User talk:Alephb/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

hostile behavior in the middle east

I was so hopeful I would be able to use my experiences to help someone else. I am so disappointed in "Jane's" response. What is it about you Aleph that attracts these things?  :-) Someone sent me a barnstar for my comments there--isn't that the sweetest? I've come a long way from my early clumping through the china shop--and much of it due to your patience and kindness. I won't ever forget that. Hope you are well--and can stay out of these things on Wiki! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, [female name that starts with J][three digits], it was disappointing to see [another female name that starts with J][another three digits] give that response, but I think it's entirely in line with her contribution history. I think it was particularly helpful the way you pointed her toward other areas like Quora. Loads and loads of the "bad editors" on Wikipedia could probably contribute profitably to other parts of the internet; it's just that what they are interested/able to do isn't necessarily building an encyclopedia.

You've recently made a cryptic edit to your talk page suggesting that an interview about your experiences here is on its way. Am I reading that correctly? Alephb (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh I agree--encyclopedia building is a whole 'nother skill set! Yes, someone at the University of Michigan is doing a study on incivility on Wikipedia. They told me to get diffs--I will have to narrow it down though. You are there being brave and good. :-) I am over it--don't worry. I am getting better and better equipped to address actual issues instead of getting sucked in to defending myself. The last "edit war" discussion on my talk page is him again, and I handled it pretty darn well if I do say so myself. He takes me by surprise every now and then--but I am learning to just walk away. The last one hurt though. I had been editing Women in the Bible for almost two months, moved it from start class and a discussion on deletion, to B class, and had hopes to take it all the way--till he showed up and started saying I was doing it wrong. I tried talking it through on my talk page, but he isn't into seeing other points of view as near as I can tell. So I left. It's what my mentor told me to do. He's a guy with a beard and boots. I like him a lot--and miss him too. :-) I am working on getting Biblical criticism to FA status right now. I am totally obsessed! No problems there so far! Glad to hear from you--now go away again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Walking away can be rough. And of course it's easy for me to say, because my editing style is so scattered. It's easy to walk away from an article when all I've doing is tweaking a sentence here or there, and the article in question is my 30th one of the day. Harder to walk away from an article where you've moved it all the way from start class to B.

Hopefully whatever the U.M. folks come up with will turn out useful in some way. Wikipedia has got to get better at working through editor disagreements. Right now it's like most of the disagreements on Wikipedia are a game of chicken, where the way to win is to play the game of chicken. Alephb (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes--you know me--I go in for the whole shebang--I don't do a sentence here and there. I pour my heart into building the whole work. Which leaves me vulnerable I suppose--but so be it. It's who I am. But don't worry about me, every encounter he and I have had, I have learned how to do better the next time. Picking one's battles is the right approach, you were right about that, but learning how to back a bully down doesn't require becoming one--whatever "Jane" says or thinks. I hope this interview thing can lead to better things for Wikipedia too--that's why I'm doing it. Back then, you told me that my experience wasn't the norm, that most of the people here were great, and I trusted what you said, and I have found it to be true. That one editor is still the only one I have personally run into that I have had a problem with. He harasses and goes after me--I think he's stalking me--he shows up where I am after I go somewhere else away from him--this is the third time now. But I'm not worried about it. Everything on Wikipedia gets recorded right? He should probably remember that--and chickens do have a terrible peck you know! :-) Don't worry. All is well. It's sad about Jane but you can lead a horse to water and all that right? We did what we could. Give the beard a scratch for me. TAKE CARE, :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, beards aren't nearly as scratchy as unbearded people thing. My face never itches with it, but sometimes does when I'm beardless, for whatever that's worth. I think it keeps the skin moisturized and accounts in part for why I look like a fifteen-year-old whenever I shave.

I wouldn't say people should always back down, but it is an under-rated skill set, especially for very new editors, especially in one editor seems to be in emotional pain over the argument. If you've only had three places where you've had run-ins with your least favorite editor, I'm not surprised (and I wouldn't think it's stalking unless you know something I don't). :::::There's about 6,000 articles that are Bible-related on Wikipedia. I see everything that happens on about 1400 of them (on days I check my watchlist). It's entirely possible that there are editors who see everything that happens on every single one. This particular editor is one of probably three or four editors who are all over these six thousand pages, literally all over them. When you get pairs of editors who don't work well together and specialize in the same small area, some of them get into it on literally dozens of pages.

Wikipedia in general is a very large place, but the Bible pages are specialized enough that there really is a small number of regulars here. Bible-wikipedia is kind of like the Vatican -- it's an extremely small country with tons of tourists who come and go, but the people who live there all bump into each other all the time.

I'm sure I've seemed like an unholy terror to a few editors who weren't watchlist-oriented types. We had one particular editor who thought he understood how Hebrew vowels worked, but didn't, and was systematically messing up transliterations all over the place. I probably reverted his work on fifty or a hundred articles. I would not be surprised if he found that extremely creepy. He comes back from time to time under new names (he got kicked off), and a number of those times I've been the one to find him. Not because I'm some kind of stealthy hacker-spy, but because we're all in the Panopticon and I'm sitting in the guard station.

In fact, I do enough article-watching that it's part of the reason I make so many small scattered edits. I don't like my contributions to just be defensive, so I'll go through my watch list, and when I look over at my watch list I'll see that an article edit is harmless, and then I'll add a little edit of my own to the same article. That way there's actually some improvement happening and not just me watching for new problems.Alephb (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday or the day before I was scrolling through ANI (looking for something new about Comparison of the founders of religious traditions) when I came across "as someone who ran head first into one of those rotating blades called 'established editors'". As someone who sometimes is a rotating blade I started reading, thinking "Ok, this is good, this bit is very good... Who wrote this..? Oh." Well done. We don't always get what we hope from these attempts, but it's right to try anyway, and sometimes we do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

AlephbGråbergs Gråa Sång As two of my favorite people on Wikipedia, thank you. What my effort did not produce for Jane--a greater understanding, acceptance, learning, accommodation, etc.--it seems to have produced for me, here, through the two of you. Aleph, that information genuinely helps--paranoia level dropping now. Gråbergs, you are always my Captain. The two of you are the ones I was referring to of course when I wrote about wonderful people who helped me--and here you are doing it again. I hope you both feel some pride in everything here that I do well now, because without you, that would never have happened. Thank you for everything. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Alephb (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

:-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

new question

I have a --theoretical-- question. Part of the disagreement that has gone on, from my perspective, is over how to structure an article. The person I have had so much conflict with says our problems are over my non-NPOV -- but I think that's a mistake that is not supportable and is actually caused by something else entirely. He and I both agree things like theology and historical setting and sociological influences etc. should be in these articles concerning the Bible. We disagree on where and how. He says they have to be in separate sections because it is "impossible" to put them throughout the article, saying it reflects non-neutral POV. I told him I would be willing to change my approach if he could explain to me so I can understand, 'how does changing its location effect its POV?' If it is neutral in a section by itself, how does it become non-neutral by locating it with the thing it's about? I like to structure things topically and discuss each topic as thoroughly as possible, one at a time, including its theology, history and so on with each topic. He wants it all separated into sections. He says, 'that's how it needs to be done.' But that is not anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find. He keeps saying that my mixing theology and so on into the entire article proves I don't have a neutral POV while all I think it proves is that we organize things differently. Is this one of those unspoken rules? Am I missing a nuance? I can see how in some topics having sections makes it easier for the reader to find what they are looking for--in Biblical criticism I have a history section for that reason--but in some subjects--such as Ethics in the Bible, I cannot see how good structure can be anything but topical. So--theoretically--does structuring an article in one way vs. another communicate a more NPOV automatically? I really do need to figure this out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

[1]. Alephb (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. Sorry I bothered you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[2]. Alephb (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[4] —PaleoNeonate – 18:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[5]. Alephb (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

THAT was one of greatest things ever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethics in the Bible

I thought you might be interested in having input into the possible new structure I am attempting to outline for the article. I am currently beginning to work on it some in my sandbox here: [6] and thought you might be interested in taking a look and making comments--yes I agree, no I don't agree, I think this instead--you know the kind of thing we do all the time aftersomeone writes something! Here's a chance to comment before instead. I want you to feel free to edit at will there! I know it's weird to ask someone else to edit your sandbox, but I've done this before, and it works pretty well. If you don't have any comments, or you're too busy, or you just don't feel like it, that's perfectly okay. I just thought I would give you the opportunity. Cheers! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank, you robot. I fixed it yesterday. Alephb (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

FA nomination

Nomination for Biblical criticism is now underway. Wish me luck! Show up and comment if you have time! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Good luck, Jen. I'll have a look. I'm not really familiar with the criteria and such for featured articles, but I'll have a look. Alephb (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That's kind of you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. That's the kind of mistake they look for I think. No one has shown up or made any comments yet at all. I'm getting worried it will die of boredom... Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sort of working my way through the WP:FAC page, and it looks like a very odd process. A lot of it seems built around tiny objections, but I guess that makes sense because it's about getting already good articles into that top 0.1% that get featured. It's really weird to see people commenting like, "you've got a colon in the wrong place." I would have thought they would just fix the damn colon themselves the moment they see it, and stick to more substantive things like, "there's undue weight to this" or "there's something subtly misleading about that." Is there some kind of unspoken rule where you don't edit a featured article unless you're the nominator, and that's why they keep kicking it back to the nominator? I'm not sure. Maybe I'll just edit away until someone yells at me. Alephb (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

