This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jenhawk777. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Women in the Bible. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Sorry! No, no, I copied it to my sandbox! And I was the sole author of all but one paragraph. And I changed and edited and paraphrased it before using it! I didn't want it to be the same as the other article but the concepts were applicable so I moved it to my sandbox so I could change it before putting it into the women article. I honestly thought that was okay. But of course I am happy to give attribution for anything I actually quoted. I don't think there is any of that one paragraph that I quoted in the article and didn't rephrase, but I will recheck to be sure. Thank you!Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! the Jesus interaction with women was mine originally. The stuff from New T and Old T are not actual quotes--I altered them--is that alright? I can attribute those articles anyway! They are good articles! Dianna I am still new enough here I don't know all the rules and I thought paraphrasing was okay.Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, there was one sentence at NT which I did not alter and it was not mine so thank you for catching that. I genuinely do appreciate it. I have now attributed it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be great if you mentioned the copying even if you wrote the material, as this type of edit is picked up by a bot, and it would speed up clearing the bot reports if you mention where you got it in your edit summary. Thanks again, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I will do that from now on. I am still learning how things work here, so thank you for being patient with me. I sometimes forget to write what I've done in that edit summary. I am trying to learn to be more careful about that too. Sigh. I will get it together someday I guess. I appreciate the help. If you felt like checking over the article that would also be cool! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Food
Curd Rice
Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Sorry I didn't get back right away but we were out of town for a couple days. I think this sounds like a brilliant idea. Are you interested at all in starting on it? It's a little outside my purview, but mostly, I am rewriting to reformat in a more consistent Wikipedia style and I still have the entire New Testament section to redo. If you and Gråbergs wanted to jump in on this one, I would be grateful. Gråbergs is one of those gifted people who can write anything well. Between the two of you I am sure it would be an amazing addition to this article.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Gerda and Gråbergs, I finished my reformatting and started looking at some of this, and I think it deserves its own article. There is simply a tremendous amount of it! I think I will blurb a few lines at the bottom of this article but no way could we possibly do it justice here. It needs an article as long as this one already is. Here, take a look at this: [[2]] and this is just one article. I think someone should do this though--it would be huge fun!Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Women in Red June Editathons
Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.
@Huon: Thank you! I don't have a clue what you did--or if you or someone else did anything at all--but it seems to be fixed now! I never did find the IP! Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
The Mortara case was a controversy precipitated by the Papal States' seizure of Edgardo Mortara, a six-year-old Jewish child, from his family in Bologna, Italy, in 1858. The city's inquisitor, Father Pier Feletti, heard from a servant that she had administered emergency baptism to the boy when he fell sick as an infant, and the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition held that this made the child irrevocably a Catholic. Because the Papal States had forbidden the raising of Christians by members of other faiths, it was ordered that he be taken from his family and brought up by the Church. After visits from the child's father, international protests mounted, but Pope Pius IX would not be moved. The boy grew up as a Catholic with the Pope as a substitute father, trained for the priesthood in Rome until 1870, and was ordained in France three years later. In 1870 the Kingdom of Italy captured Rome during the unification of Italy, ending the pontifical state; opposition across Italy, Europe and the United States over Mortara's treatment may have contributed to its downfall. (Full article...)
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: 11:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Biblical criticism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, and I'm glad I was able to help at the help desk, but now I'm embarrassed. I should have known that someone had already simplified this the {{bibleverse}} template and its variants may simplify life for you, and the template has the advantage that a change to the template will fix any problem globally in the highly unlikely event that the folks over at Wikisource make a format change.
If you do not like the template's resulting format, you can still use the approach I outlined. I suspect you already figured this out, but I'm putting it here for completeness.
My note made two assumptions that you may wish to change:
I assumed you wanted the Kin James version
I made up an arbitrary example display format (e.g., "Psalms:23")
You are clearly much more of a biblical scholar than I am, so you may have other ideas about versions and/or format. For other versions, look at s:bible, you can easily use any of them.
The displayed text is simply whatever is after the "|" in the link. In my example, [[s:Bible (King James)/Psalms#Psalm 23|Psalms:23]], which will display as Psalms:23. But you can use whatever format you want as the display text: Just replace the "Psalms:23".
