of the article presents a fringe view with not even a mention of the majority view to reference why it's considered fringe. Not a word. It's very disheartening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So now I had to start reading that article. This is your fault. I'm Joe Schmoing. We'll have to start a dictionary soon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

How the heck did you know which article I was referring to?!? You astound me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Remember I told you about the "User contributions" link on the left side of every userpage? The Eye of Sauron is available to anyone who wants it. However, if you should feel at some point that I'm WP:FOLLOWING you, tell me and I'll stop. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No no! Don't stop even if you are--which I know you are not! I was just totally impressed with your knowhow! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay--this is just between you and me--but since I have noted your participation in the article referred to, I would like to ask your personal opinion--am I wrong? Does this article seem neutral to your more experienced eye? I am not asking you to get involved okay? But I trust you. I am beginning to wonder if the problem is that I just don't understand the nature of fringe-theory articles. Are they all like this one? I looked at the article on ID and it seems the opposite of this one. In the article there is one section with a couple of specific responses and there are a few general statements--is that adequate? The length of the article with the number of claims and the omission of responses seems to me to make this view more notable than it actually is. But I could be wrong because I don't know enough about Wiki's standards on parity, neutrality, etc.. Will you tell me if you think I am off base here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Opinion it shall be. I've read the article up to and including "Diversity and syncretism", so there's a lot I haven't read yet. So far, it seems to me that the mainstream view is reasonably well represented. Mythisists have some room to run, perhaps too much in places but not glaringly so. This is one of those topics where there's plenty of published (besides blogs and SPS) material on the topic, so there is a lot non-mainstream that can be added, while mainstream may well have better things to do than comment on every point they make.

I think FT articles on WP can be very different, depending on several things, including the editors involved. I wouldn't look to ID for comparison in this case (and beware WP:Other stuff exists anyway). I think another historical FT like Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is more similar. Both have loud and eager proponents with published and popular stuff, and they have big holes in the historical record to fill with their ideas, so there is a lot that can be reasonbly described in a WP-article (and the number of editors interested in adding such material can be large).

I wish you a happy weekend with eggs and such. Tomorrow by this time I intend to be quaffing and gorging somewhere on the Sea of Åland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Dammit, WP knows everything: Baltic Sea cruiseferries. "The ferries have been criticized because of the low prices of alcoholic beverages which encourage passengers to become drunk and act irresponsibly." Well duh..!

Ha ha! LOL! Then I wish you a thoroughly irresponsible weekend!

Thank you for your input. I will check out the Shakespeare article--and please finish reading, since my claim has been that it is the second two thirds of the article that has no parity. What balance there is, is up front. It's actually a good article overall--which I have said repeatedly. If we were to follow one guy's suggestion of creating a second article with the history stuff moved, what is left would be pretty balanced by itself. Anyway, one of the guys has begun making an effort to talk, so perhaps it will resolve after all. Or I will just give up and go away. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your message a month ago

I have only just now read on my talk page your invitation from March 15. I'd like to say I'd accept such a welcome offer, but I'm afraid I've withdrawn from most Wikipedia activity, especially on topics in Christianity. My recent experience is that the ill will shown by some editors there is not inhibited by the administrators, despite WP policy, and I just am unwilling to participate in the face of destructive behavior. I wish you well, and hope your experience may be different. But I've decided that the distractions here are not worth my time and effort to overcome. Evensteven (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am so sorry to get this response, but you have both my complete understanding and my immediate sympathy. My first experience attempting to edit a Christian topic was virulently bad, but I am stubborn enough I persisted anyway. I have had two reasonably good experiences since then because of others who persevered to provide me with that alternate Wiki experience. I hoped to pass that on to you one by working with you along those same lines. But I totally understand. If you ever change your mind, we could do an article together on something obscure and unlikely to draw the interest of the roving sharks. I just finished "The Chronicle of Arbella" and "The Bible and humor" which were actually fun and conflict free. You are welcome to get back to me anytime if you ever decide you would like to see if Wiki has the potential to be a fun experience for you. If not, I wish you well in your other endeavors. Thank you for responding! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And thanks to you! I just dropped in to have a look for a response. I'm afraid there's not much chance I'll return. My "recent experience" WAS me giving it another try, after an extended absence. (I'm persistent enough to be called stubborn too.) What a disappointment! But the US is full of camps of people too opinionated and too ignorant and too angry to have any use for understanding, and arm themselves with automatic responses. Wikipedia is not immune. My response is simply not to engage. I do so as a person who is peaceable and determined to stay that way. In this age, that takes considerable persistence and even stubbornness as well, and I have my hands full with that, and other opportunities in a workable atmosphere. It's my great regret that it prevents me from engaging you in what would surely be a rewarding experience. However, I do appreciate your offer, and knowing that others also resist the temptation to become combative. Evensteven (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I want you to know you come off as a really wonderful person worth getting to know and it makes me sad I won't get that chance. But I do understand. Really. It just seems like all the best people are abandoning Wiki to the others--the cantankerous ones like me.  :-) I'm not really non-combative, I just try to be fair and kind and see all sides--give people the benefit of the doubt, you know--but I am not averse to a good fight if I think it's important. I do know there are a lot of battles here that just aren't winnable--especially where Christianity is concerned. And God knows you're right about "camps of people." When I see that is when it's time for me to walk away as well. What can't be changed must be accepted. There comes a time when moving on is the right choice. I certainly support your self awareness. I would just ask please, remember that I am here. You can message me without actually "coming back" to Wiki anytime you darn well please. God bless. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we did it