J Milburn has been "mentoring" me in the FA process, and he has been editing things like that too, so there is no rule about others editing it--and I am grateful. If there is very much to do he tells me to do it, but if it's a little thing--he just fixes it too. I am not as detail oriented as so many on Wiki are and at times like this I really feel it. I am more at the other end--the big picture writing end. I like research--that's my real skill. I tend to skip over the "little" details--where the publisher is located and always spelling that out--Jeez!--which is what sinks me! Josh made me go through my references four separate times! Each time I thought I finally had them perfect and then he would find something else. Groan! They have to all be alike with the same pieces of information, written the same, with the isbn's in the same format, etc. etc. Collections with different authors require chapter headings--without the number of the chapter--but other books must not have chapter headings--it's enough to make you want to take a flying leap off a very tall bridge! There were 179 references in this article for heaven's sakes! Now there are 170. Josh has been unbelievably patient. But he has been focused on this because this is what sinks FA nominations he says. It's already GA so they figure it's already been through rewrite after rewrite, content's been checked and rechecked, but it's those little details that make it look "professional" so there can't be any colons in the wrong place!! Or any of that stuff that I tend to miss every time--that you are so good at. I am an editor that always needs an editor--if you know what I mean... So thank you! No one will stop you--least of all me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going over "view history" this morning, saw all the work you have done and decided there were too many diffs to hit 'thank' repeatedly, so I am here saying it instead. Thank you. I liked everything you did. In the "beginnings" on Astruc there was some conflict in the sources as to whether Moses or later scribes conflated the early material into the book of Genesis that we have, so I found a new source and went with what he said about Astruc and not what later redactors thought. Thank you for pointing that out. A factual error at this point would really be inexcusable. I thought the insertion of "subjectivity" into textual criticism was really interesting since it was what I had written originally. Josh didn't like it, so I changed it. I have now combined your suggestion and Josh's into one sentence, so I hope that will work. Anyway, thank you again. I went back over references yet again--found 6 isbn's that had not yet been converted into the same form as the others--decided not to go shoot myself--fixed them instead and decided it was a good morning's work. Sigh. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It can really mess up an FA nomination if the nominator shoots themselves midway through the process. No need for repeated thanks. The satisfaction of seeing a comma in the correct spot is all the thanks I need. As for Astruc, I'm not 100% sure how all that stuff worked. My main aim was just to remove the unsourced implication that Astruc started with his conclusion and built his methods to serve them. Heck, he may have. I just didn't see it in the sources. Beyond that, I don't know Astruc's role in everything very well, so I'm glad someone looked over what I did. Alephb (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

He did begin with the assumption Moses was the author and set out to show that. What he found was a loophole in my mind--but that's OR so no saying that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. I'd known he divided things into sources, but I had no idea that he thought Moses was writing in columns. That's nuts -- and helps explain why the things I've heard about Astruc seem self-contradictory. Anyhow, if you want to go back to suggesting Astruc built his method around his presupposition, there's this: [7]. It's from Intervarsity Press, though, so who knows how that would be ruled according to WP:RSN. Alephb (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something better. Alephb (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you are the only person I have interacted with on this who has actually read the whole article. You're pretty impressive. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Here's another quote on Astruc's method:

"It can hardly be said more clearly than with Astruc's own words: his Conjectures follow an apologetic aim." and associated stuff.  p. 169.  Rudolf Smend, "Jean Astruc: A Physician as a Biblical Scholar" in Sacred Conjectures. Google books is not giving me anything I can link to, but I've got a copy with me. Alephb (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"The historical basis of Astruc's hypothesis is the assumption of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, which he adopted from the traditional way of reading the Bible." p. 193, Jan Christian Gertz, "Jean Astruc and Source Criticism in the Book of Genesis", also in Sacred Conjectures

Page 193, still Gertz: "Astruc finds the third and for him most important proof in the chronological discrepancies in the course of the narration, which he refers to as "antichronisms." Their existence definitely seems to contradict the assumption of a unified authorship, but they could be explained just as well as a secondary connection of documents (pp. 142,447-70).21 In order to safeguard Moses from the accusation that he edited the documents in a haphazard and incorrect manner, Astruc resorts to the assumption that the texts arranged by Moses into a synopsis were subsequently fused together (pp. 486-505). This assumption is of course not justified either by the source-critical argument or by the basic histo- riographic supposition of Mosaic authorship. Apart from text- critical evidence of later editors, the assumption derives solely from an apologetic interest in defending the credibility of the Pentateuch against Spinoza and other critics. And at this time the credibility of the Pentateuch is closely related to the person of Moses (pp. 506-15). Nonetheless, Astruc has insightfully noted that incoherencies appear precisely where later authors employed a Vorlage."

This is genuinely fascinating to me. I'm such a nerd!  :-) I had found some parts of this discussion in other texts, and wanted to include some of it, especially the 'apologetics' part, but I kept hearing Jytdog's voice telling me this was off the topic of biblical criticism itself. Damn. Why does he always have to be right about content--even when he's not there? Astruc's only relevance to BC is his method. So I didn't add any of it. I am waffling a little on the "not-justified" part, but it really is a side trip and not directly relevant in an article that's already way long. I am thinking your main goal was just to answer the question for yourself anyway, so -- good job! :-) It seems like you now know as much about this article as I do--you should go post a comment on the FAC! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll probably wind up doing some things to the Jean Astruc article.

Well, Jytdog has about 170,000 edits, many of them to talk pages in highly contentious parts of WP -- Bible and medicine. Take all the edits I've made in the last year, and all the edits you've done in the last year, and you get 13,000 edits. If you pick up the pace to where you're making as many edits as you and me combined, and he stops editing altogether starting now, you'll have caught up with him in 2030. And then newbies like we are now will have the voice of Jenhawk in their heads telling them what to do.

As for commenting over at FAC, if there's a specific issue there being discussed that I can shed some light on, I might chime in. If there's for example objections being raised and I can think of good ways to help the article or clarify things, fine. But as for voting on whether or not the article should be FA, I think I'll sit that out. I think you've posted about 100 times to my talk page over the last ten months or so. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think, in an environment very sensitive to WP:CANVASS, that it leads to my judicial disqualification, especially once you've directly requested that I get involved. And that's not just you: there's about a dozen other editors that I've interacted enough with and generally agree enough with that I'd recuse myself if they were looking to get me involved in judging something they're involved in.

I'm happy to help pitch in on the article itself, and I'd be happy to do what I can to fix any legitimate objections people over at WP:FAC have to the article. No problem at all; my bias in favor of your work won't have any bad consequences there -- it'll just motivate me to help the article content. I'd just rather leave the actual evaluation to less involved editors. Alephb (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It really is a very, very good article though. Alephb (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. That means a lot. You and Josh have both cared and helped on the article, which I am deeply and genuinely grateful for, and have both exempted yourselves from doing any evaluation at FAC--leaving me moaning and groaning that the only people who seem to care are trying to help me get passed and are thereby not helping me get passed--if you know what I mean. Life is full of irony don't you think? I'm glad to think of you as even the littlest bit biased on my behalf. I had decided that what I had to do was face the fact you weren't really a friend, and I should be a grown-up about it and let you go and quit pestering you. If the price of finding out I was wrong in that means you can't comment at FAC--or anywhere else--I'm okay with that. I'd rather have you as a friend any day. Well, Biblical criticism will make it or it won't. I am just beginning with the wet clay at Ethics in the Bible. It's still at the messy stage, but if biblical criticism doesn't make it, maybe by this time next year I'll have done enough work on ethics that it will. :-) Who knows? Whatever we do together, we do make Wiki better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If your goal is to produce a really excellent biblical criticism article, you have succeeded. Whether or not the folks at FAC see fit to recognize that achievement with a Wikipedia sticker is another question. I hope I didn't give the impression that I found any of your non-Jytdog-related comments to be pestering. I am always happy to hear from you about non-Jytdog-related things, and hope we can have more fruitful non-Jytdog-related collaboration in the future. Alephb (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I am always up for non-Jytdog collaboration. :-) You have my non-Jytdog admiration and my non-Jytdog appreciation. I look forward to more non-Jytdog interactions in the future. This is your non-Jytdog friend signing off. Good-bye my non-Jytdog friend! He-he-he!!! I may go on like this for awhile... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For the wonderful collaboration, the friendship to all editors (even you-know-who), and all the wonderful quality work you do, wikipedia would not be as good a place without you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment. Now imagine me, in my kindest possible voice, finding a clever and gentle way to point out that the unnecessary mention of Jytdog in the barnstar was unnecessary. And then imagine us both not making a big deal about it and going right back to improving Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You are so amazingly wonderfully easy to tease. I am betting the women in your life love that. :-) Please do be clever! By all means! It was absolutely necessary for me to say simply because you made a point of saying don't say it! Surely, you do realize that now I am obligated to say it forever and ever in everything--right? It's your own fault of course that now I can exploit this at my leisure. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I do realize that you feel obligated to turn my talk page into a monument to your dislike for one particular editor. It's been going on since November 2017 and hasn't stopped despite my many requests. At this point I don't even get actively angry about it anymore, but it's still tiring and I still object. Alephb (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Aleph! I was just playing with you! Remember this? "imagine us both not making a big deal about it"? I do not feel obligated to turn your talk page into anything, beyond being funny and friendly, and there is no monument to dislike of anyone, because I respect him at the same time I recognize our issues are justly partly mine. You are apparently so touchy about what you think I've done that you can't even joke about it. I apologize. I didn't realize. I will go away and not bother you anymore. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I will go away and not bother you anymore. All right. If you ever do decide to come back and discuss issues unrelated to Jytdog, that's fine. If you come back to my talk page and try to bring up Jytdog in any way, however briefly or indirectly, or try to continue our pointless repeated discussions about the whole mentioning-of-Jytdog issue in any way, including further rationalizations, justifications, or apologies, or more of the same old promises to stop bringing up Jytdog, I'll just delete those comments. I'm not going to keep having the same conversation over and over again. Alephb (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible quote alteration

