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.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Bless you darling Gerda Arendt. I appreciate the heads up. I have posted to them on the talk page. We will see if they respond. Thank you for the July pleasures - it's 96 degrees farenheidt here today. I am inside. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I saw some disagreement going on at this article (there's a grumpy IP involved). I don't think I've ever heard of this empire. Then I thought "Isn't this one of those articles Jenhawk likes to make GA?" I just thought I'd mention it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång I will have to read up on that one, thank you for recommending it. I am currently at a lull, so I appreciate getting a heads up on something interesting and in need. I clicked on the grumpy editor and found Francis Drake and an ongoing issue there, so I put in my two cents accordingly. I got double for this one! :-)
Hope you are well and staying busy. My husband fell and broke the second vertebrae in his neck about 8 weeks ago, but suffered no spinal cord damage and is currently in a neck brace recovering. He can't drive or bend over, is in on-again-off-again pain, has to be shaved laying down and other fun things, but overall he is recovering well and I am thankful. Hopefully he will be truly well soon. It has been an experience. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Where I live we basically have three summers and the month of January. I often start my gardening in January because there are so many nice days and it's pleasant to work when it's cool out. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, can I ask for your opinion on this? There's a category of articles I'd like to reorganize, and this would (imo) require deleting some and creating others. I think my reasoning is very sound, I don't think any of the points raised against me are good, and I'd like an input which actually takes my own points into consideration, whether or not it ends up aligning with my own conclusion. It's not your area of interest, but the core issue isn't difficult to understand, and I'm not asking you to analyze anything complicated. You're (astonishingly) the only editor I know who can be trusted to actually make an effort to understand and discuss a given issue.
It means something that you tried, thank you and sorry for even bothering you with this. If you ever need a 3rd opinion yourself, I'll try my best. Avilich (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Thank you. I will no doubt take you up on it at some point. I could actually use your participation at Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism. It is such a huge topic, and I am quite overwhelmed, and desperately need to be edited! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Is there anything I could do, specifically? I've no more knowledge on religion than the aberage person. And you seem to be doing ok on your own. The 'work ongoing' template is unnecessary, the article's been static for years and isn't going anywhere. Avilich (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Avilich Thank you for asking! :-) You can do your prose editing thing. My content is accurate and well sourced, I am confident, but I tend to like run-on sentences, much like this one, with lots of commas and dashes, which tend to annoy others. :-) There is a lot of Roman history here - and a lot of it needs changing - read the sections on the emperors and see if you don't agree. (I am doing a section at a time, working my way down to them.)
Tell me if the content is clear, concise (hah!), readable, easily followed, makes sense to someone who is not an expert in the field, etc. etc. It is to my advantage that you are not in the same field I am. I tend to get off in the weeds of minutiae at times and have to be drug back into the light. Tell me if - no, where - I have done that! Anything you have to add or any comment you make will be of value. I appreciate anything you are willing to do.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk. I promise not to drag you into discussions again, but I must bother you with that one for one last time, since you're still technically a participant. For now the outcome seems to be inconclusive: a couple days ago the AfD was relisted, probably for the last time, and one of the merge voters has since switched his support for deletion, which might just be enough, otherwise the two articles will be kept due to no consensus. Due to the ambiguity, I and the administrator who'll close the discussion need to know what your position is exactly. You didn't cast a formal vote, and the ?merge of multiple unrelated articles which you seem to have provisionally endorsed is not something to be discussed in AfDs. An AfD is to simply determine if an article is worth existing. Thus, I'd like to know if (1) you wish to remain a participant and register a vote as per my original request, either reiterating in simpler terms what you have already said or switching your vote; or (2) if you wish to disassociate with this completely, as if this all never happened. This is important to me since one of my longer term plans was to work on the subject, and those two articles are an old Wikipedia relic standing in the way of anybody who assumes the burden. It'd be disappointing if, after all the relists, the discussion results in nothing due to no consensus. Avilich (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks. But please add a brief rationale, stating that you changed your mind from above because XXX, because you agree with me that XXX, or whatever. Raw standalone votes are usually taken less seriously, even ignored when better explanations are available. Avilich (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
No no no, I wasn't saying delete Sulla's second civil war, that wasn't even in the nomination, and this is not about moving or re-purposing pages either. I was just saying don't leave your answer so brief and trivial, now this may very well cause a no-consensus keep. I should've just kept quiet... Avilich (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Avilich I went up and reread what you had written to refamiliarize myself since it's been awhile. Trying to get a brief summary from all of this back and forth led me to you agreeing with T8612's option one. It was what you said, so I thought it was good to use. I am so sorry to have caused any trouble. I was trying to do as you asked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Editorial concerns, which include moving and renaming, are not to be discussed in AfDs, I already said that above but you instead made that a central feature of your argument yet again. Please remove completely that part about the second civil war, that isn't even part of the nomination and I already fixed that page anyway. The part about moving the first civil war is also disruptive and confusing, something T8612 (now you tagged him again, great) should never have even brought up, since the notability of the move target (march on Rome) has also nothing to do with the discussion. Literally all this was about was some bogus civil war (first civil war) and an article whose name (civil wars plural) derives from this bogus civil war, and whether these bogus concepts – which not one of the keep voters has authenticated – deserve their own article or not; you went out of your way to make this much more complicated. Please don't crush my expectations right when they're so close to getting fulfilled. Avilich (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Avilich I went out of my way to try and accommodate you. I wasn't trying to make anything complicated. So what exactly am I voting to delete then? Remove the second civil war, and remove moving there first civil war, and I am completely lost now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed already from the top of the page, I nominated two articles: Sulla's first civil war, which is not a civil war and is just a garbled OR collection of completely distinct events; and Sulla's civil wars (plural), which was created for the sole reason that the term 'first civil war' implies that there's more than one civil war of that name. That's it, those are the two articles I nominated. The problem is the same as that Ambrose article we deleted earlier: it's pure OR, has no content worth preserving, and it forks stuff from other articles.
There was an article called Sulla's second civil war, which I moved to Sulla's civil war, because that's the only conflict of that name: there was only one, not a 'first' and second. The second, thus, is dealt with already, and the first one is what I'm trying to deal with now; and there's finally the plural civil wars, which is built on the mistaken assumption that there were two, not one. Avilich (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I tried to fix it, but I only mentioned the one article. I should go to bed. I am too tired to make sense of anything right now. My mother fell and had to have surgery and I had to travel 1500 miles with no notice and was up for 36 hours and I am just too tired to do more right now. I'm sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk. Sorry for lashing out, the discussion is over, I sort of got what I want and it doesn't matter anymore. You're a great contributor (better than I am) and I wish the best for you in your moment of stress and difficulty. Avilich (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Avilich, it's okay. I felt bad that I screwed things up. My mother's surgery went well and she is in rehab for awhile. I have done what I can for her this week. I am flying back home on Saturday. I am pretty exhausted but will sleep better once I am in my own bed again. Looking forward to being more 'me' and contributing again next week. If I am a better contributor you are the better editor in the original sense of what an editor used to do. We make a good team, so no worries. We're good. I appreciate the good wishes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
In my re-write of Eugenius I removed this section:
"The reign of Eugenius marked the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. Five months later Theodosius died, dividing his empire between his two sons. This had happened many times before in the previous two centuries, but this time it was to be final the Roman Empire never reunited, even under Leo I the Thracian (when there was no Western Emperor for some periods), and soon after his reign, the western half fell."