Template:Did you know nominations/The Bible and humor Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is fun! Thank you for involving me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

We are making progress, Number One. Template:Did you know/Queue, see prep area 6. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Can you take the time--number one is feeling slightly retarded today--to explain what the deal was with the references and why they needed changing and why you changed them the way you did--it looks to me like you took references OUT and I know that can't be right. Thank goodness you were there to fix it! Puppy would have cowered and wet the floor! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Before I try to answer (this area is slightly blind leading blind), you're referring to this, correct?: "Yoninah, better:[15]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes Captain! BTW--have any other obscure little articles you are interested in working on together? Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing I'm very serious about, but I have been eyeing St Crispin's Day Speech and Tharbis lately. St Crispin is painfully empty, but so is my knowledge on the topic. I've done edits to Zipporah but only noticed Tharbis recently, someone mentioned her on Moses talkpage. Small headsup on Tharbis, though:[16].

If you check the diff I gave Yoninah, it says near the top "2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown". This diff is actually 3 edits, because I wanted to show the "finished product".

[17] First edit, I add Peters with cite as bare url.

[18] Second edit, I fill in the cite with a thingie called WP:Refill. Besides filling in my cite, it also wants to do something with the 3 Radday cites. I let it, not that I actually understood why, but AFAICT it usually knows what it's doing. There's always "undo".

[19] Third edit, a little polishing.

So, what did the little robot actually do? If you check article-versions before and after, you see that for the reader there's no relevant difference in the article-text. The difference is seen in the "References" section. Before there were three lines for Radday's book, now there is one. Necessary no, but perhaps a little tidier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And don't miss the DYK, it's soon! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I followed all of this but I can tell the article looks good. So good job!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK nomination of The Bible and humor

Hello! Your submission of The Bible and humor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

On 26 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Bible and humor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it has been proposed that there are more than 1,000 examples of humor in the Bible? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Bible and humor. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Bible and humor), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

OMG! Thank you! Whoo-hoo! This is awesome! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

So, 8 000 pageviews yesterday, compared to 77 the day before. That's pretty cool. As a comparison, Donald Trump had 50 000. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow! That's quite a jump in views! I guess it really does make a difference. Do you suppose we should suggest it as a "good" article? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting thought, never done that either. Seems technically simple per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. If you want to, go ahead, I'll help as I can. Perhaps we could get PaleoNeonate interested. Per Wikipedia:Good article criteria nr 3, there may be an OT/NT balance problem, but I don't know how a rewiever would see it. Broad enough/too much detail is an interesting puzzle. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I will ping Paleo and see what they think. I looked at Wikipedia:Good article criteria nr 3,and do not see how the need to balance an equal amount of OT/NT info could possibly be a legitimate problem. The OT is three times the length of the NT and given the different content and form and even the different function and genré, there is simply no way to make the claim there is as much humor in the NT as there is in the OT. There probably are additional examples that could be included--but that applies to the OT as well. I felt like it was long enough--saying everything that can be said on a subject does not necessarily improve its quality in my view. Enough's enough. And that's what we did. And my opinion is the only one that matters--since Americans have guns ... I take back every nice thing I ever said about you for that remark... I think Aleph showed up under a pseudonym and fixed my contractions and added that last line under NT--just because I told him not to--and because he's OCD. I kinda' hope it was him... know what I mean? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Graebergs and I finished Bible and humor and would like to know if you would be interested in being involved in getting it nominated to be a good article. If you don't, that's okay! Hope you are well! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point on the balance, and anyway, I haven't tried to use Humor in the Gospels: A Sourcebook for the Study of Humor in the New Testament, 1863–2014 for anything yet. Per my talkpage we seem to have the spiritual support of one Gerda Arendt, so let's climb this Everest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Am I interpreting this correctly that you want more from the NT whether there's a balance issue or not? My whining and whimpering did not dissuade you? My opinionated assertiveness did not overwhelm you? Spiritual support is always nice though so I will look at the book. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think if anything really good from either NT or OT is found we can add it, but I'd like to take a look at that book, since it's NT-only. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, "Sister" Terri [20]. Is she a nun? Or is it just some term of courtesy? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sister Terri is a nun--to quote--(which you know I love)--"Sister Terri is a member of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas." Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious

"What do you mean, I can´t rewrite the entire article!?"