Arch dude--this is amazing! I used what you gave me yesterday, but I will put this in the tools section on my user page. I have graduate level study (did not finish my PhD) in religion, writing and research experience, but I only know about one thing. I know diddly-squat about programming--I took one under-grad class years ago--and all the specifics of slash in front--backslash in back--all makes me a little nuts sometimes! :-) I am genuinely grateful for the help. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Pickled herring--mmm--uhhh---well--yum! :-) Have fun anyway! And what the heck are little frogs--other than frogs that aren't very big? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
THAT--is awesome! You guys sure do seem to dance and sing a lot. I should have been Swedish. :-) Except for the pickled herring... Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda! It was quite a process and Farang really had to persevere! :-) He was an amazing reviewer. If they had a review your reviewer ability I would give him nothing but A+'s. I am totally blown away that we made it this far--I'm still processing--so I have no clue what to suggest for a DYK. There are some interesting points in the article: biblical criticism changed so much after 1970 it is seen as having come to an end. What exists currently is as different from what went before as biblical criticism itself was in its beginnings. Text criticism is the most internally contentious field of biblical criticism, but form criticism is the most embattled with most of its foundational assumptions undermined by modern data. That is particularly interesting to me since it was the dominant form of biblical criticism for nearly 80 years throughout most of the twentieth century. New types of criticism often conflict with each other. Postmodern criticism is not a method so much as a "stance". I don't know! Help Gerda! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I would not vote for the historical Jesus. It already has its own page, and it tends to hog the limelight when it is really just a percentage--maybe ten percent--of overall biblical criticism. Farang asked--aren't all the critics focused on this? NO! But that's the impression of many--so no historical Jesus!
I like the first one but it might be too long-- how much does accuracy matter? :-) It's: globalization, Near Eastern studies, the impact of literary criticism, and the influx of new perspectives from ethnicity, gender, Catholics, and Jews, in combination, that changed it irrevocably. I think that might be too much huh? Is there some way to cram it together? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's a line from the body--how about this? Is it too vague? By the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, multiple new perspectives, along with the globalization of biblical studies, had permanently altered it Is it possible to do something with that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
How about: that while white male Protestants dominated the field of biblical criticism for over two hundred years, globalization and multiple new perspectives of the late twentieth century permanently changed that -- it uses your sentence and lumps the rest in. What do you think?
I don't know Gerda--you might want to consider using one of Gråbergs suggestions-- Did You Know that dead Germans are a big part of the subject of biblical critisism..?
...Did You Know that the word "theologian/s" occurs 24 times in this article? :-) OMG! He's a hoot! I particularly like the dead Germans... Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Only 24 times? - I was told that in my recnt FAC, "cantata" occurred more than 100 times (and 84 are still left), and fersure it failed. - I did my share, reviewing a qpq and nominating the above. You are welcome to offer ALTs in the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The nom? On the nom page, or my user page, or see "What links here" (left column, under Tools) in the article. - For the FAC? That's over, I will eventually begin a peer review, but may be next year. Planned to appear in 2026. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It is pretty awesome! And it was fun in the way defending a dissertation is fun! Having a tooth pulled! Having your mother-in-law stay for a week! Which is to say not at all! But Farang was awesome really. I have nothing but good things to say about him--or her--and I learned a lot from the process. Some of the changes were what I call happy to glad, but most of them added clarity and specificity. It was good. Every article should go through this before being published by Wiki really. Fewer people would write here! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Polls conducted in 2012 across 20 countries found over 14% of people believe the world will end in their lifetime, with percentages raging from 6% of people in France to 22% in the US and Turkey. In the UK in 2015, the general public believed the likeliest cause would be nuclear war, while experts thought it would be artificial intelligence. Between one and three percent of people from both countries thought the apocalypse would be caused by zombies or alien invasion. (more...)
Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.
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: 06:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please get consensus to make the article about "Issues in contempoary ministry interpreted through depictions of women in the Bible".
Your recent editing history at Women in the Bible 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) 15:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog Ha ha! I knew if I came back you would show up! What the heck is this about? I didn't revert anything! I just finished trying to respond to your previous criticisms of the lead. I removed that sentence you didn't like. I have no clue what you are going on about here--how about instead of threatening--we just talk? Let's actually make the effort to work our issues through and reach an acceptable compromise of some sort. What is the problem here and how reasonable are you willing to be? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I have moved to the talk page there since this is about content. Jytdog. I changed the lead and removed the sentence that made it "Issues in contempoary ministry" just like you said.
I do see now that you also removed the stuff from Eve. Why do have such a bee in your bonnet about Eve? Those two sentences you moved to art are not about art. Please justify why something that is not about art--either in the source or in the sentence--should be in art. What is it that you think is important to say there instead of in the section that is actually on topic? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The content about the cultural influence of the story of Eve belongs in the section about culture. It is startling to find it in the section about what the Bible says about Eve. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Since there is no section that is specifically about culture, create one and put it there if you like--but it's a heck of a lot more startling--and confusing--to read it in art when it talks about something else. It doesn't belong in art. Culture is all the way through, not just in Eve--the entire article discusses women from a cultural perspective. You could just as well put "Culture" at the top of the article for everything that follows. I will be interested to see how it is possible to discuss this topic while keeping the culture they were in separate. I don't think it can be done personally. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I thought the length of time I had been away made a difference. I did not realize that moving those sentences back into "Eve" constituted edit warring. I really did not understand what was going on at first. But you also reverted my attempt to fix the lead section (in the exact manner you requested), and that was a little unreasonable. So how about if I do that lead redo, and you don't revert it, but tell me what you don't like if you don't like something and then I will change that, and then it will not be "contemporary Protestant". If you are justified in criticizing me for that, then my changes will reflect that and you can make your case against me in a third party review, but if they don't, then at least it will have removed the objectionable material even if it's not perfect.