Hello again Alephb. While looking at these differences I had the impression of a possible quote alteration (the Encyclopedia of Religion one). I did not access the source to confirm, so would just like you to check back. The quote is huge (may be too long actually) and it's easy to confuse with a paragraph's body. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello PaleoNeanote, the specific place where I altered the quote is in this diff: [8]. I made two changes to the quote. First, I inserted a line or two that was found in the original source but got dropped from the quote in a way that turned the affected area into gibberish. Second, I sawed off some material at the end of the quote that was a poorly-formatted copy of a bibliography from the source. Left entirely to my own devices, I probably would have taken most of the long quote out altogether, but given that I was making a long, long list of edits, I wanted to make sure that each one was individually justified. Alephb (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Super, —PaleoNeonate – 00:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Belshazzar

I apologize for being hard on you in recent discussion at Belshazzar. Please understand also your approach was upsetting to me as well. It is easy to assign and assume a motive, but perception can be misleading. I hope we can better understand one another and work well together moving forward. Cheers! Proveallthings (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not harshness that I object to. That's fine. If you had called my list "garbage" or something there would have been no problem there. It's the continued misrepresentation of what I did drawing up the list, over my repeated objections that just kept going in one ear and out the other. I deliberately added links so that anyone reading my comment could personally read every single source I surveyed there, on both sides of the issue. Spinning that as "deliberately withholding information" is nonsense. Following that up with a non-apology about [9] how you're sorry that I "feel" misrepresented is more nonsense. I'm not asking for an apology. I'm just asking you to stop misrepresenting what I did there.

As to the fact that you found the conversation upsetting, that's perfectly understandable. If I understand your position correctly, to you it looks like you've hit a brick wall of unreasonable editors. Alephb (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Really, I do apologize. I believe you didn't mean to, but you left the impression that you were cherry picking. That's just how it came across. Yes, I regretted my non-apology after I wrote it but too late to take it back. I had re-read your comment and something set off my temper a bit.

FYI, "superseded" is not WP:AGE. I mean the information is no longer regarded as correct/complete based on finds showing it to be outdated. E.g., early commentators thought Belshazzar was an error for Nabonidus. That has been superseded by cuneiform evidence that he was Nabonidus' son to whom he entrusted "kingship."

Proveallthings, while one should, for obvious reasons, not change a comment someone has answered, there is the possibility of Help:Strike. There's no hard and fast rule here, but it can be used in "Ack, should really not have said that" situations to indicate "backtaking". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If I say, Montgomery has been superseded, it means his position was at one time held by a consensus of scholars, but is not any longer based on modern discoveries and updated assessments. His book still has good, usable information. But his conclusion included a cautious holdout on a couple Greek loanwords, which is now resolved in light of legal documents, etc., demonstrating a significant Greek presence in Babylon well before was previously thought in his day. Consensus now favors Kitchen/Kutscher. Kutscher was regarded as the preeminent Authority on Aramaic before his death in 1971.

I don't believe sources go stale with time. Dougherty is still the best work on Nabonidus and Belshazzar, despite authorship in the 1920s. Does that clear up my position? Please let me know if it doesn't. I am really condensing the information considerably, so that also doesn't help. Cheers! Proveallthings (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Proveallthings. To be perfectly honest, I am having a serious amount of difficulty figuring out what exactly it is you're trying to say at times. And that could be your fault, or it could be my fault, or it could just have to do with the fact that both of us are trying to say a whole lot of things that require a whole lot of background knowledge while simultaneously trying to be concise. I think we both found each other a bit frustrating here, despite not wanting to.

What puts us in an ever weirder position is that the whole discussion started around the meaning of a single word, "son", that isn't really even one of the larger things to discuss in the overall scheme of things when it comes to how historically reliable/non-reliable Daniel is.

I'm going to deliberately not respond to some of the specific things you're saying here on this page about specific scholars and specific issues just in order to keep the discussion centralized over at Talk:Belshazzar, because if there's anything more confusing than a wide-ranging Wikipedia discussion, it's a wide-ranging Wikipedia discussion strewn across several talk pages.

I know I've said a few things that struck you as sounding as showing an anti-Christian bias, which is unfortunate. On other talk pages I've been accused of a pro-Christian bias (like when defending Wikipedia's decision to follow the consensus of scholars on things like yes, Jesus existed, and yes, Josiah existed, and yes, the book of Nehemiah appears to narrate actual historical events). These kinds of things are probably inevitable when editing in an area as contentious as the Bible.

As for what I've been saying about where scholarly consensus stands, and how that should affect the content of a Wikipedia article, I think I'm becoming repetitive and not convincing you at all. And that either means I'm not articulating myself well enough, or you're just not willing to be convinced, or else I'm just wrong and not seeing it, or some combination of factors. Either way, I think I've probably passed the point on that talk page where continuing to find different ways to say the same thing is no longer useful, so I think I'll bow out there and leave the rest of you to figure it out, unless something new comes up where I'd actually have something new to say. Alephb (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This just took on a whole new meaning

[10]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's what the nerds call intertextuality. Alephb (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"the shaping of a text's meaning by another text." "intertextuality is not always intentional and can be utilised inadvertently." Spot on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Water running uphill? [11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That's good! Alephb (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Fingers crossed... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Gack! Thanks, Aleph. For some reason, I got a really quick review, can't imagine why.[12] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I must admit you've lost me here. I'm not sure what this Earwig business is all about. Alephb (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you remember User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång#Copyright_infringement? Earwig was the tool in question. And I thought a little guilt could have a positive effect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Okay. Now I understand one small part of the comment you're referring to. I'm still not sure where you used this copy-vio tool, and I'm not sure what was reviewed quickly, and I'm not familiar with whatever background is going on between you and the editor with the delightful (Welsh?) handle. I'm sure it'll all snap into place here at some point, but I'm struggling a little with the context. Alephb (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Dammit... If you create an article as a draft and then move to article space, it has a banner on top as seen here:[13]. Then you patiently wait for days or weeks for an uninvolved reviewer to show up and do their stuff[14]. That was why C showed up at my talkpage last time with the not-copyvio.

Today, I moved my draft Cultural depictions of Belshazzar to articlespace, but thought, maybe if I ping C they'll remember the unfortunate earwig-tool-induced accusation and do a quick review? And it took just under 30 min.

The "Gack! Thanks, Aleph." was for removing my sign from the Belshazzar article.

I will make you understand me if it kills you, Alephb. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I understand you clearly now. And I don't think I'll die as a result. I've always believed that guilt is badly underrated today and is part of the glue that holds a healthy society together. Of course, there is such a thing as a pathologically high level of guilt, but my suspicion is that a pathologically low level of guilt is a more common problem. Alephb (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess we weren't seeing the same intertextuality. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello, and thank you for the notice, User:Morgan Leigh, but I'm not at all involved in the dispute at Parapsychology. One of the contributors there quoted something I had said about an entirely different topic, but I haven't weighed in at all or, as far as I can remember, ever edited that article. I wish you all the best as you seek to resolve your disagreement. Alephb (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Was trying to be through. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all. Alephb (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Chronicle of Arbella

Hi Aleph, sorry to bother you but there is an issue at [15] that I hoped you might clear up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. At first glance that strikes me as a really odd edit, putting "Iran" in there to describe a city in modern-day Iraq. Let me put on my thinking cap and see if I have anything useful to add or if we might be missing something here. Alephb (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanx Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What did you decide? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm against the "Iran" wording, unless Ogress decides to show up and give a plausible case for why adding "Iran" is our best option. Alephb (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I thought you had opted out so I took your advice and went ahead changed it to Greater Iran. It had the link, and the link refers to Persia, so unless she comes back and changes it again, I think it's cool now. Thanx for your help and for the suggestion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Glad it worked out. Alephb (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanx to your input. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Hello Alephb, thank you for fixing the references at Biblical criticism. I should've been fixing the problem, but I had to go back to previous articles for citation issues I've caused. I know Jenhawk is feeling the most pain because of the FA process. But you have control of the problem already. As far as I can tell though, this seems to be the worse case I had with the citation bot. Again, my apologies to both of you. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Accidents can happen to anyone--and how could you have possibly known before everything hit the fan? Not your fault really. And Aleph is brilliant, so no worries, okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I vaguely remember you mentioning a similar mystery at The Bible and humor, I wonder if the cause was similar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah ha! I'll bet it is! From now on--reverting all uses of citation bot with a thoroughly whiny explanation of all the trouble it caused! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