"Eugenius also represented the last opportunity for the pagans, with the senatorial class, to oppose the Christianization of the Empire. The Battle of the Frigidus was part of a trend towards using increasing percentages of barbarian troops, especially in the west, where it led to the weakening of the Empire itself."
Since you worked on Theodosius I thought you might have stumbled upon something that might support these paragraphs. If not, no worries. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Kansas Bear Well hey! You were absolutely right to remove them. It is not true that The reign of Eugenius marked the end of an era and the beginning of a new one., and I think I have multiple sources that would decry that claim if you find you need them. It was Theodosius that might make that claim, and even he is disputed as representing significant change. Eugenius was a blip on the horizon comparatively speaking.
Eugenius also represented the last opportunity for the pagans is also incorrect. I think you will find that when the last western emperor of Roman descent, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by Odoacer, pagans used the occasion to attempt to revive the old rites. That was in 476. Paganism lived on into the sixth century in much of the empire, and on into the 11th in Greece. The Battle of Frigidus is an excellent article with multiple sources that would not support what is claimed or implied.
Before doing a RfC, I wanted to see that the discussion goes really nowhere even though one side is listening to the other side. I think you made a lot of efforts to listen to the other side, but I expected even more in terms of an attitude toward the definition of the scope, which I discussed in length in the PdD. It was too much for you, especially given that you really tried to listen to the other side and made compromise. I am sorry that you gave up, but this attitude toward the scope, the fact that it cannot be fixed by rules, is essential in my view of what it means to be open to a discussion. This was rejected or misunderstood on both sides. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Dominic Mayers I have gone back and looked at the discussion that has followed, and you are right, I did get impatient, which if you knew me you would know is generally unlike me. I owe you an apology for that, and I am sorry. You are trying really hard to help and are only getting grief for it and I am indeed genuinely sorry to have contributed to that.
In some amelioration of that fault, I have been engaged in this endeavor with Slatersteven longer than you. Plus, I see that you have now arrived at the same frustration level that I reached. I don't think it took you longer than it took me, you just started later. :-) At any rate, we are both now in the same boat going in circles. So far I have not seen real evidence of good faith efforts to find a compromise, but we have both seen and acknowledged the presence of misdirection, stonewalling, and game-playing. That is not PA, it's just honesty. I have worked with him before, and he isn't always like this. I think he thinks he really is defending the integrity of the article. I attribute good motives to his bad behavior.
I agree with him that terminology matters, and I agree with him that definitions in the sources tend to set the scope of an article, but he misrepresents what the sources say and don't say. He posits one strawman after another, throwing out red herrings here and there, using various methods of poor argumentation to obscure and misdirect and avoid directly engaging in actual issues. Scope may very well be the bottom line here, or at least part of it, but as long as his responses are not genuine efforts to find a solution, it doesn't really matter. So what do we do with that? That is the pertinent question I think. But maybe there is a way for us to find an approach through the jungle of thorns.
So far, lots of claims about what is said in the RS have been made by both sides, without citing those sources. IMO that needs to stop. Slatersteven's objections are all about what the sources say and verifiability and no OR and so on. He has not posted a single source that actually supports any claim he has made, and we've let him get by with that, but these are valid requirements. I say we meet those requirements and ask him to do the same or acknowledge he can't. I will go get all the sources I can find.
The point should be clear that every claim should be supported by RS or it is valueless and inapplicable to this discussion. From there, we can then determine what of it should be included in the scope of the article. How does that sound to you?
On the other hand, if I post a reasonable summary with citations, we can reach a consensus. If he ignores that, if he reverts again, we have the right to take appropriate action - if we want. At least, if nothing else, it would give us some way to figure out what the best way forward is.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
In my amateurish research about Christian origins, I've recently read about a text called Pseudo-Hegesippus: it basically seems to be a fourth century chronicle of the First Jewish-Roman War that was later erroneously attributed to Hegesippus. Do you think this document could be used as a source in Wikipedia pages? I mean, it seems to contain blatant anti-Judaism, but I don't know what scholars think about it.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Karma1998, nice to see you here! Grabergs is right, you can discuss the discussion, because historians often seem to find what they call a "historical core" even in the most legendary or pseudapigraphic texts, and anything they talk about you can reflect accordingly. Hegesippus is mostly legend anyway, so a discussion that discusses that discussion is sometimes perfectly appropriate! :-) Basically anything you find in a secondary source. Happy editing! Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång!! Happy Wednesday! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello [User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]]! I apologize that it has taken me so long to get back to you, but I have been busy Hulking out elsewhere... :-) I wanted to be sure I had actually done what you suggested before getting back and saying yeah-yeah, so now it is done, and if everything blows up, I get to blame you! :-) A lot of good that ever is huh? Anyway, thanx for the suggestion. I hope it fixes whatever the problem was! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
If it worked, you now have a "reply" link at the end of a talkpage comment. That opens a message window, which makes your message properly indented, signs automagically, and you have a "little guy with a +" button that makes ping-code. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Bless your heart Dominic Mayers, I can see you are really trying to do the right thing, but I think this is done now. I have inserted some changes to the article in question, and have had no adverse response - so far. Hopefully this is an end. Thank you for all your help and perseverance. You've been amazing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I have the impression that you are trying to establish some kind of criterion that could remove the need for discussions in the future. I am afraid that you will lose more time and have to discuss more in this manner than if you simply proceed content by content and accept the possibility of a discussion, possibly an RfC in some cases. The default criterion used by Slatersteven is not an official one. He keeps repeating it, but it's not a WP rule. Unless, there is a consensus for it as a default criterion, it's nothing. There is no consensus at all in support of this criterion. On the contrary, most opinions expressed in the last RfC were opposed to it. But, I am telling you, if you keep trying to have some kind of criterion fixed in advance, I tend to favor a default criterion like the one proposed by Slatersteven. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me at all. "The default is wrong but I will support it because having an actual criterion might lessen conflict and discussion which I am for." Less conflict does not automatically translate into less discussion. In fact, I think it works the opposite way. The majority of people avoid discussions that turn into fights. They just go away. That has certainly been observable here. There will always be discussion. No reason to fear that will go away. An actual definition would just level the playing field so that discussions could be more reasonable and less of the mess they have been with less open conflict. You haven't been involved in this for the long term. If there is a more contentious article anywhere, I don't know of it. I would think any reasonable person would be in favor of doing whatever can be done to lessen the conflict. Please, if you can't do that, then just leave it to those of us who have been involved here for the long term. You are not helping anything or anyone this way.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Asking for a source
Hi Jenhawk. Since you have an email attached to your account, and since you ask for sources all the time, I was wondering if you could see if it's possible for this (and possibly this) to be acquired in that place where editors request sources. It's impossible to acquire the content of this cursed journal and website through my usual means. You may rightly berate me for not doing it myself, but I want to make sure it works before deciding if it's worth assigning an email to my own account. One-time favor, pls? It's for the early part of [list of Roman consuls]]. Best wishes Avilich (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I tried finding them in My Library and couldn't, so yes I will help, but I need to know what article they are for, it's part of what they ask for. I won't berate you - unless you need it - which you do if you've gotten yourself in trouble again and that's why you are here instead of doing it yourself. That I'll fuss about, because I want you to be good and stay out of trouble here. I don't want anyone throwing you off WP. Otherwise, no problem. Happy to help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite free of trouble now, don't worry. As I said, it's for list of Roman consuls, specifically for the early part which I've been revising and updating. I think by now it's almost as good as it will ever get, but these two sources are commonly cited and they may reveal further details which I've missed. Avilich (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