And I will leave Eve alone --even though you basically confirmed I'm right about it not belonging in art since you acknowledge it belongs in culture--the culture section that isn't there. So you deal with Eve. I will leave it to you to be neutral and non-contemporary.
Jytdog, when you make comments about "evangelical Protestant content" it really worries me. I am not an evangelical, but I have to admit I am feeling a little targeted because of those comments. I want to follow neutral pov guidelines. If you really have a committment to npov, which I hope you do, and to improving Wiki, then help me see what you are talking about. I believe there is justification for everything I put in this article--of course I do, or I would not have put it there--so I try and justify what I have done on the basis of content required. You come back with pov claims. I have never justified anything I could actually see as having pov and I won't, but we have a problem about content that gets off into the same weeds everytime. The Bible is the basis for Judaism and Christianity. Can you agree? Can you agree that is what must be discussed on a page about the Bible--or can you explain to me in a way I can understand why it isn't? Please let's just talk about content. I am trying to fully cover the topic in as broad and thorough a manner as possible and that's all I am trying to do.
You have an order, a structure, a pattern you like to follow and it isn't the same pattern I have used. But just because I am not exactly like you doesn't automatically prove I am at fault--or that I am pushing an evangelical pov. Simply discussing Christianity on a Bible page does not constitute pov pushing--but if I am, I want to know and fix it. Sincerely. Show me where I am doing any advocating, where I have evaluated or taken a side--or anything-- and I will revert it myself. But you will have to show me, because right now it seems like any mention of Christianity constitutes pov to you.
Please grant some faith in me as having "good faith." I am genuinely trying to do a good job here, and I want to follow neutral pov guidelines. I do not want to be pro anything in particular except good work. Please help me do that.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why you have tended to bring sources from the evangelical perspective so predominantly nor why content you have generated about biblical matters has been thematized by contemporary evengelical issues, and I have avoided speculating about why. But you have consistently done this, and I have consistently pointed it out. It is problematic. You have improved on that sourcing, but as I demonstrated in the sources section on the women in the bible talk page there is still this big lump of sourcing that is solidly in that bucket, used in a bunch of weird places.
as long as you keep doing these two things, we will keep bumping heads. it is not complicated.
we don't have to be like each other, but when we all come here, we have to be aimed at the same thing... and that means drawing from a broad array of high quality sources, and avoiding putting undue weight on one perspective. it is not easy. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
This was a very reasonable response. Thank you. I will try to be more careful about sourcing. Truthfully, I am sort of "source-blind" I think in that I don't evaluate where they are from and exclude them if they are "religious"--I generally don't even notice. I evaluate what they say. If it is interesting and something I have seen in multiple places--or the opposite, something unique--depending upon what is being discussed and how many views I am trying to include, etc.--I am only aware of what they are saying--But I will try to spend more time noticing who is saying it. The problem is created because the vast majority of the sources out there are written by Protestants and many of them are evangelicals.
It is unfair and inaccurate to say my sources are predominantly evangelical. Look at that list you made. It's still on the talk page. You list 53 references--there were nine you found objectionable as "evangelical". Not predominant. Do you automatically exclude all evangelicals from anything you write? That seems like a counter-bias to me. I don't automatically exclude them--that's true----but I don't go looking for them and don't include an overemphasis on them either. You have proven that for me in your own assessment.
You say as long as I keep doing two things, we will butt heads, but your own assessment indicates I don't actually do one of them. And as for the second -- being "thematized about contemporary evangelical issues"--I think that is unfair to a degree as well. Why does everything written about the Bible have to be ancient history only? If you could explain what your thinking is that when writing about the Bible it has to be limited to when the texts were written--instead of including all the ways in which they have been used through history and how they are still used--perhaps I could get on board and we would never butt heads again. Contemporary issues are part of discussion of the Bible in my thinking just as much as any age of history that the Bible has influenced--but just a part--and that's how I tried to include them. The Bible is still used and influential. Pretending it isn't doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. But if I have focused too much on the contemporary then that can be fixed--but you cut out the section on the middle ages--which I thought was just as pertinent as the contemporary stuff. Really--to cover the topic thoroughly--shouldn't it all be there? Women in the Bible for as long as there has been women in the Bible--including now. In all honesty--doesn't that make a good case? Don't you think others would agree?
I don't characterize other people's edits unless I can support the characterization with a lot of diffs. The pattern I have described in your editing is very clear. I do understand that you cannot see it.
Wikipedia is a laboratory of human behavior and it isconstantly surprising how little people are aware of what they themselves are doing. One of the most clear places to observe this is at the drama boards, where there are countless cases in which WP:BOOMERANG comes into play (where the person coming there to complain, turns out to be the one who has been behaving badly and action is taken against them based on their often very-obvious-to-everyone-but-them bad behavior). It is terrible, and all too human.