FAC

The Fac of Biblical criticism is about to fail because of issues with the references. Apparently at some point in the past, someone went through with the citation bot and it caused problems instead of fixing them. I was unaware. Then it showed up in a reference review and that is sufficient to fail it. I was thinking I need one of those wonderfully gifted detail-oriented trolls you used to tell me about, to either help me identify where there are problems, or to do a reference review that allows me to fix any problems it finds. I know you are not especially fond of me--through my own fault of course--but I thought for Wikipedia's sake you might be willing to help anyway. This is a notable topic and an important article in the Bible area and it should be the best Wikipedia has to offer. I have been through the references multiple times and I just don't have the skill level apparently. The article needs someone good at this stuff. No hard feelings if you say no, which I expect, but I thought I would ask anyway just on the outside chance you might be willing and available. It seemed like you had some interest in it sometime back. Anyone can do a review or any part of a review on FAC and you are certainly qualified to do a reference review--more so than most. Anyway. Hope you are well and things are going good for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to pitch in if you still want me to after this brief disclaimer: I'm not at all an expert on references, although I pick up computer-related stuff relatively quickly. It is possible that I'll break something if I try to fix all the references, so if you could point me toward a description of what the problem is, I might have a better idea if that's something I can do. But I'd be happy to give it a shot. Alephb (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

How kind of you. Don't worry about breaking anything. They are already broken apparently. Go to the article and randomly access any source you happen to feel like accessing and see if it leads you to what it references. I went through them all on the FAC page and made a list of how to find every one--but I apparently missed a couple. If you could check out 5 or 10 and if you find any problems, just let me know so I can fix them.

If you don't find any problems--or if we fix them all--you could do a reference review at the FAC if you felt it was appropriate. A reference review requires going to the FAC page--which you can access by going to the talk page at biblical criticism or clicking here [16], going to edit source, and putting in your name, and disclosing that you have been working with me, and what you found.

A little or a lot--I will be grateful for any help I can get. I am quite in despair over all of this. It's very discouraging. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So you've spent something like eight or ten weeks on this single FAC? My goodness. That would be rough. Do all the links need to go to the exact page references, or is going to the correct book good enough? Alephb (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Assuming the goal is linking to the correct book or article, references 1-31 seem to be working right. I've gotta run to work, but I'll pick away at this when I'm off. Alephb (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh no--I started rewriting this article in May. It's been months, and much of that time has been devoted to it exclusively. I rewrote it, then took it through a GA review, then a peer review, then the featured article mentorship program, in preparation for candidacy. It has been a featured article candidate for two months now and everyone who shows up there to participate has to be answered and their issues addressed. Some of it has been changing happy to glad, but some of it has actually improved the article. Some of it added length and complexity, some of it helped simplify and focus it. It's been a long-damn-haul. I have persevered through because I really believe it's an important article--only to get almost to the brass ring and be told I won't make it because of reference issues. I personally think the guy found the only issues there--I hope--and they are now fixed--but someone has to come along and prove that. They won't take my word for it. And if that doesn't happen in the next day or two, they are going to close and fail it.

Yes, the reference pages need to be accurately linked between what is discussed in the article and what is discussed in the reference. Wrong page numbers was one of his complaints. He would say "this is not discussed on the page referenced but is discussed on page such and so"--making me wonder why he didn't just change it. Nearly every other participant has made small changes to the article themselves so that it is truly a Wikipedia product and not just mine--but not the reference guy. He just failed me. Well, that's what he thought was the right thing to do, and in fact, if there are other ref problems, he was right.

I can't tell you how grateful I am for this. There aren't enough ways to say thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I went to the FAC review page and told them you were reviewing the references and made an appeal for time. We'll see. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

They agreed! We have more time! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: when Jenhawk says "Screw this, I'm not doing this anymore", she can't be trusted. It's a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! OMG! But Grabergs... I am NOT doing it--Aleph is! Aleph is saving the FAC and the article--and the day!--if he finishes the refs, he really truly will be the one that gets it through--not me. If I had had to go through those refs one more time, I was going to have to break my promise to you and go shoot myself. I just couldn't do it anymore. Aleph to the rescue. Pretty awesome huh? I could not do it alone. [17] Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Aleph, I went looking for those references you mentioned on my talk page and that post is gone! Did you remove it? Is everything okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind! I was at the wrong talk page! Good Lord--I should go back to bed! I am clearly still asleep! Sorry! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

For a minute there I thought you were saying the references had disappeared, and I could feel my blood pressure pop up a bit there, thinking I'd deleted them some how. Wikipedia access will be spotty for me today -- I'm hosting a family get-together followed by a non-family get together, and in my culture there's a taboo on a host sitting under the table hunched over his laptop and ignoring everyone while the gathering occurs. But tomorrow I should at least be able to get that all the links go where they're supposed to, or maybe even late-ish this evening. Alephb (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! I thought of just deleting it and then thought I should not delete something on someone else's talk page no matter how stupid it makes me look!  :-) Besides, you love me even if I am occasionally an idiot... right? ... long silence...  :-)

My family has the same rule! They actually expect me to pay attention to them! So unreasonable! We should both be overwhelmingly grateful we have people who know us who are actually willing to put up with us--at least I should! So enjoy them and do not even think about any of this. I changed that Muller reference and went through and checked all the capitalization, and if you'll excuse me now, I have to go scream out loud for awhile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you poor thing! All of us are cursed with idiocy from time to time. I'm surprised that with all the reference criticism they threw at you nobody went after the capitalization issue. For a month or two, making capitalization consistent in references was about half of what I did around here. Alephb (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I knew I went to the right guy. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, we'll see when the FAC comes through. I noticed on reference 74 that the that the authorlink went to the wrong guy, which means I'm going to need to check all the authorlinks too. I'm at #78 now, but I'll need to re-go-over #1-65 after I get through just to check for things like authorlinks and ISBN numbers being right. When I was just checking to see that the source links head to the right page, I was making pretty quick work, but now I see there's more things to check. I can see how someone might go around and around in circles on this kind of thing, but I'll keep plugging away till they're either right or the FAC fails due to waiting on me. Alephb (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh Aleph! If you have to go back over stuff I will just feel guilty about it. I can go through and just remove all the author-links--would that be wrong? Not all references have author-links--most of them don't actually--what if I just took them out? At any rate--let me do that so you don't have to go backwards. Do you know--the last time I went through all of these it took me three weeks... I could manage maybe ten a day. You amaze me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hrmm. I don't know how the FAC folks would feel about all the author-links being pulled out. Since you're the one who's been talking to them the longest, do whatever you think will most please them. And I'd need to go over everything again anyway after making all the corrections anyhow to make sure I didn't miss anything. Alephb (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Do the FAC people need there to be a url link out to Google Books whenever one is available? Because I'm seeing a lot of books where such links could be put in, but haven't been. Or would that just be unnecessary work? Alephb (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Author-links are in the text of the article--they are only in about a dozen refs by mistake--so they do not need to be in the references. Google-links are also not a requirement, but I will double-check just to be sure. What they care about most is consistency. So I guess that means putting them in where they are missing either/or taking the rest out. It does seem like a lot of unnecessary work to me. I will go ask and come back as soon as I get an answer--sleep now. Find brain off switch. Turn it. Sleep now. Talk tomorrow. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Got an answer! Actually two answers! I copied it: Okay tks. I think these Googlebooks links are of dubious worth -- even if they do take you to books with previews, there seems no guarantee the relevant pages can be accessed, or even (as you yourself said, Jen) that the edition is the one you used. Perhaps CitationBot improves the references in some other ways, but adding the GoogleBooks links doesn't IMO fit into that category for the reasons mentioned -- and that's before we even worry about inconsistent appearance because some books aren't linked. I wouldn't necessarily hold up promotion over the links but I'd still be inclined to get rid of them -- Andy? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 6:03 am, Today (UTC−5)

I'd agree with getting rid of the links. As a whole, CitationBot doesn't seem that useful. --Laser brain (talk) 9:47 am, Today (UTC−5)

So I will start at the beginning removing google-links and you can do those you run across as you do what's left--and maybe that will fix some of the access issues these refs have had. YAY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

All google-links are now gone! YAY! One less thing to bother with! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And hey, you may be doing this by instinct but your instincts are good and I trust them absolutely. No worries. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Aleph, would you be willing to go to the FAC page and edit source there and put in your name and say you are doing a reference review? Axl is done now and I am concerned they are going to close it. You don't have to vote on it if you don't want to, but if a review is active, I think they might be less likely to close it out. I am hopeful. However, if you do "support" and say all the refs are fixed, and A.Parrot reverses his oppose, I am guessing they will promote and be done with it that way. One way or the other, I think they want it off their list. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I already went there and told them about I was reviewing the references, unless I'm missing something. I've gone through 1-94 once, inadequately; I've gone through 95-152, pretty thoroughly, and now I'm at 9 as I work my way back through to 94. At that point, I think, just about all the references should be adequately formatted. Whether that's good enough for them, I don't know, because this thing has been open ten weeks now. Of course, if they shut it down I imagine it'll be ready to renominate within the next week, so I'm not sure what they'll pick. Alephb (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You did go and in the content of a conversation explain what you were doing, but that doesn't count as a review. You would have to go there, open edit source, and make a heading with your name in it--you know--type in two equals signs, your user name, then two more equals signs, then write underneath that what you have done and are doing. I just thought it might head them off. No, adequate formatting won't be enough by itself. What they want to know is if the text and the refs connect correctly--if the page numbers accurately direct a person to the content the article says is there--if what's in the ref and what's in the article match up properly on the pages the article claims--that's all the same thing. I'm trying to think of ways to make it clearer and all I am doing is muddying the waters. It's those damn page numbers that caused the failure--dude didn't like that I had large sections referenced--like pages 30-52 or some such thing--he wanted page 41--period. And sometimes what the pages sent people to wasn't what the article said--so that's entirely my fault from moving stuff around and not keeping up, and I did find that I could cut down on the pages quite often--so I did that, but sometimes, a section was what was used.