So now I have two Pdf documents downloaded. If you email me, I can send them to you, otherwise, I have no clue how to get them to you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Well I tried and tried - everything I could think of - and I got nothing. This is not the first time Proquest has failed to find one of its own articles for me, so I went to the Internet Archive and tried everything I could think of there, but that hasn't worked either. I am so sorry Avilich. I wanted to help. I don't have a clue what the problem is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Dude! Tell me again why you can't go ask Resources yourself? De Gruyter wants to make me accept cookies to get this title. Is there another way? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't want you to accept cookies or do anything out of the ordinary (nor do I want to be a nuisance either), I just wanted to see if you have access to these sources before going to "Resources" myself" ("Resources" itself encourages editors to ask others directly if possible). If you don't have any of the ones I need, that's fine, and thank you for your time once again. Avilich (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Avilich I was offline in RL for a bit, but now I am back. I cannot see the title of the DeGruyter article w/o accepting their stupid cookies, so if you can just copy paste the citation, I will look it up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It's possible to avoid the cookies message on De Gruyter by stopping the page from loading at the right moment, before it finishes. The full citation is <Bailey, Shackleton. "A MERGING OF LICINII CRASSI: ". American Journal of Ancient History, edited by Ernst Badian, Piscataway, NJ, USA: Gorgias Press, 2016, pp. 162-163. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463237189-004>, or alternatively <David Roy Shackleton Bailey, "A Merging of Licinii Crassi", American Journal of Ancient History, vol. 1, no. 3 (1976), pp. 162–163, ISSN0362-8914>. Avilich (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I got MyLibrary access with surprising ease and I can now see the DeGruyter article with no problems, so I'm likely to annoy you less with sources in the future. Thanks a lot again, and sorry for the cookies thing, I didn't wish you to do it if you didn't want to. Now, apparently ProQuest really doesn't allow access via Wikipedia to that other journal, Athenaeum, so I'll have to try my luck elsewhere with that. Avilich (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
You are most welcome, and the decision was mine. All in a day's work on WP, right? Good luck with running down that article - resource request really is amazing. They can often get things I can't get to any other way. They're magic. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Unsolicited feedback on your sandbox
Hi, I just happened to stumble upon your sandbox! It looks very promising but you may be assuming too much of the reader's knowledge. For example, the sentence that "Ramsay MacMullen tests this theory in five areas: sexual norms and slavery, gladiatorial shows, judicial penalties, and corruption." If you are going to bring it up it has to be explained what Christian "new morality" is and how it differs/is similar to Roman morality in these five areas. Hope you're well, (t · c) buidhe23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Ha ha! Hello buidhe dear! It is truly great to hear from you - you are welcome to 'stumble in' any time. Yes, if you note, I have been struggling with this for awhile now. I am unsure if it even has a place on WP. As "alternate theories" on Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism go, it is no doubt the most controversial of all of them. Presenting it fairly, as you describe, makes it into a huge section though - almost a topic all by itself . It isn't just the first few paragraphs - it goes all the way down through martyrdom... So I have been wondering about that too, if it's already present somewhere, or if it's just too complex to address, or what exactly to do with this - if anything. I have on occasion done work like this that I just ended up deleting. Your input on content is absolutely the best I have ever gotten here, so anything you have to say is welcome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a fascinating topic and I do believe it should be covered somewhere on wikipedia. I think it goes both ways, Christianity was affected by the transition from a persecuted sect to a state religion (I think this is already covered to some extent in different articles) but also it affected broader Roman society and prevailing morals/ethics. That second part probably should be its own article, it certainly meets notability requirements although I'm not sure what to title it. (t · c) buidhe02:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
buidhe Well this encourages me more than you know. Perhaps I will actually finish it! Perhaps I should write it as a stand alone page, and just use a short summary for the 'decline' page with a link provided. I'm afraid it is too long for inclusion as a section where I started, so I was afraid it was useless though I also find it quite interesting. Is there a particular approach I should take to what amounts to a subset - or maybe sister - to an already existing article? If you want to take part of it and help, that would also be fine. :-) Perhaps we can come up with a title together by the time we are done writing it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I have definitely written some similar articles and can help with article organization and feedback (although this really isn't my area of expertise). But first I'd like to clarify. There are two or three topics that this part of your sandbox gets into:
Comparison of Christian and pre-Christian Roman ethics — similarities and differences
Impact of Christianity on the society of the Roman Empire — for example Ramsay Mac Mullen's paper addresses this topic
Morality or attractiveness theory of the decline of paganism in the Roman Empire — a subtopic of decline of paganism in the Roman Empire that would be summarized in the main article
Potentially all three are valid article topics, and it may be easier to write the last one after tackling #1 or #2 at least to a certain extent. (t · c) buidhe05:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey buidhe - I went to bed last night before getting this. It was the wee hours for me. These are good suggestions and I agree. I really like 'Attractiveness theory' for the section title in Decline, and think maybe I like 'Impact' best for the overall article. It would have to include some comparison and contrast, whereas just doing a comparison doesn't have to include impact in its scope. Organization is always the biggest decision though in my mind, and right now, I am going by topic, but MacMullin only has five and there are multiple other aspects that should also be included, so first I had all of MacMullen's 5 areas together - then I separated them in order to include other scholars on each topic - and now I am waffling back and forth. So what's your opinion about organization - if you have one? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
One obvious way to organize the attractiveness theory article would be to have sections on different reasons why Christianity may have been more attractive than paganism. You wouldn't have to be restricted to the topics addressed in any one source. The thing I would watch out for is original research, implying that there is a connection between any of these topics and the rise of Christianity without a source that explicitly supports it. (t · c) buidhe21:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
buidhe I have spent the last two weeks learning more than I ever wanted to know about early Christianity and slavery and can find no one who claims it had any impact, one way or the other, on Christian growth. I think that the failure to take a united stand against it did not impact Christianity's appeal, because slavery was the norm that everyone accepted, so no one thought that was anything that needed commenting on. But I can't find a source. Do you think you could help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe this is discussed by at least one source which states on page 40 "How would a new identity as a Christian affect an urban slave, and how did the presence of slaves and slaveholders in the population affect the growth and practices of the churches?" Sadly I cannot access the rest of the book. (t · c) buidhe22:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
buidheI have Glancy's book, and have looked at that quote. Unfortunately she just says she is going to answer it in the context of the book and I can't find where she does. I pulled it up on the Archive and can see the whole damn thing and can't find a clear answer anywhere. I am clearly missing it, but reading and searching both have produced nada so far. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, if it's hard to find in any source than WP:UNDUE might come in anyway. Also, an article does not have to be 100% complete to be published in mainspace. (t · c) buidhe05:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Hey Jen. I remember you from our discussions at Historicity of Jesus and a few other Christianity-related pages, though I'd forgotten your username a while back. I was going through some of my older edits for the purpose of writing out my thoughts on why I'm retiring from WP and scrambling my password, and came across some of our discussions. I wanted to say two things to you:
1. I remember you fondly as having a great sense of humor and a good, level head on your shoulders. You were (and from what I can see here, you remain) one of the Good Ones™.
2. Our last interactions at the above-linked article left a sour taste in my mouth; not for anything you said, but as a result of the last few edits in two of those discussions being a seriously condescending joke and another seriously inappropriate, creepy and possibly threatening joke to which I made no public objection. As if that weren't enough, in hindsight I can see that the context of those jokes made another joke I made read as creepy, and I never did do anything to correct that.