I never said anything like -- not even closely approaching -- everything written about the Bible (has) to be ancient history only. I've said consistently that there should be sections on things like cultural interpretations over time, theological interpretations over time, etc. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Well--let's do our best to be real and straight here--you have spent plenty of time characterizing my edits, and even some time characterizing me personally. That's okay, I don't hold it against you--newcomers are annoying, I get it. We stumble around like the proverbial bull in a china shop and are difficult to help. I'm still a newcomer in many ways, I do see that, but hopefully not quite as green--or as annoying--as at first. Having my first experience on Wikipedia be you meant my initial learning curve had to be pretty steep. But I survived and have made it this far and plan on sticking around.
I also understand it is easy to see other people's blind spots and not our own. I'm sure I have some since everyone does. What say you, to the claim you made that I have "predominantly evangelical resources" and the information --from you on the talk page--that indicates otherwise? Have you considered this could evidence a blind-spot toward me? Not saying--just asking--being real and straightforward here, that's all. Chances are humans being human, you might have a blindspot or two just like the rest of us. I could be one.
And yes, you're right--you never said in so many words that everything about the Bible had to be limited to when it was written--I surmised and paraphrased and apparently misunderstood. You want culture and theology and all things contemporary in separate sections--if I am understanding you correctly--so my conclusion was, what is left to put in the body of the article, then, if not ancient history only? Since you indicate I got that wrong, perhaps you could clarify it for me.
On the talkpage, it's clear my 53 references are not predominantly evangelical. That's just numbers--no blind spots involved. That there are some references that are and some that could be improved--okay. No problem. That is probably true of every article not FA. But the claim they are predominantly evangelical is clearly false.
I have indeed included some contemporary content--but you have now said you agree that should be done. I don't know how to reconcile you saying one of the two reasons we "bump heads" is because I include contemporary views and next you say you agree with including contemporary views. It looks like you don't object to that content after all--as long as it is presented separately in sections. If there are sections for culture, and theology, and differing views over time, including contemporary ones, and you agree such content should be in the article, in their own sections, that is basically the same content I have here already--it's just all mixed together. To my way of thinking, that means what you are saying is what we disagree over is not content after all. It's structure.
Your claim--complaint--was this "contemporary content" (you now agree to), and my references, (which it turns out are not predominantly evangelical after all), were the two things referred to in "as long as you keep doing these two things we will keep bumping heads". And they are not real at all. It is structure after all. And that puts us back to having to be alike.
But you also said you did not require that we be alike. So, then, why does the content have to be separated? Where is that a requirement? As long as the division of content is logical and followable and so on? So what if there is theology and culture and contemporary views mixed up together--if as you say it is actually important to have it all in there somewhere--what is the advantage of separating it into separate sections?
How does separating the content--instead of mixing the content--render it into a more neutral pov? That is really the critical question isn't it? Because I really want to follow npov, and if structuring in sections genuinely changes perception of pov, I'd really like to know.
I don't structure articles the same way you do, but as far as I can tell, that is about your habit, your preference, and is not a Wikipedia requirement. And you know what? I would still be willing to cooperate with you and do it your way if you would--could--make a case for why your approach is the best one instead of using the art of misdirection and making this about an "evangelical" pov that I don't have.
I ask questions like these and rarely get clear, direct answers. Can you see why I find--why anyone might find--figuring out what you want confusing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You keep mischaracterizing what I write. It leaves no where to go. I have not contradicted myself. Yes theological intepretations have a place. A place. Not woven throughout. It impossible to weave all of them throughout; which is why they all need to be handled in a separate "history of theological interpretation" section for each of the religions (and each of them have lots of variation). I have said this consistently.
If you step back and really look and ask "how would an X read this?" (replacing X with every religious variant you can think of, in gender and time and place and religious denomination/sects including atheist) you will get a sense of what NPOV content about the bible will look like. There should be no place where it is wierd to read from any religious or atheist perspective; the content should just be describing and never doing anything. Well... i will correct that. Our content about biblical stuff often offends biblical literalists, but there is nothing we can do about that. It offends them because we don't treat the bible as holy or necessarily true when we describe it and they really want that in there.
I don't mean to mischaracterize anything. But repeating the same thing isn't clarifying. It looks to me like you have contradicted yourself. It's okay to include theology, you say, so long as it is in a separate place, and my question was, why? Why does placement change its pov? If it is neutrally stated--so that an atheist or anyone else can read it as such--why does reading it in one place render it any more neutral than reading it in another place?