Here is what I did for A.Parrot to check content myself and make it easier for him to do so as well--but he didn't. These numbers are probably not all correct anymore, but after a bit, I put in the author's names so he could tell. Perhaps this helps you understand why I have gone a little mad...  :-)

• ref#2: type in Spinoza, it's on page 140
• ref#3: type in Astruc, start on page 119, scroll to page 122
• ref#4: type in Moses (will also find Hobbs here) pages 212-214
• ref#5: it's in the introduction, so just scroll to it; pages 2 and 3 discuss the "historical consciousness", page 5 the university students,
• ref#6: type in enlightenment, page 39 discusses "important philosophical developments" and page 55 "early decades of 19th century characterized by..."
• ref#7: type in biblical criticism, page 19 discusses "the desire to break the hold of ecclesiastical authority" and the Reill reference, page 6 mentions pietism in that vein
• the next reference is back to number 6, type in rationalism, page 42 and also type in exegesis to get Turretin (Turretini here) on page 252 (and some discussion from 39-42)

• ref#8: opens correctly--problem caused by citation bot is fixed now--Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:36 am, 17 October 2018, last Wednesday (4 days ago) (UTC−5)
• ref#9: type in deism, it's on pages 39-40
• ref#10: these references are "Higher criticism" by Rogerson and "German Christian Thought" by Law, pages 298 and 261 respectively (ref #11)

I will continue on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:10 pm, 18 September 2018, Tuesday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)

the next ref is back to #6(e) type in natural religion, it's there on page 41 ref#12: can type in religion or just scroll to chapter 6, "Biblical criticism and religious belief" pages 117-136 discuss it with particular mention on page 138 Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:30 pm, 18 September 2018, Tuesday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−5) reference #13 has no page numbers because it wouldn't let me see anything from inside the book--so I used the information in the title and synopsis the next reference is back to 6 (f) type in Reimarus, it will get you pages 46-48;

• ref#14: is about Semler's response and Lessing, type in Semler, and in the chapter on Biblical interpretation in the 18th and 19th centuries, it's on pages 348 and 349; it will also get you a mention of Lessing on page 266;
• ref#15 type in Semler, the left hand column on page 356 mentions his "intellectual disputes" with Reimarus' writings

type in Reimarus and go to the bottom of page 45 and top of page 46

• ref#16 type in Reimarus, remark on Lessing on page 102

I have to leave for a bit, but I will keep on when I get back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 1:14 pm, 18 September 2018, Tuesday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)

I'll wait until you're finished to review further. Believe me, I know what it's like to have a nerve-racking FAC (they all are for me), and I know what it's like to think all the citations are correct and discover otherwise. A. Parrot (talk) 9:22 pm, 18 September 2018, Tuesday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−5) Thank you so much! I appreciate both the understanding and the time! It is very slow going, often involving multiple looks at Google and then Amazon, and reading through those long sections for the pieces that got paraphrased together and so on. It's only right that I should be the one to do this for you instead of the other way around. So--getting on with it:

• reference #17, type in Johann Michaelis and get the ref to his work on the intro to NT; (type in H.S.Reimarus and get good discussion of entire topic on pages 343-346; page 348 has the "Fragments Controversy"); this section is also referenced to #6(h)--type in Michaelis and look at page 45
• ref #18, type in myth, get page 117 and Eichhorn's "hermeneutic of myth"; type in Eichhorn and get Gabler and Bauer as well, page 149 has the "new approach" and "mythical method", page 150 has Gabler, pages 188-191 have Bauer.
• ref #19 is the Soulen quote, type in historical criticism, it's on page 79, second paragraph
• ref#20 type in Bauer and read the footnote on page 99; type in Antioch, and the "sharp break" is on page 79; type in Paul and get more discussion on page 67+
• ref#21 type in Bauer, under section on "work" on page 286 will get a mention of the name of the work that discussion the break between Paul and Peter and the statement that "Bauer's understanding of early Christianity became determinative for later scholarship."
• ref #22 is an addition by another editor that I am in frequent and regular conflict with. I have read this article that he references and while it's a good article and Levinson is an excellent reference, I have not found this particular statement in it. That early BC was anti-semitic is in many cases indisputable, so I am inclined to leave some form of this even though it is also in contemporary responses, but I cannot find this specific statement of "reading back in." It seems to be interpretation--but I dare not remove it because he will come after me for doing so.

Number 23 is now Gerdmar, and each of those page numbers is exactly correct--since I just did it, I am sure of it. There are three of them in a row.

• ref#24 type in Holzmann and you will see the "unaccessible" page 82. I did the 'surprise me' function till I was able to see it! But it is also available in connection with other references, so if this is a problem I can get more.

I have to leave again for awhile--real life keeps interfering! But I will do more later tonight, and I promise I will continue till it's done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 2:47 pm, 19 September 2018, Wednesday (1 month, 2 days ago) (UTC−5)

• reference #25, type in Biblical criticism, go to page 22
• ref #26, type in Baur, it's on page 180
• ref #27, type in Johannes Weiss, scroll backwards to page 222
• ref #28, type in David Friedrich Strauss, go to page 365, second paragraph
• ref #29, type in Theodor Zahn, get page 399 for a discussion of Von Harnack's conflicts
• ref #30, type in William Wrede, he's on pages 1056-1059, the specific comment is under "significance."
• ref #31 works properly
• ref #32, type in Johannes Weiss, get 1026-1028, there is one part unde "Christian origins" and another under "Significance"
• ref #33, type in Schweitzer, get numerous options, comments I used are on pages 31 and 257; there is also a reference on page 154 of reference #9
• ref #34, just scroll to pages 3 and 4 Jenhawk777 (talk) 3:18 pm, 20 September 2018, Thursday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC−5)

I must have been an evil literary agent in a former life as I am now in referencing Hell... reference #35, type in Barth, go to page 433, I think it's the third paragraph; this is also referenced to Soulen, type in Biblical Criticism, scroll to page 20, it's in right-hand column toward the bottom

• ref #36, go to page 19, second paragraph
• ref #37, no page number because I used the synopsis from the cover of the book
• ref #38, type in Hans Jonas, go to page 627, second paragraph
• ref #39, is Perrin, just scroll to it since it's on page vi
• ref #40(a) type in redaction criticism, it's on page 443
• ref #41--DSS--type in biblical studies and get page xxv and page 1 --type in impact and get more!
• ref #40(b) type in Joachim Jeremias, pick page 495, scroll to page 498 and 499
• ref # 42 has no page numbers because it is primary source material by J.J. and is only made available for those interested in pursuing what he actually said deleted here, moved to further reading instead
• ref#43, type in biblical theology movement, go to page 82--I removed the other references muddying the waters here

next reference is 7(f) type in biblical criticism, get page 21, it's there

• ref #44, type in New Criticism, go to pages 8-13 and page 200 changed this to #45 and just added page #s there
• ref #45, type in New Historicism and go to page 60,

And that's it for today unless I can come back later tonight after everyone else has gone to bed--assuming I can stay awake for more punishment. :-) Thank you for being patient about this! I know it's slow, but I really am pedaling as fast as I can! Jenhawk777 (talk) 3:53 pm, 21 September 2018, Friday (30 days ago) (UTC−5)

• ref #46, type in Structuralism, go to page 296, second column, second paragraph
• ref #47, type in Paul, go to chapter 4, pages 69-92; type in Sanders and find those specific mentions within those same pages; on page 260, there are 'notes', referenced part is in (a);

Have to go, have to get up to attend a soccer match tomorrow morning and it's after midnight here. I'll be back with more! Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:33 am, 22 September 2018, Saturday (30 days ago) (UTC−5)

• ref #48, just scroll since it's in intro, page xviii to xxi for full discussion)
• ref #49, Peter Ochs, type in biblical, get page 13, center of page
• ref number 50 is Frei's book -- primary source material on Frei, so just made it available, ** moved this to further reading
• ref#51 is Robert Miller, Jesus Seminar, used cover to say when it had begun Jenhawk777 (talk) 3:48 pm, 7 October 2018, Sunday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)
• ref #7(g), type in Biblical criticism, go to page 21, right hand column, bottom of first paragraph
• ref# 52, just scroll as it's page 1, look for "untapped world"; type in "white male Protestant, get page 15, it's there