I want you to know that I certainly did not intend to convey anything inappropriate, sexual or overly personal with my joke, and that I took serious umbrage at the jokes by the other party. If you weren't aware, I did object at that other user's talk page, though I did so with an abundance of caution and good faith that didn't adequately convey just how strenuously I objected to that sort of thing. I often get caught up in the moment when I'm joking around, and fail to consider how other people might perceive things, and that certainly happened then.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Well. How about this? So I guess what you are saying is that you are part of your reason for leaving. Well, don't, at least not on my account. I forgive you unreservedly. I'm even impressed by this. It seems as though WP is contributing to personal growth, and that's a sad thing to leave behind.
These didn't make me uncomfortable, they annoyed the piss out of me, and not because of their insults but because they were designed to distract and prevent actual progress. I don't recall if it worked, but if it did, then shame on me. If a person is going to write on WP they need a few basics: a sufficient amount of masochism, or at least a thick enough skin, to be willing to do extensive hours of work for free and endure insults, fights and bad-faith opponents, with little to no recourse for resolution - and a passion for the concept of writing a high quality encyclopedia.
If you no longer have those, then by all means move on until you find a hobby that obsesses you like this one can and does for so many of us. But if you find you still have those qualities, then stay, and count me as a new friend.
Let us begin afresh. I appreciate humor - but not put down humor, really, in any form. It has no place here simply because this is a print medium and there can be no larger relationship of affection and admiration that can ameliorate it and make it acceptable. So no more of that if you please sir, and if you agree to that, we are good to go.
Hey Jen—I saw your terrific work on the Ambrose a few weeks ago. I'm assuming (?) you plan to return to it, if so, I'd be happy to contribute a music section, if that's a topic you find less interest in. Ambrose is one of—if not the—major figures in early Christian music, so there is much to be said, and I've been looking for an excuse to read up more about him. I see you're straddling some larger topics right now (persecution of Christians and the Fall of the Roman Empire?), so if you do get back around to Ambrose, let me know if I can assist. Aza24 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Aza24 how wonderful! I had not intended to go back, but this clearly needs doing. Please, go and boldly DO, and I will be your assistant and provide any support or help you might need. I know nothing of music - except I mostly like it. :-) Yes, I am currently lost in the fireswamp in my sandbox - take a look and comment at will. It's right at the start, but anything can be interrupted to help a friend. I am only a ping away! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I will definitely put it on my list for next; I'm currently collecting sources for Kassia, as I needed a break from the Western-music mania I usually engage in! When I get to Ambrose, I would likely need your help if I move much beyond the music and life sections. To that point—if in a few weeks/months you find your projects winding down, it might be fun to try and get Ambrose to GA (it doesn't seem like any of the church fathers or doctors are GA). No pressure though. If you take your sandbox efforts to PR or FAC at any point, I will be sure to take a look! Aza24 (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I would love to take it GA and it seems like your input might be just the thing to put it over the top. Keep me in mind. Ping me when you're ready. Good luck with Kassia, it looks interesting. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to ask you a question about the Neronian Persecution. As you know, in 2015 Brent Shaw has questioned the historicity of such persecution, stating that Tacitus is not reliable in its description. This, of course, created controversy.
I've made some research and, as far as I can tell, the only scholar who endorsed is view is Candida Moss. On the other hand, such argument has been rejected by Larry Hurtado (2015), Christopher P. Jones (2017), Brigit van der Lans and Jan N. Bremmer (2017), Barry S. Strauss (2019) and John G. Cook (2020), while some scholars have simply ignored Shaw's view (Bauckham, 2017: Ehrman, 2018). Writing in 2019 Scot McKnight, despite noting Shaw's skepticism wrote that "It appears to me that historians of ancient Rome generally accept Nero's persecution of Christians"; in 2020 Paul Middleton echoed a similar belief.
I would like to ask you wether you know something about the scholarly consensus on the matter, because don't know wether I've checked every source.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Karma1998 You have given an excellent summary. Well done. I know there is someone who keeps trying to edit that in, but Tacitus has been questioned repeatedly and still stands. The minority view can be represented - but not a fringe view - and Brent qualifies. Candida does too, imo, but her work is better. If it were me, I would go back and see how many times the person has put that in and it has then been reverted. Under those circumstances, an edit war is still an edit war even if it doesn't involve the same person. Then I would send him a warning with copies of the diffs. If you want to be nice instead of the Hulk like me, send him the above info on the talk page instead. He's wasting everyone's time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, Richard Carrier is notoriously fringe, so he must be removed. On the other hand, Shaw and Moss are good historians, but they are in a minority on the matter, so they can appear on Wikipedia with a specification that they are in a minority.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
PS Candida Moss is correct in stating that the martyrologies are often unreliable and fanciful (in fact, the Church had already instituted a group called Bollandists to check the agiographies in the 18th century). Still, her attempt to deny the historicity of the Neronian persecution is unwarranted: such persecution is attested by Tacitus and Suetonius and there's no real reason to think that they're not reliable (Tacitus had witnessed the fire himself when he was a child). It is no surprise that even skeptical scholars like Bart D. Ehrman consider that persecution to be historical.-Karma1998 (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
PSS Karma1998 The martyrologies cannot be treated as one category. There are three categories, and the first are generally accepted as historical, the third category are all written later and are generally accepted as fiction as Moss says, and the second category gets argued about, but the majority accept that they have some historicity as well. Each has to be evaluated separately. If one begins with the assumption that all references to the miraculous make a story fanciful fiction, then yes, they are all unreliable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that miracolous stories are necessarily unreliable, most of them have at least some reliability. But some (like the Acts of Paul) are waay to fanciful to be true. In any case, I agree with your categorization.--Karma1998 (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow! That was really interesting. I wish my face was getting more interesting as I aged - I think it's doing the opposite... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Btw, if you feel overflowing with your usual benevolent wisdom, feel free to take a look at Talk:Muhammad_and_the_Bible#Mahammaddim (and perhaps recent article history for context). The editor I'm disputing with (AbbasWafadar) seems reasonably good faith, and actually joined the talkpage discussion when asked, so I'm putting some effort into this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Having read through it, I think the right decision was reached, though I think there is insufficient mention of the alternate views to qualify as balanced or neutral yet. It does still need work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's hard to find good sources. I'd like to add something like "The name Muhammad does not occur in the Bible, and the view of modern historians is that he is not mentioned in it, becuase it was written before he was born." But can I find an Oxbridge don who bothered to write that down? NO. Frustrating. Well, discussions will continue or they will not. I've been to and fro (heh) in that article since 2017, and I get WP:SHEPHERD instincts sometimes. It is currently in decent shape (considering), and I don't want it to go downhill again. And strange Bible-topics can be so &¤#%= interesting... I'll stop ranting now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
TRUE! Interesting and subject to mudslides! :-) If I wasn't so caught up in what I am doing in my sandbox, I would offer to help, but I dare not let myself get distracted. It's all buidhe (talk·contribs)'s fault. She came along and said 'this should be an article' so of course - since it was her saying it - I listened! Now I am lost in the fire swamp... (movie?) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
One BBT scene I loved was where Leonard complains that the drycleaner didn't get the stain out of his Star Fleet uniform. Penny remarks that he wouldn't have to dryclean it so much if he didn't make her wear the green body paint in bed (Orion (Star Trek)), but Leonard decides that "it's worth it!". I even saw some fanart on what that might have looked like (not explicit). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to tell me to quit spamming you, but this [6] was a very interesting article about WP. And yes, when I "saw" her around I also assumed she was a dude. Statistics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, in the first place Gråbergs Gråa Sång you could never be spam for me no matter what you send, and in the second place, I always get a kick out of anything and everything you send. I love your sense of humor, and when you are serious, your intelligence also shines through, so what is there to see as spam? Nothing! This article for instance is one of the most fascinating things I have ever read. She's me! On Nazis! How amazing! I actually wrote the author and asked him to give her my screen name. I hope she pings me! So - spam, shmam - quit apologizing. I love hearing from you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Saw this quote on Reddit and wondered what you thought
I respect the work you do here, but I saw this quote and was wondering what you thought about it:
"At this point Christianity in the US is; a political lobby, tax evasion scheme for the wealthy few at the top and a shield for the bigotry of all it's devotees."