Yes, you have advocated for your structure repeatedly--very true. What makes you think it is impossible to weave all of them throughout? Why can't that be a valid approach? As long as each pov is presented where it actually occurs and it's done in a neutral manner? I arrange things topically. Then I discuss each topic including its history, theology, sociology, etc. from whatever points of view anyone has or has ever had on it, without judgment, or taking any position, or advocating for or against any of it--just describing what they are. I think that actually does a really thorough job of each. You arrange things differently; your sections are more categories--sociology, theology, etc.--where you do, then, evaluate and tend to present a limited selection of pov. Yours is more general, mine more specific. Yours is more umbrella, mine more focused. Why is one more neutral than the other?
I have never advocated that content should be doing anything--that mischaracterizes me. I agree content is about describing. I just think all views should be described.
If you are just, you will acknowledge I have always included--and referenced--atheists as well as everyone else. I admit I do tend to slightly overlook the literalists--which I probably should not do for an encyclopedia--(but they are fringe, so that's my excuse). I suppose the same claim could be made that atheists are fringe, based solely on percentages, but I have never made that claim and never functioned under it. I have always included thinking about them. (My dad was an atheist. I have sympathy. Though that is genuinely beside the point for article writing, I include it here to say you have mischaracterized me.) I always include multiple views. All views.
I do think about audience all the time. I think, 'how would the high school sophomore doing a paper read this?' What would they need to know to write that paper on this subject? What would someone unfamiliar with the topic need to know in order not to sound like they were just as ignorant after reading Wikipedia as they were before reading it? That's the audience I am thinking of--HS and college kids doing research and needing as much specific info in one place as possible. I think about school kids who have been forbidden to use Wikipedia and why.
I think this only seems weird to you because you have the predisposition that It is impossible to weave all of them throughout. I don't think it is impossible. But the bottom line is, the real nub of our disagreement has nothing to do with neutrality after all, does it? It's about structure. I am trying not to mischaracterize anything or anyone. I genuinely want to understand and meet you part way. If you could justify your assumption--and not just repeat it--it would help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
References at Biblical criticism
Referencing is very complicated. I have been correcting broken references since 2012 and I still run into things I haven't seen before. I usually write references in a text editor first, or use a tool like Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books which lets you enter the url from the book and creates at reference with a citation template and reference name.
About the references at Biblical criticism. I do see a problem with your references to McKim's Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, etc. Citing a book like that without the title of the entry is like citing an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica without giving the name of the article. Each of these entries has its own author who needs to be included. So they need to be separate references, not cited by the same reference name. I can convert them for you, or at least those I can see at Google Books. Do you have access to the text if needed? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
You are a great blessing! But there are no separate authors either on McKim or Soulen--they are the writers as well as the editors I believe. Separate authors would solve my problems wouldn't it?! Yes, I can see the justice of the criticism, I just can't see an easy way to fix it. So I am going through one at a time changing the reference name to reflect the chapter title. For example: name= "Soulenpc" for the chapter titled The Priestly code, and SoulenBC for the section titled Biblical criticism--and so on. It's a little like building an interstate with a shovel--but if a shovel is all you have--well, there you have it! I want to learn this stuff, so you doing it would be wonderful--except next time I will still be an ignoramous. References are complicated--and a big pain in the patooty--but unavoidably necessary--so there we are. I have been using the Wikipedia citation tool--the drop down menu at the top. It works fine but going back and redoing them all one at a time is making me cry just a little... I have more than one of these. I didn't know. I thought page numbers were sufficient. Sigh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma: You're right! Soulen's are all written by the Soulen's but McKim' has author's names at the end of the bibliography! That is a huge help! Thank you so much! I will still have to go through and redo each one but they can have different reference names! YAY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It is going to be more complicated than that. I can see why you wanted to make one reference to a comprehensive book like McKim's Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters and use it in many places in Biblical criticism. But it isn't working for the first references I looked at. The source cited has to support what the article says.
In the "Beginnings" section there is the sentence It included scholars such as Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), one of the founders of form criticism,[12]:426 and Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923), who established principles of historical study and sociology.[12]:395 The reference for Gunkel isn't to the Gunkel entry on pages 487-491 by M. J. Buss, but to the entry on page 426 for James Barr, written by D. Penchansky. That page just mentions Gunkel in passing as "one of the giants of theological modernism" and says nothing about form criticism. The entry for Gunkel himself doesn't use the term form criticism either. You need a more specific reference. The Wikipedia article Hermann Gunkel says "In these works he created the new critical methodology of form criticism (Formgeschichte)".[1] Use that reference.
The second reference in the sentence is to the entry on page 395 for William Wrede. It just mentions that Troeltsch was a member of the history of religions school, and doesn't say anything about establishing principles of historical study. There isn't an entry for Troeltsch in the book. Again you need a more specific reference. I couldn't find a useful reference in his Wikipedia article Ernst Troeltsch, but this Encyclopedia Britannica article should do.[2]
I have added them with gratitude in my heart. I give you carte blanche to continue on, make any changes you see as needed, as you come across them, do whatever you find and feel up to bothering with--let me know when you feel you've had all you can take--where you leave off--so we are not duplicating each other. I had replaced those two--Gunkel and good old Ernst--but your references were better so I replaced them a second time. But it would be better if I wasn't following along behind you doubling the work.