Really busy day today, should be able to do more tomorrow afternoon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:22 pm, 22 September 2018, Saturday (29 days ago) (UTC−5) This is a lot like doing the article all over again! I may have bitten off more than I can chew here but I am chewing anyway! :-) Please, please continue to be patient with me. My real life keeps interfering. I have to teach this week and have to write a lesson, so my time here will be very limited this week, but I will do as much as I can and will come back with a bang the following week. I knew this would take a while, but it is taking even longer than I thought, so please don't give up on me! next ref is 7(h), it's in the right hand column under conclusions; type in ideologies an d get 53 as well

• ref#53, type in bias, get a good discussion of confirmation bias, pages 19-20*

Major Methods, back to ref #6, David R. Law, type in biblical scholar, get vii in preface, go to #1 and #3 Jenhawk777 (talk) 3:57 pm, 7 October 2018, Sunday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)

• ref #54, type in textual criticism, get page 47, second paragraph on "lower" criticism
• ref# 55, is an article by Bird, used aspects of the whole thing, no page #'s available

Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:17 am, 24 September 2018, Monday (28 days ago) (UTC−5)

Here is where I added the new ref in Textual Criticism--that I stole from Biblical manuscripts--in an effort to resolve issues from below, so it is now

• ref #56, Seid

Jenhawk777 (talk) 4:00 pm, 7 October 2018, Sunday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)

• ref #57, type in variants get page 2, top of page
• ref #58, type in variants, get the chart on page 30 showing distribution, scroll back to statement used in second paragraph on page 29

next ref is 55, Graeme again

• ref #59 is Ehrman. I cannot find a reference to this particular book online that includes the pages I used. I own the book, so I can see all of it, but unless you also own it, you can't--so how much of a problem is that? I referenced it 6 times!
• ref # 60, is Wegner, type in Alexandrian, get the list on page 213 under Griesbach

• Ref #61, is Wasserman, ref (a) is in Note 1, type in "clusters" get page 3 and 9

next (3) refs are back to #6(j,h,k), type in Rabbinic Judaism--all the statements in that paragraph are there on page 82

next reference is back to 59 Ehrman, pages 205 and 209, rescension Jenhawk777 (talk) 3:12 pm, 25 September 2018, Tuesday (26 days ago) (UTC−5)

• ref#62 is David Clines, type in 'plough with oxen', it's on page 29

the next ref is to #55, Graeme's article, and #57, Stewart, just scroll to page 2, third paragraph

• ref #63 is Tarrant, type in contentious, it's on page 85
• ref #64 is the web page lexicon; it's just there as proof there is such a thing

the next ref is back 60, Wegner, type in Griesbach, get page 212 and 213, it's on 213 the next three are back to Ehrman, then #59, scroll to page 8 and #61, Wasserman,,just scroll to page 8 That's the end of textual criticism Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:38 pm, 25 September 2018, Tuesday (26 days ago) (UTC−5)

• ref#65, starting Source criticism with Simon; easiest just to scroll to page 35, it's halfway down the first full paragraph; there's also a full discussion beginning on page 915

the next ref is back to #4, type in alternation get page 166--and others

• ref#66, Smend, scroll to page 7, bottom paragraph
• ref#67, Tov, type in parallel ancient story, get page 336
• ref#68, Campbell, O'Brien, type in Wellhausen, go to page 5, second paragraph
• ref#69, Guthrie, type in synoptic problem, scroll to 147

Up to Wellhausen next ref is back to #68, same section pages 1-18 again

• ref#70, Nicholson, scroll to page 3, first paragraph
• ref#71, Baden, type in religion, page 247, second paragraph, it's numbered 3.

next ref is back to 68, same section, pages 1-18 again next ref is back to # 40, type in Wellhausen, on page 382

• ref#72, Kaltner, type in Wellhausen, get page 57, scroll to top paragraph on 58
• ref#73, Soulen, type in Graf-Wellhausen, get page 79 (be sure it's the 4th ed.)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:50 pm, 25 September 2018, Tuesday (26 days ago) (UTC−5)

I haven't quit and I will be back and finish, I'm just a little underwater this week--not going under for the third time--but going under every now and then! Next week will be better. I'm holding onto that.

• ref #74. Viviano, easiest access is go to table of contents and click on source criticism, scroll to page 38, it's in top paragraph
• ref # 75, Van Seters; type in documentary hypothesis, get page 53, scroll to 55, c. 'New Supplementary Model'

Sorry there's not more today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 9:52 pm, 27 September 2018, Thursday (24 days ago) (UTC−5)

A. Parrot Two other reviewers here asked for some additional information in the "Nineteenth century" section and in Textual criticism. This added three refernce citations in the first and one in the second--which has now thrown all the numbering here into the crapper. I want to weep. Instead I will attempt to go back and fix the numbers now. Pray for me. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:29 pm, 28 September 2018, Friday (23 days ago) (UTC−5)

I have now renumbered them--I hope correctly. I am checking on the rest now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:43 pm, 28 September 2018, Friday (23 days ago) (UTC−5) Beginning at the next references after Van Seters, it goes back to 68, Campbell, type in problems, get page 4, right hand column, bottom paragraph

• then #72, Kaltner again, type i n problems, get 50, under recent developments, second paragraph , bottom of page 58, and on page 59 "some version still held"

• ref#76, Berman, type in "documentary hypothesis" get 209, bottom paragraph: "no scholar today"; page 214 has reference for "most celebrated study"; type in problems, get 205
• ref#77, Wenham, type in Gospel criticism, get #6 on page 53

back to two more references to 69, type in synoptic problem, contains full discussion, comments are from first few pages, and scattered from then on in multiple pages

• ref#78, Scroggie, type in Quell source of the gospels, get full page 342
• ref#79, Marshall, type in Q, get page 148 it's in notes, #6
• ref# 80, type in Streeter, get 124, scroll to page 127; type in "fundamental solution" or "Marcan priority" get Lachman fallacy and Streeter both
• ref #81, type in Synoptic Seminar, it's in the footnotes, second paragraph

then it's back to 69, type in synoptic problem, get table of contents, scroll to further reflections on page 1029

• ref#82, it's on page 4 so just scroll to it

then two more 80's. same pages as above.

More later. Assuming I can stay out of trouble elsewhere. Jenhawk777 (talk) 3:06 pm, 28 September 2018, Friday (23 days ago) (UTC−5)

• ref#83, Bauckham, type in form criticism get page 242, scroll to page 243, first sentence
• ref#84, Miller, type in form criticism, get page 242, second paragraph
• ref#85, Mihelic, journal no page #'s
• ref#86, Eddy and Boyd, type in Sitz im Leben, get page 271
• ref#87, type in Sitz im Leben, get page 135
• ref#88, type in literary forms, get pages 20, 21, 25--that I used stuff from
• ref#89, Knierim, type in form criticism, get page 42, used some there, scroll to page 70, second paragraph also used
• ref#90, Burridge, type in form criticism, get page 13, #1, the Critique
• ref#91, Hoffman article, no page #s
• ref#92, Sweeney, type in form criticism, used pages 6 and 8
• ref#93, Kelber, type in form criticism, get page 277, top of page

back to #83, Bauckham, type in form criticism, get page 247

• ref#94, Sparks, type in form criticism, get page 113 "extensive re-evaluation"
• ref#95, Meier, type in laws of oral development, page 141, #9
• ref#96, Sanders, type in laws of oral development, get quote from pages 21, 22
• back to ref#86, Eddy and Boyd, type in laws of oral transmission, get page 291, scroll to 296, top paragraph and third paragraph back to ref#84, Miller, type in for criticism, get page 10 back to #86, type in development of Synoptic tradition, get page 298, second and third paragraph

• ref#97 is in the group note, it's a journal article
• ref#98 is Sanders in another note
• ref#99, is Long's journal article, it works

then back to #93(c), Kelber, type in myopia, get page 278, first paragraph about halfway down the back to #89, Knierim, type in Sitz im Leben, go to page 69

• ref#100, Luomanen, type in biblical criticism, page 24, first and second paragraph
• ref#101Wood, type in Hellenistic culture, get page 46, bottom paragraph; the quote from Wright is on page 47

That's it for today probably--maybe a little more later tonight--if I can stay awake. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 5:53 pm, 30 September 2018, Sunday (21 days ago) (UTC−5)

I am going to do my level best to finish these this week.

• ref#102, Powell, type in Jewish eschatology, start at bottom of page 23 and go on to 24
• ref#103, Porter, type in Bultmann, get page 19

rhen back to ref #83, type in Bultmann, go to bottom of page 247, it's #7-9 then #92, type in Campbell, page 15, quote is opening statement

This is up to Redaction Criticism now

• ref #6, type in Redaction, get info on page 181
• ref#104, type in redaction, get page 96, go to bottom of page 97
• ref#105 is online article, no page numbers
• ref # 106 is Soulen's Fourth Edition, type in Redaction criticism--it's the paperback edition on Amazon
• then ref # 107 is Soulen's Third Edition, I know, I know, but the quote I used couldn't be accessed in the Fourth edition, so I went back and got it from the older book; it's on page 159, about Markan priority.