There are definitely parts of US evangelical christianity that look like this but I wouldn't say it's true of all Christian denominations. I live in the US and am atheist btw. (t · c) buidhe08:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the criticism has two major parts: one, the church is being used for political purposes, not religious ones, and two, this violates their tax-exempt status. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but according to this report by Reuters, since at least 2012 in this example, hundreds of churches (potentially thousands) are violating the IRS rules and engaging in political activity. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Viriditas What it has to do with is that the organization itself cannot come out and endorse a particular campaign but individuals within an organization can. So long as they do not make claims that their organization agrees with them. Within any church, you will find people who support multiple candidates, and the church leaders avoiding mention of any of them. That is my lifelong experience - so far! If there is sometimes advocacy within some churches, it doesn't leave the grounds. Voting itself may be advocated for but who you vote for is your own private business. So again I say, those organizations that are privately funded and political in nature do not represent the churches of America; they only represent themselves. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Don’t you find it a bit funny that, while Christianity has been involved in politics as long as it has existed, it is only recently when conservatives joined the fray that people got all up in arms over it. I’m not even a conservative and even I can see the irony at work here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The issue of Christian nationalism (theocracy) is inextricably linked to conservative foundations and think tanks who are pouring tens of millions of dollars into special interests groups. For example, the trend of Republican states passing voter suppression laws was funded primarily by a conservative group that supports Christian nationalism. In addition to this exercise in anti-democratic, authoritarian inclinations, supporters of these policies treat Donald Trump as a messianic figure who they believe "god" is working through to bring America to Jesus and make way for the second coming of Christ. There's so much written on this subject that I feel it would do the literature a disservice to even say much more than that. And yes, it sounds completely unhinged and insane. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Viriditas This sounds amazingly like the paranoia heard from the other side - the ultra conservatives - who also say "they" are out to take over the world, so we better get there first! In reality, Christians are not trying to take over. The majority of us would never agree because we know Christian nationalism would be bad for Christianity. The majority of Christians - over 50% - support the view reported in this article from the conservative Christian magazine Christianity Today: [[9]] You don't need to read the whole article, just look at the lead in: "Our analysis of 166 nations suggests the biggest threat to Christian vitality is not persecution, affluence, education, or pluralism. It’s state support." Don't let a loud crazy minority skew your reality just because they are loud and crazy.
Be calm. The spending insanity is pretty evenly distributed:[10] Donald Trump definitely needs therapy, and anyone who buys into his craziness definitely needs help as well, but I am more worried about Biden right now - and I voted for him.
Thanks for your reply. I won't belabor the point, but I'm afraid that the Council for National Policy (CNP) is a very real organization. Although he's dead now, former members of the CNP like R. J. Rushdoony were very much dedicated to transforming the United States into a theocracy, as are many of their living and active members. There is no paranoia here. They have been vocal about their goals and intent. Even large and influential conservative groups like the Bradley Foundation have expressed their theocratic aspirations. This is not some kind of one off or quirky position, it is mainstream, American Christian conservatism. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Viriditas No it is not mainstream. Just because the rest of us are quietly ignoring it, doesn't mean we don't exist or have opinions. Statistically, these people are still under 50% of conservative Republicans, and that doesn't even take into consideration all the many Christians who are Democrats, nor does it count the many moderates and liberals still trying to get the Republican party to come to its senses. Didn't bother to look at that article did you? It contradicts what you believe, so you didn't bother - and therein lies the problem on both sides.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you misread what I wrote. I wrote that CNP and Bradley are two examples of organizations that espouse mainstream Christian conservatism, not mainstream Christians in general. In other words, this is what mainstream Christian conservatives believe, not the liberals, moderates, or even the majority of Christians. The reason I used the word mainstream is to show that in conservative circles, these ideas are not fringe. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear Viriditas I did not misread, I promise. The CNP is so far out of the actual mainstream it doesn't even qualify as mainstream conservatism. Let me prove it. Go here: [11] The fine liberal southern organization, the SPLC, has an exposé on the CNP. They have published the CNP's national membership directories as part of that effort. You can link to a directory for each and every year. Do you know how many members there were in 2020 in this supposedly "mainline" organization? About a thousand - that's it - after 4 decades - and a thousand people cannot be considered statistically significant or a representative sample. Conservatives made up 34% of the overall population of 328.2 million people in 2019 - that's almost 130 million people. [12][13] There are 200 million Christians in the US and only about 32% of those are conservative.[14] Besides, CNP was started by Tim LaHaye, and even his theology is considered fringe. Give me a break darling, you have been drinking the liberal koolaid and are buying into what a threat these people genuinely pose - which is actually none at all - what policies have they actually affected? All special interest groups are in politics these days, so what? That's the way our system works. People have the right to shout about whatever they want, it doesn't make it matter in the bigger scheme of things. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
References
Again, it looks like you misread and were terribly confused by what I wrote. So I will repeat: the positions of the CNP and Bradley, as only two examples, are mainstream positions in the conservative Christian community. You can see this is true when you look at their policy positions, which form the baseline of the current Republican Party. This isn't really debatable. Not sure why this continues to confuse you. Due to their positions and influence, they pose the greatest threat to secularism and constitutional democracy in the US. We saw how much they tried to destroy the country after only four years of Trumpism. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Viriditas Oh for heaven's sakes. This is the kind of willfull blindness that is driving our country into the ground. I didn't misunderstand, I tried to broaden your view. I tried to put the CNP in its actual context. I tried to get you to come out of your comfortable defensive pose and see that what you claim is not really possible. But you won't read what I send, and for that, I will now say, this is my last response over this, and I ask you kindly not to post any more of this nonsense on my talk page.
The CNP is, by any reasonable definition, genuinely extremist and not mainline. It's deceptive, I know, because it wants to look mainline and it wants to appeal to mainline conservatives. Toward that end, the CNP only has three very general published positions: a limited federal government, which I and all libertarians also espouse; what they call "traditional values" which could mean anything since most humanists support good values too; and a strong national defense, which most Americans also support. That's all they own up to in public.[15]
Here's the platform of the Republican party: [16] It's much much longer and more involved, but those three things are in there. So as far as that goes, the platforms are the same. But if that were all they stood for, they couldn't possibly pose any kind of a threat could they? So that isn't what you are referring to here. Your claim is that they are hate-filled extremists of the worst kind, and that their extremism has become mainstream. Bullshit. Their extreme views are not anywhere in the Republican platform. Look for yourself.