I think I know how these got so messed up. At one time I was working late into the night and going back and forth between Soulen and McKim and got lost and referenced one when I was actually in the other. I actually fell asleep at the keyboard and typed in a whole paragraph of jibberish with my forehead on the keyboard. My GA reviewer asked me about it the next day. He said he just deleted it--he thought maybe it was a copy-text error. I thought I had dreamed it. :-)
I also thought I had checked and caught any mistakes, so I am really thankful that you did. Clearly I am going to have to check everyone of the references from those two books. I am so grateful for the help, truly, I can't say thank you enough. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
You rock. No falling asleep at the keyboard. :-) I will be at the doctors all morning, then I will get to work too. It is after midnight here. Going to bed. Thank you thank you thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@StarryGrandma: Progress--thanx largely to your help and instruction. I will have time to do more later tonight. It's beginning to look like this may be accomplishable after all. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking of me. Happy New Year to you and yours. I sincerely hope you are well and enjoying music and life and writing. I am happy and well and doing a lot of writing--just not here. Thank you Gerda. Ich Ihnen von Herzen danken möchte. God bless you dear heart. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
February 2019 at Women in Red
February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111
Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gerda. The only content was "Post-critical biblical interpretation developed in the late twentieth century.[1]" — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
^Soulen, Richard N; Soulen, R. Kendall (2011). "Postmodern and Postcritical Interpretation". Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN978-0-66423-534-5.
Louis XIV of France – a monarch of the House of Bourbon who reigned as King of France. He did say, "Every time I appoint someone to a vacant position, I make a hundred unhappy and one ungrateful."
Mary, Queen of Scots – arrested for Reigning While Catholic (RWC), Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I of England in 1586, and was beheaded the following year.
Elizabeth I of England – The Virgin Queen, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor who ushered in the Elizabethan Era, reversed re-establishment of Roman Catholicism by her half-sister.
" There are three urgent and indeed great problems that we face not only in the United States of America but all over the world today. That is the problem of racism, the problem of poverty and the problem of war."
Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral is a Gothic Revival three-spire cathedral in the city of Cork, Ireland. It belongs to the Church of Ireland and was completed in 1879. The cathedral is located on the south side of the River Lee, on ground that has been a place of worship since the 7th century, and is dedicated to Finbarr of Cork, patron saint of the city. It was once in the Diocese of Cork; it is now one of the three cathedrals in the Church of Ireland Diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, in the ecclesiastical province of Dublin. Christian use of the site dates back to a 7th-century AD monastery, which according to legend was founded by Finbarr of Cork. The entrances contain the figures of over a dozen biblical figures, capped by a tympanum showing a Resurrection scene.
(more...)
Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.
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: 10:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Mary, Queen of Scots – arrested for Reigning While Catholic (RWC), Mary was found guilty of plotting to assassinate Elizabeth I of England in 1586, and was beheaded the following year.
Bob Dylan – American singer-songwriter, author, and visual artist.
" Take care of all your memories. For you cannot relive them."
Elizabeth I of England – The Virgin Queen, Elizabeth was the last of the five monarchs of the House of Tudor who ushered in the Elizabethan Era, reversed re-establishment of Roman Catholicism by her half-sister.
Eric and Leslie Ludy were 21 and 16 respectively when they first met, English professors suggest that older singles are unlikely to gather hope from their story.
When God Writes Your Love Story: The Ultimate Approach to Guy/Girl Relationships is a 1999 book by Eric and Leslie Ludy, an American married couple. After becoming a bestseller on the Christian book market, the book was republished in 2004 and then revised and expanded in 2009. It tells the story of the authors' first meeting, courtship, and marriage. The authors advise single people not to be physically or emotionally intimate with others, but to wait for the spouse that God has planned for them.
The book is divided into five sections and sixteen chapters. Each chapter is written from the perspective of one of the two authors; nine are by Eric, while Leslie wrote seven, as well as the introduction. The Ludys argue that one's love life should be both guided by and subordinate to one's relationship with God. Leslie writes that God offers new beginnings to formerly unchaste or sexually abused individuals.
(more...)
Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project that you'd like to highlight? An issue that you'd like to bring to light? Post your inquiries or submission here.
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: 12:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Dolly Parton - an American singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer, actress, author, businesswoman, and humanitarian, known primarily for her work in country music. Quotations related to Dolly Parton at Wikiquote: " I just depend on a lot of prayer and meditation. I believe that without God I am nobody, but that with God, I can do anything."
Being a Ghost Story of Christmas, commonly known as A Christmas Carol, is a novella by Charles Dickens, first published in London by Chapman & Hall in 1843 and illustrated by John Leech. The book is divided into five chapters, which Dickens titled "staves". A Christmas Carol recounts the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, an elderly miser who is visited by the ghost of his former business partner Jacob Marley and the spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come. After their visits, Scrooge is transformed into a kinder, gentler man. (more...)