• ref#108, Lee, type in redaction, go to page 355, "evaluation" that starts at bottom of page; next two refs are to the same discussion

Up to Literary criticism now

• ref# 109, Paul House, just scroll since it's on page 3, opening paragraphs; there are four more references using House on different pages but they are all in the same section. It's after midnight here. More tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:28 am, 3 October 2018, Wednesday (19 days ago) (UTC−5)

on page 3-4 are the factors that led to literary criticism's development; on page 5 there's Robert Alter, some characteristics of formalism, bottom of page 6, another factore in rise of lit.crit.; page 8 has procedures of rhetorical crit.; pages9-11 has structuralism; page 13 has formalism, and Gunn is on page 14.

• ref#110, Conrad, type in Childs or can onical, go to p.46, middle of first paragraph, and page 47, footnote #4, get use of historical critical tradtion both places
• ref#111, John Barton, page 79 gets inadequacy of HC, page 90 #2, says canonical crit. is part of literary crit.; and page 102 discusses dealing with whole not part
• ref#112, Oswalt, journal article--it's a PDF, page 318, bottom paragraph, page 320 top paragraph
• ref#113, Robert Wall, type in biblical criticism, or just scroll to page 2, middle of second paragraph, more up to page 7
• ref#114, Gottwald, be sure to click "Archived" to see
• ref#115, John Hayes, scroll to intro, pages xii-xv; type in canonical, get pages 122,123,125, and second paragraph on 127 Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:35 pm, 3 October 2018, Wednesday (18 days ago) (UTC−5)
• ref#116, book review online, prophet ref is in second paragraph
• ref#117, Sonja Foss, type in dimensions, get page 6, second paragraph
• ref#118, Watson, type in rhetorical criticism, 181 and 182 both come up, got to 182, left hand column, second paragraph
• ref#119, Willey, type in Trible, page 615, first line
• ref#120, Greidanus, type in David Rhoads, page 278, top paragraph and footnote
• ref#121, Powell, scroll to page 2, middle paragraph, bottom of page 3, top of 4 has Auerbach quote, bottom of 4 and top of 5, axiomatic, page 26 top of page
• ref#122, Paris, type in narrative economy and narrative unity, page 9, footnote #7
• ref#123, Weitzman on Jstor
• ref#124, Merenlahti, type in Auerbach, p.49, middle three paragraphs, get hidden God
• ref#125, Cross, type in historical Jesus, p.779, 1st paragraph
• ref#126, Theissen, just scroll to p.1, first line
• ref#127, Porter, type in one quest, p52, top of page
• ref#128, Sanders, type in know a lot, p.5, get quote center of page
• ref#129, Telford, type in life of Jesus, page 33 (Sanders quote also on 34)
• back to 125, Cross, type in twentyfirst century, P.779, quote at end Jenhawk777 (talk) 9:03 pm, 4 October 2018, Thursday (17 days ago) (UTC−5)

• ref#126, Theissen, just scroll, page 1 first line
• ref#127, Porter, type in one quest, get page 52, top of page
• ref#128, Sanders, type in 'know quite a lot' and get quote from page 5 center of page
• ref#129, Telford, type in 'life of Jesus' get page 33 (Sanders quote also on page 34)

then back to 125, Cross, type in twenty-first century, get page 779, 'Quest of the historical Jesus' section, first and last paragraphs

• ref#130, Watt, there are no pages, but if you type in Christian modernism, pick the third option down,
• ref#131, article--go to the section "The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy"
• ref#132, Bendroth--same article, same section
• back to #10, Rogerson, type in A. S. Peake, get page 298, almost to the bottom

• ref#133, Prior, type in 19th century, get page 13, go to #2, Overview, at bottom of page
• ref#134, Madigan, type in LaGrange, get page 84 (starts at bottom of 83) go to section titled "The coming of age of Catholic biblical studies" lookfor Proidentissimus, page *86 has Catholic scholarship
• ref#135, Montagnes, type in biblical school, get pages 23, and some on 135; type in Providentissimus Deus get pages 13,14, 91-94;
• ref#136, Bea, type in Divino afflante Spiritu get 231 and 232; type in Bea, get 236
• then back to #10, Rogersone, go to page 298 These next two are not really referencing anything but the men's names in irder to show they are Bible scholars since they don't have a page on Wp to link to

• ref#137, type in Orchard, get four mentions
• ref#138, type in Fuller, get mentions on pages 5 and 9
• then it's back to #22, Sweeney

• ref#139, Levinson, type in Higher criticism higher anti-semitism, will get the quote on page 83, second paragraph, also used stuff from 42, 43 and 82
• ref#140, Schwarz, type in historical criticism, page 210, under Jewish Orthodoxy

then back to #22, article, pages 142-146 Jenhawk777 (talk) 8:41 pm, 6 October 2018, Saturday (15 days ago) (UTC−5)

• 140 again twice--type in M.M.Kalish , page 213, bottom of page: type in "full entry", get page 222, middle of second paragraph; type in Wellhausen, get page 216 for a discussion of Hoffman; type in Breuer, get page 277
• ref#141, Horrell, scroll to page 3 for 'part of wider trend'; page 4, middle paragraph; then type in form criticism, get page 8
• ref#142, Eliot, type in dimension, get page 70, third paragraph down
• ref#143--journal article, document
• then back to ref #40, Soulen type in postmodern get 403 and 404 for date, then bottom of 405, bottom of 406, and middle of 410

• ref#144, Adam, type in stance, it's in the middle of the Editor's Forward, page vii
• ref#145, Soulen, Third Edition, post biblical interpretation, pages 140-142

then back to 144, type in suspicious page 140, in section on PBI it's fifth line down

• ref#146, (twice) Briggs, scroll to page 1, opening paragraph; page 2 top of page about fifth line down
• ref# 147, Fiorenza, type in Fiorenza, page 56, second paragraph--in the 1980's...
• ref#148, Walsh, type in Fiorenza, page 236, discussion of hermeneutics
• ref#149, Jobling, can type in patriarchal or scroll to page 9, bottom of first paragraph
• ref #150, type in feminist biblical scholars, page 49 "dissenting reader"
• back to 145, Soulen, type in biblical criticism, left hand column toward bottom

• ref#151, Comstock, journal article, have to scroll
• ref#152, Rollins, (twice) type in began to appear, page 67, 1st paragraph
• ref#153, Kille, scroll to page 3, center of page

Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This is why I originally only asked you to randomly check 5 or ten. It's too much to ask of anyone else--even good hearted you. I had thought the reviewer would check them all, but even he only did a few. It's just too much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm perfectly content to keep grinding away at the references. What I'm not going to do is participate in trying to stall the FAC from closing by adding myself as a reviewer. It looks like you/others are still making fairly substantial changes to the article ([18]), and we're now, I think, 75+ days into this FAC being open. If you want to try and keep the close at bay, you can, but a close strikes me as well overdue, especially given that new problems are still being introduced. I mean, there's been over 1500 edits to the page since the FAC began, and I can pull up the references and find problems in less than five minutes.

For example, when I hopped over to the article this afternoon, I found that the year had been changed, and other information, for the very first reference to the article again. I'd just fixed that one. Originally, it was cited as (1900), but the book was written in 1670, then translated in 1900, so I had set the date as (1900) [1670], and added the name of the translator. Now it looks like you've moved over to citing a 2017 reprint (of the 1900 translation? or a later edition?). The page numbers have changed too. They were wrong the first time, till I fixed them, and now I'm not sure what's going on. If page 124 is where the quote was first found, what's on pages 70-72? I had access to the 1900 edition. At least a quick search doesn't seem to be giving me any access to the new 2017 edition, so I'm not able to check the references for that one any more.

If the 2017 edition is just a reprint of the 1900 edition, then the orig-year element needs to be changed to read something like "The Latin original was published in 1670, translated into English in 1900, and reprinted by whoever in 2017." Because otherwise the translation year has disappeared. The last fifty edits happened in less than 48 hours, so the article is changing once per hour -- which is approximately the same pace that's been kept up for 75-ish days now (~20 edits every 24 hours).

There's just too much changing, too fast, for me to honestly give anyone the impression that we're just a few more edits away from getting this thing nailed down.

If you want to keep working on this article after the FAC (most likely) closes to get it ready for renomination, tell me now and I'll keep plugging away. If you're only willing to send this up to FAC if it passes this time, let me know that, too, because that would also be good to know. Alephb (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Alephb You posted there was a problem with Spinoza so I got right on it. I picked this version of Spinoza because it was the only one I could find with an isbn. The dates you are using are not the correct ones for this book. This: [19] is a reprint of a classic first edition of the translation by Elwes which he did in 1884. This reprint was published in 2016. The pages are correct for that reference with the "plain" statement at the very bottom of page 71. I just checked it. This is correct. The original Latin was written in 1670--true--that is not pertinent to this reference however. All that matters here is 1884 and 2016.