Thank you for quality contributions to articles around Christianity, such as The Bible and humor and Role of Christianity in civilization, based on scientific background and in collaboration, for your plans for higher quality, making women blue and women in the Bible, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow! This means a lot, really. I am rewriting Women in the Bible right now--removing lots of bias and personal opinion. It had multiple tags at the top --for good reasons--since 2011, and I have fixed the specific problems it mentioned and will continue to fill out the remainder of the article until it is a quality worthy of Wikipedia. I need Gråbergs though because I am still new enough here I periodically fumble something--and he catches it. Idk--I may still feel new after five years here--there's just so much to learn! I know diddly-squat about code writing and I get caught periodically by it--leaving out the /, or capitalizing something that shouldn't be, or--well you get the idea. Gråbergs never fusses at me for any of it. He doesn't call me stupid--he just tells me what I need to know--or fixes it. He's been kind of a semi-mentor, and I think very highly of him for it. He's Swedish! Which is really very cool all by itself right? My paternal grandfather was Danish but Gråbergs puts up with me anyway. :-) But he is uninterested in working on the article on women, and I can't talk him into it--so far. It will end up expanded 5x too probably. Which means I am rewriting the entire article!! I need someone to check me! Could I talk you into looking it over when I'm done? And thank you again. It really was nice to get this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ichthus: May 2018

ICHTHUS

May 2018

Project News
By Lionelt

Last month's auspicious relaunch of our newsletter precipitated something of an uproar in the Wikipedia community. What started as a localized edit war over censorship spilled over onto the Administrator's Noticeboard finally ending up at Wikipedia's supreme judicial body ArbCom. Their ruling resulted in the admonishment of administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise for his involvement in the dispute. The story was reported by Wikipedia's venerable flagship newspaper The Signpost.

The question of whether to delete all portals--including the 27 Christianity-related portals--was put to the Wikipedia community. Approximately 400 editors have participated in the protracted discussion. Going by !votes, Oppose deletion has a distinct majority. The original Christianity Portal was created on November 5, 2005 by Brisvegas and the following year he successfully nominated the portal for Featured Portal. The Transhumanist has revived WikiProject Portals with hopes of revitalizing Wikipedia's system of 1,515 portals.

Stay up-to-date on the latest happenings at the Project Watch

Achievements

Four articles in the Project were promoted to GA: Edict of Torda nom. by Borsoka, Jim Bakker nom. by LovelyGirl7, Ralph Abernathy nom. by Coffee and Psalm 84 nom. by Gerda_Arendt. The Psalm ends with "O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee." Words to live by. Please support our members and send some WikiLove to the nominators!

Featured article
Nominated by Spangineer

Operation Auca was an attempt by five Evangelical Christian missionaries from the United States to make contact with the Huaorani people of the rainforest of Ecuador. The Huaorani, also known as the Aucas, were an isolated tribe known for their violence, both against their own people and outsiders who entered their territory. With the intention of being the first Protestants to evangelize the Huaorani, the missionaries began making regular flights over Huaorani settlements in September 1955, dropping gifts. After several months of exchanging gifts, on January 2, 1956, the missionaries established a camp at "Palm Beach", a sandbar along the Curaray River, a few miles from Huaorani settlements. Their efforts culminated on January 8, 1956, when all five—Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Peter Fleming, and Roger Youderian—were attacked and speared by a group of Huaorani warriors. The news of their deaths was broadcast around the world, and Life magazine covered the event with a photo essay. The deaths of the men galvanized the missionary effort in the United States, sparking an outpouring of funding for evangelization efforts around the world. Their work is still frequently remembered in evangelical publications, and in 2006, was the subject of the film production End of the Spear. (more...)

Did You Know
Nominated by Dahn

"... that, shortly after being sentenced to death for treason, Ioan C. Filitti became manager of the National Theatre Bucharest?"

---

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity • Get answers to questions about Christianity here
Discuss any of the above stories here • For submissions contact the Newsroom• Unsubscribe here
Delivered: 19:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)