Bible Verse
“
Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another.
”
Romans 12:10 New King James Version (NKJV)
Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project or an issue that you'd like to highlight? Post your inquiries or submission here.
Quotes
" I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year."
Charles Dickens – British novelist, journalist, editor, illustrator and social critic.
Happy Holidays!
The end of the year is a time of year for remembrance. We take stock of where we came from, and have a moment to think about where we are going...
At this special time of year, we give thanks for editors like you who have made our Mission easier and our lives more fulfilling.
May your New Year be all that you hope for, and may it be sprinkled with love and friendship.
Dolly Parton – an American singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer, actress, author, businesswoman, and humanitarian, known primarily for her work in country music. Quotations related to Dolly Parton at Wikiquote: "I just depend on a lot of prayer and meditation. I believe that without God I am nobody, but that with God, I can do anything."
Nominated by StalinsunnykvjСретение Господне ("The Meeting of the Lord"), a depiction of Simeon recognising Jesus at the Temple, from a fifteenth-century Novgorodskye School Russian icon.
A Song for Simeon, is a 37-line poem written in 1928 by American-English poet T. S. Eliot (1888–1965). It is one of five poems that Eliot contributed to the Ariel poems series of 38 pamphlets by several authors published by Faber and Gwyer. "A Song for Simeon" was the sixteenth in the series and included an illustration by avant garde artist Edward McKnight Kauffer. The poem's narrative echoes the text of the Nunc dimittis, a liturgical prayer for Compline from the Gospel passage. Eliot introduces literary allusions to earlier writers Lancelot Andrewes, Dante Alighieri and St. John of the Cross. Critics have debated whether Eliot's depiction of Simeon is a negative portrayal of a Jewish figure and evidence of anti-Semitism on Eliot's part.
(more...)
Bible Verse
“
May He grant you according to your heart’s desire, And fulfill all your purpose.
”
Psalm 20:4 New King James Version (NKJV)
Help wanted
We're looking for writers to contribute to Ichthus. Do you have a project or an issue that you'd like to highlight? Post your inquiries or submission here.
Quotes
"Faith lived in the incognito is one which is located outside the criticism coming from society, from politics, from history, for the very reason that it has itself the vocation to be a source of criticism. It is faith (lived in the incognito) which triggers the issues for the others, which causes everything seemingly established to be placed in doubt, which drives a wedge into the world of false assurances." ~ Jacques Ellul
At this special time of year, we give thanks for editors like you who have made our Mission easier and our lives more fulfilling. May your New Year be all that you hope for, and may it be sprinkled with love and friendship.
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is 1065 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. Also, instead of reposting entire comments that were made by editors, I suggest you post a link to the edits/remarks. This can help you reduce the word count of your presentation.
If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page.
I may have committed another error as well. I put a rebuttal in the analysis of evidence section--should I not have done that? Another editor has written to say that was a mistake. If so, where should I move it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
For your bravery and willingness to speak your truth (even when your voice shakes, as they say), whether it was on behalf of Wikipedia, or your own personal catharsis, you are most appreciated. Your commentary played a crucial role at ArbCom. The behaviour you outlined is not the norm here, and thanks to your efforts, we may see less and less of it. petrarchan47คุก22:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I will fix it and add additional sources, I have several I didn't cite that I will go back and add, but I had been told that citing other Wikipedia pages and making sure the meta-data was consistent was appropriate.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Elizium23 It's been so long since I've written on Wikipedia that I can't remember if a ping requires one set of brackets or two. Hopefully you'll get this anyway. :-) I have now fixed the references. I hope you are okay with them. This sentence in the article: [although Jews and Muslims were harshly persecuted, to an extent of forced conversions in Byzantine empire] is unsourced, and is incorrect. There were no sanctioned forced conversions of Jews, although there was discrimination and some oppression, and there were no Muslims at all, as they didn't exist yet. There were some mob actions against Jews, but they were condemned by the church. I'll get sources for that, and when I do, I will probably add that next. My goal here is to get this article's flags removed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Welcome back, I hope that you could eventually edit more than only in relation to that case. There are less difficult areas to edit on (than the previous topics you put efforts in), where much help is needed. Also, although we didn't always agree, I think that I have noticed your capacity to learn and improve and everyone starts somewhere. After the case (where it is indeed the right place to express your hardship), no matter its results, I would like to encourage you to move forward. Wikipedia shouldn't be about who can or cannot edit because of who, of course... —PaleoNeonate – 21:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this. It was really kind of you and touched me deeply. But I am not really back. I just came because I got an email notification about the case and I couldn't bear the thought of saying nothing, the reinstatement happening, and other newcomers to Wikipedia again being subjected to what I endured. It is difficult to relive it all over again. After the case is closed, I will go away again, but this, what you say here, it helps heal it all a bit.
