User talk:MTB2112

Tagging article

I've tagged the Angels in Judaism article. Hopefully that will help. I'm not sure if there is a more appropriate tag to use, but that's the best I could come up with. Editor2020 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student work

Ok, I didn't see the tag as I was mainly checking new edits as they came in. Please ask the students to review WP:No original research. All Wikipedia does is summarize sources, making no elaboration or interpretation (which restricts the use of primary sources to overall structure, maybe plot summaries, and not much else). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with this page? Wikipedia:School and university projects. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeraphine! I had not known about this page - it looks very useful.MTB2112 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues with the students' additions to Demon

In these revisions:

The statement "Sources of demonic influence were thought to originate from The Watchers, or Nephilim, who are first mentioned in Genesis 6 and are the focus of 1 Enoch Chapters 1-16, and also in Jubilees 10. The Nephilim were seen as the source of the sin and evil on earth because they are referenced in Genesis 6:4 before the story of the Flood" is sourced to Todd Russell Hanneken's Angels and Demons in the Book of Jubilees. The primary (Enoch, Jubilees) and secondary sources (Hanneken) rather explicity state that the Watchers and Nephilim were different figures, and one of the main points of Hanneken's work is that Jubilees explicitly leaves the Watchers blameless of anything other than exogamy ("Jubilees knows the Book of the Watchers and rejects its exclusive emphasis on angelic culpability in the origin of sin" p.16). It also states that Jubilees denies that antediluvian sin was responsible for any current sin beyond idolatry (p.17-18). This isn't quite original research, but it does say some thing that the source doesn't quite say.

"Because they are referenced in Genesis 6:4" doesn't support "The Nephilim were seen as the source of the sin and evil on earth."

The rest of the text in the first paragraph is cited to James C. VanderKam's The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees. "The mention of the Nephilim in the preceding sentence connects the spread of evil to the Nephilim" is not supported by VanderKam at all, and so needs another source. VanderKam notes from the beginning that Enoch is not merely "very similar story to Genesis 6:4-5" (implying that Gen 6 was written under the angelic interpretation) but is an interpretation of it, which the work the students have inserted downplays. Though the angelic interpretation is likely the oldest interpretation, the oldest source of the angelic interpretation come centuries after, which is why VanderKam does not treat it as the definative interpretation of Gen 6, but only as the definitive interpretation of Gen 6 as read by the authors of Enoch and Jubilees. The discussion of the nature of sin is a bit off topic and undue weight for a general article about the belief in demons throughout the world.

"The book of Enoch shows that these fallen angels can lead humans to sin through direct interaction or through providing forbidden knowledge. In Enoch, Semyaz leads the angels to mate with women. Angels mating with humans is against God’s commands and is a cursed action, resulting in the wrath of God coming upon Earth. Asael indirectly influences humans to sin by teaching them divine knowledge not meant for humans." is phrased a bit too much as a known fact, rather than what the secondary source sees as a message in the primary text.

"Asael brings down the “stolen mysteries” (Enoch 16:3)." This is not in VanderKam at all. Summarizing primary texts is allowed, but elaborating on secondary sources using primary sources might fall under synthesis.

What will likely happen to the first paragraph in a few days is it will be replaced with "The Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, interpreting Genesis 6 to be about intermarriages between angels humans, conclude that demons were the spirits of the giant offspring of such unions. (citations for Hanneken and VanderKam, listing specific pages instead of the whole work)"

The next paragraph, about Cainan in Jubilees, is original research based on a primary source. "God binds only 90 percent of the Watchers and destroys them, leaving 10 percent to be ruled by Mastema" could be sourced to Hanneken, but the rest of the material will likely be taken down.

"this fragment holds much rich language" - "rich" is editorializing, which we don't do.

Regarding the section on Belial, that part would be more appropriate in the article specifically on Belial, rather than the article about demons in belief systems across the world.

Searching Frey's Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library for "Belial and all his guilty lot" and "wicked design," no results came up. Google books does let you know if results came up on pages you otherwise are not able to view, so I have to conclude that this section (at least the quotes) consists of a synthesis of the primary and secondary sources beyond what the secondary source actually says. The rest of that paragraph about Belial is not only inadequately sourced, but makes rather original claims about the primary text.

The section titles "Jubilees (1:20)" makes unsourced claims about the primary text.

George W. E. Nickelsburg's Jewish literature between the Bible and the Mishnah does pull up results for "the sons of light" but not "the first attack of the Sons of Light". The War Scroll is mentioned on p.203, Belial on other pages, and not on the same page. Once again, synthesis, which Wikipedia does not use. Digging up my personal copy, I see that the source (particularly p.147, which would be nice to cite instead of the whole book) supports the first sentence.

"This dichotomy sheds light on the negative connotations that Belial held at the time" is cited to p.278 of Frey, who merely says that Belial is mentioned in the Qumran texts on that page, placing more emphasis on the collection of texts as a whole rather than Belial specifically.

The rest of the section "War Scrolls (1Q33 (1QM[ilḥamah] = 1QWar Scroll [Rule])" is making unsourced claims about a primary source, claims that Hannekeh actually argues against on the already cited p.278: Hannekeh says that the Qumram materials vary in their dualism, between righteousness and wickedness or between the mind and the flesh, but not both at once. He outright says "the number of texts that can be characterized as "dualistic" is rather limited" (p. 278).

The section "Damascus Document (Column 4 and 5)," Nickelsburg supports the first sentence. The bit about the various interpretations of Belial is not on Nickelsburg p.147, the rest of the section is more synthesis.

What will likely happen to the Belial section is that the citations will be used for already existing and more concise statements in the Belial article.

In general, the lower the text-to-citation ratio, the less likely editors are to assume there's original research going on (for a reason). Wikipedia also prefers things to the point, and does not take any new thinking. Also, if you click "view history" at the top of the article, you can see past revisions.

I will go over Angels in Judaism at some point, but I need to get lunch and do some other work first, and I remember the students' work being similar there. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MTB2112, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi MTB2112! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove block

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

MTB2112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

79.182.133.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Blocking administrator: ST47‬ (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: That IP address is not blocked. If you've been using a proxy or a vpn, please disable it and try again in 24 hours. Yamla (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]