I get that you aren't interested in actual information, but at least I have made actual facts and their references available to you. I haven't quoted anyone, as you have, making a baseless claim with no factual support for it, as your quote does, and then failed to provide any reference that can be examined. In that line, I will make one last effort to reach past your fear to reason: always check where people get their facts, always check those facts, don't accept other people's views as your own out of laziness, or fear.
The CNP has been around for over 40 years. They have never been a major influence on any policy. They are a very small minority, they spend "millions" not "billions" which is what the real influencers spend - as I demonstrated in one of the articles you didn't read. They are no more of a real threat to secularism than Monty Python.
Now please go away and don't post here anymore. Anyone who doesn't have the courtesy to actually read and research has no place here.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
If you get involved in politics, pretty much by definition someone is going to oppose. That has nothing to do with conservatism/liberalism. Besides, the marriage of (certain forms of) Christianity with right wing politics is not new. The Catholic Church was, until the mid-twentieth century, opposed to freedom of speech and democracy, encountering serious opposition for these reactionary stances. And even before that it was a very conservative institution engendering violent opposition (e.g. the French Revolution). (t · c) buidhe11:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red| November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213
Sure, no problem. I have no problem either waiting or you starting it. I will probably have to work off site and bring my contribution in because of the way I work anyway, so let me know when you're ready. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, the problem was that I thought "draft" meant I could do as I pleased and only had to be concerned about copyright upon publication. I didn't know a draft was considered published. That still makes no sense to me really - what's the point of a draft? I'll copy a half dozen phrases I think are important, main ideas, then boil them all down - or quote them - but I don't know which till I get them altogether - sometimes in combination or contrast to someone else. When they are together on one page, it's easier to see how the ideas work together. It enablers me to deal with more than one at a time. I take them as a totality and start chiseling. I had no idea I could get in trouble before I even started. I don't think I have ever published - what I thought of as published - a finished version of anything with copyright violation in it. Oh well! Live and learn.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
The issue with drafts is that like any other wiki page they are publicly accessible. Wikimedia Foundation does not want to be sued for violating anyone's copyright. That's why it's essential if you're copying from sources to do it offline and make sure none of it ends up in the published version. (t · c) buidhe18:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
And if you make an article where you dare to include a non-free image, you can only upload it after the article is in mainspace. Copyright rules are a... harsh mistress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
There's no need to get all worked up and go on a posting spree in 3 separate places. You just need to follow the advice I gave after you at your own request: wait. A page being "reviewed" or "patrolled" simply means that Wikipedia took note of your article's existence--more specifically, that it received a superficial review from a "New Page patroller". In no more than a couple weeks you should receive a notice that your article has been "reviewed", or acknowledged. Avilich (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I was in a little bit of a tizzy, not to worry. (Surely a 'spree' requires more than three?) :-) Little rhyme there... I got answers, and now I have learned something - again - which is good. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Religious change
I strongly recommend not reworking the Decline article for the moment and instead creating a userpage/sandbox for adding whatever you intend to. Again, PCRE and Decline are two different things, and two separate articles may well be appropriate. A very good point was raised in the discussion, that there's already an article called "Religion in ancient Rome", which makes a "Religious change" article kind of redundant. I think a rework or merger of Decline should only take place after it's been demonstrated that it has no further potential for improvement; but there's probably a lot that can be done still, so there's no rush to do any of that. If you wish to write about religious change specifically, you should first work in your sandbox, and perhaps then find ways to incorporate the content into "Religion in ancient Rome". Reworking an entire article isn't an easy decision, especially if you haven't worked out what you intend to replace it with. Avilich (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Avilich After the extended discussion at PoPRE, I decided against any merger of Decline based on the idea of turning it into a parent article for religious change. Religious change in Rome would become a daughter article as would the one we are retitling. In order for that to happen Decline needs some extensive rewriting. I used to work in my sandbox, but now I work offsite and import. I have mostly reworked entire articles here at wp, so it isn't a big deal, it just takes some time. The most time consuming thing is always checking what's there for what to keep. Richard isn't answering right now. I don't know if he will. He doesn't always like working with me. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I think your choice of fusing decline with your new article was a good one. But shouldn't the title simply be "Christianization of the Roman Empire"? Avilich (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Well good. The title was suggested by one of the other editors, and I just went with it; other than background, it is focused on the fourth century mostly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
You're right. I'd forgotten I added late because Christianization in Roman empire is already a re-direct to a section in Religion in Rome - that needs rewriting. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Since neither of us can do a manual move, try placing this template, {{Db-move|<page to be moved>|<reason>}}, on the corresponding redirect, so that an administrator can move it for us. Avilich (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead and do that if you feel the need to change the title here. I don't really care, but the article does focus on late. Does that not matter? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh very well, I suggested you do it just so you'll already know the correct procedure when faced with a similar situation in the future. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hey Laurel Lodged, Happy Thanksgiving. I have company right now and will be offline for the rest of the week, but I will look at these when I come back if you don't mind waiting. Otherwise, I'm sure your opinion is good. See you Sunday night! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I see that you Laurel Lodged have acted boldly and well where these two articles are concerned. Overall, Edict of Milan is not well written or well referenced - but your merge helped some. It needs work. We should add it to our ever growing list. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This article reads like a smorgasbord of various people who have dabbled in the occult or are just disaffected with established religions. I'm not seeing a unifying thought or thread here. I think that the content, if stripped of its OR, would sit comfortably into a neo-paganism article and that this article could be safely deleted. What do you think? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey Laurel Lodged!! Well it doesn't take long to read that one! Yes, it duplicates some info in Modern Paganism which is a much much better article. If you can pick out the OR, a content move and deletion with a redirect would be the right call. I applaud your commitment to WP clean up. It's important work - even if most smörgasbords are generally delicious. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Ffranc Imo a revert was a mistake. Laurel Lodged didn't do a deletion which the Afd determined was a no go, instead she did a WP:BLAR which keeps the content you identify as notable enough to be on WP, but also addresses the concerns of duplication, context and OR. I do not agree that this tiny article is too detailed to be included in the larger one. In my view it fits perfectly in with the rest and instead lacks context when on its own. In an effort to gain a better consensus on this, I will ask Gråbergs Gråa Sång to please also take a look and offer his opinion, and if we can't all agree, let's call for an Rfc. Thanx for posting this on Talk. I do genuinely appreciate that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Seeing now that there was a fairly recent afd, a BLAR will probably be reverted with the argument that there was an afd closed as keep, so that wasn't good advice on my part. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I must tell you that your inline citations are often confusing. Remember to put 'pp' instead of only 'p' when citing multiple pages, and use n-dashes (–) instead of hyphens when indicating page ranges. And I have no clue as to what "pages 215;207" is supposed to mean. Avilich (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I know. This is the part of WP I am worst at. I really hate all these minute details, I am not a detail person, I am a big picture person, so this tries my patience and exhausts my attention span, and the results portray that. I work at it anyway because it's necessary here but I will never be especially good at it. I am trying, but I suck at what you are brilliant at. I fixed a couple of 'pp's yesterday and some hyphens today but I can do about three before I feel like screaming... :-) It means that the first part of what is in the preceding sentence is on page 215 and the second part is on page 207. Sorry. I take the view that no one is good at everything. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think putting pages in anything other than numerical order is a good idea. It's just two pages anyway, whoever bothers to look will get the picture regardless of the (?)correct order of thinking that the pages transmit. Avilich (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay. Can you tell me where that is? I am getting ready to get offline for awhile and will probably be so for several hours but I can fix it when I get back. See you then. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, when you have the time, could you give these two (much smaller) articles 12 a quick read? I overhauled both just a while ago, and I think they're good, but I could use someone to tell me if they're readable and comprehensible from the perspective of an average person who isn't familiar with the topics in question. Avilich (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi back. Read the first one, added a preposition, and I think you need a sentence explaining why his family background is full of so many maybes and probablies. Something on the sources. I like it. It was interesting. Roman history is just fascinating. Jeez. I'm as bad as Gibbon. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The problem with each of these parts is that the sources simply don't go into enough detail. The amount of times I said 'probably' or 'presumably' didn't go unnoticed by me; as for the advice, I simply don't know what it was. Anyway, thanks a lot for your time. Avilich (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Avilich Yes I guessed as much. My point was that, when sources are inadequate there is often controversy, and when there is controversy, that should - probably - be "taught" in the article as well. As you said, for someone coming to this area of study without any real background in it, they won't have that knowledge, so explaining that "sources don't go into enough detail to be fully confident, but that this is what scholars think is most likely" is a good thing to include. If you don't know what the advice was and can't comment on what scholars think it was then that clause should probably be omitted. It raises a question in the reader's mind - well, two actually: what the advice was, and why don't you say? - so imo, it's better left out. You must do as you see fit of course. They are good interesting articles. I like that they are short. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I reworked that background section, removed most of the probably's. I ultimately agree that there was too much of them, now it's more straightforward. Avilich (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I acknowledge that it was inappropriate for me to unload on you in that fashion. The intent was not to offend, but to introduce a sense of urgency to make you reconsider your preceding actions, which I did not, and still do not, approve. I do wish you hadn't duped me into thinking you would support me on that PoP discussion, only to then basically ignore my arguments, demand I try harder and refuse to commit any further; and also that you hadn't made such a big deal out of some trivial page move I did, after I had gone out of my way to courtesy-ping you. Myself, I could have spelled out my thoughts more civilly, as I have done before, instead of lashing at you, which I admittedly have also done before. So, I'll leave an apology here, but I ask that you at least give some thought on what happened and what I just told you. Avilich (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Avilich Aside from this being one of the most back-handed apologies I have ever gotten, it introduces a whole new set of insults. First off, your feelings do not define reality for the rest of us. Your sense of urgency did not actually make anything urgent. There were no problems from others with my comments, there were only problems with your perception of them. You seem to think your approval should be the determining factor for choices I make, and it can't possibly be. You push for things that you care about and don't really care what others think, and I cannot be guided by that.
I didn't dupe you. That's a stupid insulting thing to say to me as it carries the connotation of intent to deceive. The reality is, I let you have your pushy way, and then when someone else objected, that mattered to me. That changed things for me. It was no longer just about you, and me giving you your way. You can't just bulldoze right over people and then act surprised and ignore them when they object, so I had to say something. There is no version of reality that is based in you and me against the world come Hell or high water. When others participate, they must be listened to.
You can't work with me and then be surprised when I respond to others with consideration. That is, in fact, a genuinely big deal. People matter more than things. People matter more than anything we write here. People are what matter, period. Think of it like this: if wikipedia disappeared tomorrow, would people still find ways to communicate, study history, learn? Yes, of course they would, because it's who we are and what we do. But if all the humans were gone from earth tomorrow, would wikipedia have any ongoing value? Would it feed any animals? Would they care about history? No, because humans are what have innate value, and if something inanimate has value, it's because we have given it some of ours. Whether or not the title of an article has 'late' or 'persecution' in it is not more significant than the people you deal with on those issues. That pov is skewed out of all proportion. You getting your way and 'winning' is not what matters in the long run - or the short run.
So now if you are feeling I have crossed the line, gone to meddling, hurt and insulted you, and you want to tell me to mind my own business, I say feel free. I deserve it. But take it to heart if you can manage to face the reality. You throw a hissy fit whenever you don't get your way. That's the root of all your problems. The cure is: grow up. You are not the center of anyone's world but your own. You are not the center of my world. You're barely at its fringes, and not really there anymore either. This useless apology is just an excuse to shift the blame. Don't send me more of this same crap. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't have a lot of time in my hands when I wrote this, so I'm sorry my choice of words wasn't to your liking. I genuinely think we can find some common ground, if enough will for it can be found on both sides. But you misunderstand my message. 'Backhanded' is not how I hoped this would be interpreted: crucially, the urgency part is what I acknowledged to be incorrect in the first place, and the apology covered that too. I'm disappointed that, after all this, your interpretaton of events is simply that I childishly want to "win" and others to "lose". In the PoP discussion I made a genuine effort to follow Wikipedia policies and common sense, and I tried my best to spell out my case coherently for all to understand. I failed because the opposing parties refused to engage further (fine, dupe was a poor choice of words, sorry about that; I meant for it to refer to me, rather than imply anything about you), so that a lack of consensus could be plausibly asserted without any further debate taking place, regardless of my own further efforts to convince anybody. So, if you want to measure 'growing up' and 'valuing people' by willingness to engage, then I'm not the one to be singled out here. I trust my own judgment in distinguishing what's worthy of discussion from what's not, I trust my own capability to get to the heart of a matter and solve it, and, like many people, I don't like it when I judge that other people have not been as diligent or comprehending. In this case, I acknowledge I improperly vented this frustration on you (hardly a 'hissy fit' or 'whenever I don't get my way', though, come on), and that patience with others is not one of my finer traits. But this is decidedly not about me wanting to come out on top just for the sake of it, about my approval having inherent primacy over that of others, or disregarding the value of people. The latter point, in particular, has no bearing on the fact that problems exist, that problems need to be solved, that disagreements on how to solve these problems may end in spats, and that Wikipedia consensus is achieved through policy-compliant discussion and not sheer numbers. All in all, my grievance with you was that I don't like your specific notion of consensus and how events unraveled because of it, and not that I think consensus itself is expendable. Finally, I'm not trying to be the 'center of your world', I never claimed to be, and I'm not trying to have you 'mind your own business'. This is a genuine attempt to make amends, like any reasonable grown-up (as you say) would do. Although it's clear we're fundamentally different, and that we don't ultimately need each other, we did use to be on very positive terms, we did do some good work together, and we both benefited from having our work reviewed by the other at times. You and the status quo ante are worth it. You do say you like getting along with people who are different; you were never sparing in your praises, and you must know I'm sincere; I'm confident you'll find it in you to allow something positive to be made out of this. Avilich (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Avilich While I don't see your self-defense as valid or accurate, I do see this as sincere. All right then. Let's put this behind us and let it go. Fresh start. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"Let's put this behind us", certainly, but if you ever have the time or desire, consider telling me what exactly you found invalid or inaccurate (my ideas and opinions are reasonably clear in my head, and it took some effort to display them adequately), as well as your own view on the sum of our interactions from our first meeting to that point (I gave my own above). Just to have some perspective, since you did make several claims about me here. And thanks for being understanding and conciliatory. Avilich (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Avilich Letting it go means not going over it anymore. Richard stopped responding on PoP because you were inflexible in your demands. It doesn't matter how reasonably or how well you think you explained why you were right; what matters is that you insisted you were, and wouldn't give any ground, leaving others with nothing. But I am not your mother or your therapist, so I will not go over our entire relationship. I am willing to move on and let this all go, so let's actually do that. I do think the good is worth a fresh start. Thank you for being conciliatory as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
No need for patronizing, not even I ever addressed you in such a non-serious fashion. I asked for a one-sentence briefing, a formal acknowledgement that we were indeed on the same page with regards to the other, not for parenting or therapy. I could also explain how I disagree with your other statement, but, sigh, never mind, enough of that. Avilich (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Goodmorning dear. I'm writing you to ask for an opinion.