I loved Wikipedia itself. Given the time and a little patience I might have eventually become an excellent contributor. The charge that I was writing essays when I first got here was a true one--you know? I've been writing them for decades--never written for an encyclopedia--and didn't have a clue how different it would be. And Wikipedia's standards are high--I loved that! Reverts are an aspect of Wikipedia life, I get that, but there should always be an explanation, correction, and it should be factually based on the material and not on a bias toward the author. I was never going to get out of the hole Jytdog dropped me into. I felt my sanity left me no other option than to leave. If I came back, I'd still be a newbie, and I don't know enough to be good at defending myself from someone who knows how to play the system as well as he did. He's the only one I ran across, but he's probably not the only one there is. At any rate, your comments make it seem possible. I'd probably still mess up and piss you off sometimes! :-). You were always reasonable and fair though, so whether we disagreed or not was beside the point. I respected you. Because of that, this means even more. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This place is strange. Truth and accuracy are suspect. It is only acceptable if you can cite some third party. I would watch a movie and fix an article and it would be deleted. Then there is the dreaded opinion (NOPV). Typing one's opinion is out. Saying: "The movie was the best movie I ever saw." could be helpful to a reader. Oh no. John Doe said in a reliable source says: then that's ok. Hard to understand and get use to. Play by their rules or go away. They have over 6 M articles so something is working. Just ignore me.Eschoryii (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! It is, you're absolutely right, but I don't mind playing by their rules. They've been doing this awhile and I accept they know stuff I don't. Jytdog's rules weren't necessarily Wikipedia's rules however and that's where I ran afoul! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: I fully understand if you have other priorities than editing Wikipedia, but I am excited to see you back again, even if only for a while. I want to let you know that not helping you more in your conflicts with Jytdog over Christianity and violence is one of my greatest regrets on Wikipedia. I was, and still am, intimidated by the workload and controversy involved in significant edits to large articles like that one. However, I greatly appreciated your desire to improve the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia's articles, and I wished I could have helped you navigate Wikipedia's policies and find agreement with other editors. I continue to believe that your contributions could improve Wikipedia. Feel free to {{ping}} me any time. Daask (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC) (formerly editing as User:Sondra.kinsey)
@Daask: If you feel the need for forgiveness, then I offer it with a whole heart, but what I really personally feel is that you have no need to feel badly at all. My fights were my own. I made them and it was my job to finish them and no one else's. In spite of everything, I learned a lot from Jytdog's harassment. He is still a voice in my head saying, "that's not on topic" or other things that have actually helped me be a better writer here. So, that was for me to do and to gain, and nothing for you to feel badly about at all. Now that all of that is said, thank you. I can't tell you how deeply I appreciate the sentiment. Wikipedia is intimidating at the start. There is so very much to learn and it's a little bewildering. There are people here who have a background in programming who I think are not as intimidated as the rest of us who just have knowledge in our field, but I am not one of them! So you have my sympathy--my understanding--as well. There were multiple people who have been here a lot longer than either you or I who backed off and didn't want to get involved. I don't blame any of them at all--not even a little bit. It was just good sense to stay out of Jytdog's and my dysfunctional relationship! :-) It was miserable and no one in their right mind would have voluntarily gotten in the middle! I was stuck. I had no option. He followed me everywhere, but if I'd been an observer I would have steered clear too. But I have a year free and I am going to use it I've decided. I'm currently working on redoing another whole article! History of Christian thought on tolerance and persecution. Quite a hefty title isn't it? And the article said virtually nothing on actual Christian thought on either topic. So I'm rewriting it and it's getting long and I need someone to come along and say "this paragraph wanders off topic" or "this needs more balance" or "I'd like to see such and so included" or any helpful criticisms that come up. If you feel like it, I'm down to the Late middle ages now. Come by. If not, please do keep in touch here periodically. I'm grateful you contacted me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That is absolutely adorable! Thank you! If I get my user page back I will post the 'former puppy' on it. I have survived a WikiVampire--apparently--according to the page Grabergs sent me--so now I feel that I should be a former puppy and not just a puppy any more. I'm big now. Not actually a dog yet--but there's hope for me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I just fixed a link on the talk - these memories ... - the puppy is an alt account of the photographer of the precious sapphire, dyk? - Quite generally, I like to treat every user as a mature adult with good intentios, until proven that one of the two is not true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from several online sources that are not released under a compatible license. Please see the page history for what I found. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, the fault was mine and in my method which I am now revising. Thank you. I learned something from this which will make me a more careful better editor. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk777! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Characteristics of the lead, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
Thank you for article improvements in May! - DYK my list of people for whose life I'm thankful enough to improve their articles? - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. - Will turn next to the list of things I want to do, such as look at your article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Dearheart I know how busy you are--everyone wants your attention! Please don't feel obligated to look at another one of my long articles. If you find it interesting that's cool, but if not that's cool too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
Quotations related to Jacques Ellul at Wikiquote 
.jpg)