I've recently discovered a young biblical scholar called Brant Pitre. He is currently a Professor at the Augustine Institute and used to teach at Notre Dame University and Notre Dame Seminary. While his views are conservative, he seems to be working within the current methodological consensus, applying biblical and historical criticism.
What is the scholarly opinion on his works? Can he be quoted on Wikipedia? And if yes, how and when can he be quoted? Thank you.-Karma1998 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Good morning Karma1998 - at least it is still morning here for another minute. :-) We have an article on him, so he was notable enough for that. Any of his publications can be referenced just like anyone else's. His work can be quoted like anyone's can be - carefully. :-) I have not read any reviews of his work, but I will now. I'll come back if I find anything worth reporting. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Karma1998 It doesn't matter who wrote it. It passed notability and was accepted. That's what matters. It doesn't matter if he's conservative or Catholic or whatever either. We have articles on all kinds. The only reviews of his work that I have found so far are reader reviews. They were virtually all positive, but that doesn't mean much as far as what other scholars think of him. I found one interesting write up here: [17] It's a blog, so it's useless here, but I found it interesting since it was written by a non-Catholic. (Also, this guy hates Ehrman and I am not a fan of Ehrman's either (whose scholarship is amongst the poorest out there).) Ramsay MacMullen has repeatedly received scathing reviews on the poor quality of his work; his views are seen as outdated minority views - yet he has a loyal popular following anyway. It doesn't seem to matter as long as your books sell. This is America where we worship the almighty dollar.
What people here on WP judge a work by more than anything else is the publisher. Religious publishers are considered second rate unless they are the academic branch, then sometimes they are okay. It's ridiculously biased of course but if you don't have a bunch of stuff from OUP and Harvard with maybe one or two from Westminster or Eerdmans, you will get challenged. One woman recently accused me of having only Christian publishers and writers, and out of over 200 sources there were I think 6 from religious publishers. I asked how she knew which writers were Christians, since I didn't know that myself, and their books didn't say. She never answered. If you are concerned about using him as a source, I recommend you go to his bibliography and look up his sources. You will no doubt find all kinds of interesting things. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I dislike Ehrman as well, mainly because of his sensationalism (the titles of his books speak volumes) and because there are much better scholars on the same subjects who simply get ignored because they don't have his zealot fanbase; his only appreciable books are Did Jesus Exist? and The Triumph of Christianity. As for Pitre, I read The Case for Jesus and I appreciated it very much: it's written in a scholarly, yet popular tone and consistently quotes major scholars such as E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John P. Meier and even Mark Goodacre (Goodacre deserves more attention than he currently has, in my view). It also contains precious informations about Church Fathers. As for the publishers, I really don't care: a scholar is a scholar, wether his books are published by Eerdmans or Paulist Press.--Karma1998 (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
You have my complete agreement. I was just commenting on how things are when writing on WP. It looks like a book worth reading. I had never heard of him before, so I think I will pick it up. Thanx. I am always on the lookout for good books. (I agree about Goodacre too). Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy that you appreciate my suggestions :-) if you want, I can suggest you some fine Italian biblical scholars. I don't know if they've been translated in English, though (Italy is so terribly provincial XD).-Karma1998 (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Karma1998 And so are Americans who have a tendency to only speak their own language! I speak a little Spanish and German, and can read some Latin, so I recognize it in other languages, but I don't actually speak any Italian at all. We lived in Europe for a few years when I was a girl, and Italy was my favorite place. It's the people that make a place great or awful and the Italians were wonderful. I keep talking about going back, but everything changes. It wouldn't be the same. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Jenhawk777, many thanks for contributing proactively and providing the kind of content contribution support I was looking for. I would keenly look forward to your further contributions in the upcoming year. As of now wish you nice and happy times.
Hello, Jenhawk777. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Cambridge Ancient History. Message added 14:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Jenhawk777: I read the userboxes on your user page after getting your thank you notice. We share more then a few interests (architecture and philosophy among them). Did you notice the "this user wants to be your friend" tag is marked by a caution sign? This seems remarkable to me.BradVesp (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Well hello BradVesp! Very cool of you to drop by! Have a cup of coffee and a chat. Coffee in a cup I had never really paid that much attention before, but yes, you're right! It is a little off the wall for there to be a caution sign on that one - or maybe it makes perfect sense! Friendship can be dangerous?!? It can certainly be a little taxing from time to time... Still glad you said hi. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the coffee. I just finished some oolong tea (in reality). I'm normally a coffee drinker, but might give it up; thought I'd try something different.
Friendship is, by definition, a wholesome relationship. I don't think it can be dangerous (taxing, I agree), but it's good to be warry sometimes when you meet new people. It's good to remember that people's motives may not align all the time even if they are old friends. If one isn't a little cautious and/or forgiving that can cause some embarrassments or unintentional insult. BradVesp (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have devoted tea drinkers in my family, so I am willing to accept this oddity with equanimity. :-)
OOps! Forgot to ping you! BradVesp I agree. A little caution is probably good, and I should probably have more of it, but I try not to allow it to interfere with genuine openness to new relationships. Imho, there are no relationships that don't include forgiveness at some point. Even here. It's good practice for the real world. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Those are very close to my sentiments about friendship and forgiveness.
Feel free to stop by my talk page any time, Jenhawk777. I'll probably look for your editing activities from time to time as I click around (about? through? what preposition applies?) the internet. BradVesp (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Jenhawk777, I noticed you were doing something like that. That is real work. It's the basis for Wikipedia and most honest universities; academic logic. My business is preparing tax files, so I don't have time for much else for the next four months. Maybe I'll help with something in the summer or fall. ... Um if you're looking for primary source material from Rawls, Rousseau, Locke, or Mill I have a few books by them in my office. I have The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire at home, but I imagine those are easy sources for you to find already. BradVesp (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
BradVesp Taxes! OMG! Yes, you will be busy won't you? I have plenty of sources, but found a couple of wrong page numbers etc. and so have been going cuckoo trying to ensure the accuracy of every reference. There are over 400 references in that article!! Not a trivial task - but a necessary one. I want the article to go GA at least, so it has to stand up to review. I honestly try to write everything with that in mind, but sometimes I get to moving stuff around and lose track of what referred to what. :-) A tiny mistake in your line of work can be just as problematic I know. I am not by nature a real detail oriented person - like most here on WP seem to be. I am at a disadvantage in that, but I know the topic and love the research and writing. And I have friends that help. :-) Keep your fingers crossed for me! I have notified the reviewer that I am ready. I hope I really am! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Have you gotten any response from the reviewer, Jenhawk777? I can imagine it'll take a few days (I can imagine months, too). I'm curious to know what happens. Please, let me know. BradVesp (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey BradVesp! How r ya? I have in fact gotten a response, then I asked him to put it on hold while I did a ref check for an interested party, then he came back and made some comments, and now I am waiting again. You are welcome to go to the review page and participate of course. You have not been involved with the article, and all comments are welcome both there and here. Sometimes more comments are better. You can do one section or nothing since you are not the primary reviewer. Thanx!Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