If you post an issue here or on my talk page or on the BC talk page or wherever, I think it is my job to take care of it--you find the problems, and I will fix them. I had no intention of causing you grief and I apologize if I did. I was just trying to hold up my end at least a little and not leave all the work to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The article changes every time someone reviews it. Every person has asked for changes and I have accommodated them all to the best of my ability. Some took me through the entire article almost one sentence at a time, and I only balked at a few things. Most of those changes have been changing "happy" to "glad" as far as I could see, but I did them because they asked for them. Jytdog came along and we had a big fight about the historical Jesus section, and I was sure that would kill it because a FAC isn't supposed to have any conflict in the talk page anymore. He moved a bunch of stuff to Historical Jesus and I decided I was okay with giving him his way too. He and I are becoming "fren-emies." :-) So then I went and worked on the HJ for awhile too. And we've been working together on and off on two others as well. I can't help it if people show up and want changes. I have no way of knowing if that will ever stop. It happens with every review. The changes I made were in response to you--do you not want me to participate? Would you prefer doing it yourself and me leaving you to it? I will do whatever you want. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. You're tough, but you're probably right. We'll see what they do and cope with what comes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope you understand I was not simply making content changes on a whim. If there is a problem between content and its reference and the reference has to be changed, then content often has to be adjusted as well. They are inseparably connected, I know you understand that, so that changing one necessitates changing the other. The historical Jesus content in the article reflected what Frank Cross said--who was the correct author--but that content could not be accessed for some reason, so it seemed appropriate to change it to something that could be accessed. After that I couldn't very well cite Frank Cross in the article. All the changes in this diff you reference ([20]) are all made because of adjustments to the references. Even changing the pages can mean adjusting content. I am trying to be diligent.

It's okay Aleph. I understand perfectly if you are already fed up with this. If you don't want to do this anymore it's all right. No hard feelings. It's agonizing and maddening and seems never-ending. Thank you for all you have done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jenhawk. I appreciate that you're trying to be diligent, and I'm not saying you're wrong for making frequent changes to the pages. All I'm saying is that the pace of changes makes it impossible for me to go tell FAC that I think the issues are resolved or about to be resolved, but that outside of that I would have been happy to keep picking away at the references for as you long as you find it helpful.

But any help from me is conditional on you not continuing to talk about your issues with Jytdog on my talk page. We've discussed that particular question to death, and I don't think it's productive. Wikipedia is a leisure activity for me. It's something I do for fun, and having the same conversation over and over again spoils that fun. So I'm going to take one week off, starting today, from helping you with any of your projects. If, on October 30th, 2018, or at any later date, you'd like me to start collaborating on anything again -- including references, I would be happy to do that. You're a very capable and dedicated editor, and you've done some really good things for a variety of Wikipedia articles. The project could use more people like you. If, after October 30th, you'd like to work together again, just say the word and I'll be there. Alephb (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well my bad, I thought you would actually appreciate that I am making an effort and doing better. I clearly misunderstood. I apologize for that. Nevermind about the references. I already told FAC we were dead in the water this afternoon. It will be failed any time now I expect. Thank you for your efforts and what you were able to do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No matter how painstakingly clear I try to be that I don't want you to keep going on about Jytdog on my talk page, you continue to "misunderstand", apologize, do it again, claim you "misunderstood", and so on, ad nauseum. I'm not playing this game any more. Goodbye, Jenhawk. Alephb (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Is Brown–Driver–Briggs considered a reliable source? Editor2020 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not bad at all. It was the reigning scholarly dictionary of Hebrew for several decades. Heck, it might have still held that spot into the 1970's. I'm not remember exactly when it lost the spot. I think it's fair to say it's been superseded by HALOT and DCH, but BDB is probably the best thing available on the legal parts of the web. It still gets cited all the time in scholarly discussions of Hebrew words -- not as a final authority or anything, but as one reference point among others.

I don't think I'd generally use it myself, just because it is old, but it's not a red flag or anything when I see it in an article.

If there's a specific Hebrew word you're looking for, I'd be happy to dig into HALOT or DCH and see if I can find something more up-to-date. Alephb (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Crap! I can't imagine how I didn't remember to mention this. There is a fake Brown-Driver-Briggs that's online. It gets cited on Wikipedia from time to time. I can't seem to remember where it is, but somebody literally created a fake Lexicon and put the name of the real lexicon on it. I have never dug around to find why. If you've got a specific "Brown-Driver-Briggs", I could probably take a look and tell you if it's the real one. Alephb (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link that was cited, http://www.ericlevy.com/revel/bdb/bdb/2/bet108.html but I see that you are already contributing to that article (Baal). Thanks for your help! Editor2020 (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay. The Eric Levy site's BDB appears to be legit. Alephb (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alephb. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alephb. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of Sodom? Meteor blast cause of biblical destruction, say scientists

This may or may not cause some edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It'll be interesting what kind of reception it gets. If true, this hypothesis would have the Sodom and Gomorrah event happening something like one thousand years before most scholars place the writing of Genesis. That would be quite a memory for this part of the world. Alephb (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Details, details. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting if there was a Wikipedia article on all the scientific attempts to explain Sodom and Gommorah. There's probably enough material for it. Alephb (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Mm, a version of floodgeology. Could start as a section in Historicity of the Bible, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

[21] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

... And so it begins. Alephb (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

...Did you just use the geek-force? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Huh. It's some kind of Star Wars thing. Alephb (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Right... keep poking the fanatically devoted... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Back in college, a roommate made me watch some of the Star Wars movies. That was when I discovered I could sleep sitting up. Alephb (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Dodekapropheton

is Greek, not German ... But maybe in the land of the brave where one has Grecian allies, this is German. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, of course Δωδεκαπρόφητον is Greek in origin. But spelled out "Dodekapropheton", it's usually the form found in German sources. In this case, much of the barely-understandable material in Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever was copied wholesale from a German article, apparently machine-translated. Alephb (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Alephb/sandbox

"expresses eulogizes"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops. English is almost my first language, but not quite. Alephb (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice article. Merry Christmas (or holiday of your choice, no insult of your cultural background, whatever it may be, is intended)! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

None taken! I'll take well-wishes for any holiday anyone likes, even the grouchy folks who do Festivus. I've been in the US since I was five. Before that, Latin America. Alephb (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've never been away from Sweden longer than a month or so at a time. Tomorrow I shall feast on julskinka, sill, rödbetssallad, Janssons frestelse, julöl, glögg, snaps... etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The only one of those I've ever heard of is Janssons frestelse, which you see occasionally here in the Midwest US. When I was growing up, we'd have hallacas, the world's most Christmasy food. 18:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, we have those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, do you eat the cabbage? Because for hallacas, the plantain leaves are just a wrapping that keeps the nixtamelized corn dough from boiling into the water. To eat it, you take off the leaves, and then you've sort of rectangle of something vaguely resembling boiled cornbread (but whiter instead of yellow). Inside that is some kind of meat stuff with rasins in it. Disregard the lies on Wikipedia about the meat stuff being stew. And disregard all the variations: it's pulled pork or beef plus raisins the authentic way (i.e. the way my Mom made them). Accept no substitutes! I'd correct the Wikipedia article, but as someone whose Mom made them correctly, I'm left with a WP:COI. Alephb (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Newton

If you find it interesting enough to have an opinion, this Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton#2016_vs_2060 comes across as mostly OR/SYNTH to me, does it read that way to you? I noticed it after making this [22] edit.

Also, Happy New Year! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year! It does seem to have an OR/SYNTH sort of flavor. I really wish I new more about Newton so I could help repair it. Maybe I'll find some time here and educate myself a bit. Alephb (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I know New Year is past but if you ever want to find something out about Newton, just use this. https://epdf.tips/the-cambridge-companion-to-newton-cambridge-companions-to-philosophy.html

Wallingfordtoday (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable source list

Hey aleph. I think you should consider adding the Elicott Commentary on your list of questionable sources. It's rather old and I just came across it cited on Isaiah 5, though I haven't removed it immediately without seeing whether or not you're going to throw it in. You should also definitely add the Wesley Explanatory Notes on the Bible, which is from something like 1755 and was on Isaiah 8 before I removed it.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Wallingford. Ellicott's is in the list. But I'll have to look at the Wesley Explanatory Notes. Generally nothing before about 1850 is going to be reliable on biblical scholarship, though some people might put that line closer to 1970. It's kind of a grey line, but I don't think there's any serious case for citing stuff from the 1700's. Alephb (talk)

Hoo boy. Here's a quote from the Wesley notes introduction to Genesis:

"This part of the Old Testament we call the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. These books were, probably, the first that ever were written; for we have no mention of any writing in all the book of Genesis, nor 'till God bid Moses write, and set him his copy in the writing of the ten commandments upon the tables of stone. However, we are sure these books are the most ancient writings now extant. The first of these, which we call Genesis, Moses probably wrote in the wilderness, after he had been in the mount with God."

Yep. Alephb (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Another thing. On many of the pages I see, there's the following in the external links;

• Ezekiel 3 Hebrew with Rashi's Commentary

I generally remove it when I see it, since Rashi's commentary is 11th century, though it does have a large presence in Jewish history. Should I continue removing it, or is keeping it fine?Wallingfordtoday (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally enjoy Rashi, but I wouldn't put him into an external links section. My understanding is that those sections are a place to stick links to reliable sources. Certainly a regular encyclopedia, pointing people to things to read, generally would not steer them toward Rashi unless it was an article specifically about medieval Jewish history or something like that. Alephb (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Alephb (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I've seen you mention Raymond Arritt before. I don't remember coming across him personally on Wikipedia, but I've come across quite a few mentions of him. It sounds like he made quite a positive impression. Alephb (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of bible chapters

I hope I'm not bothering you. You noted on the discussion of removing JohnThorne's topic ban that all individual biblical chapters should be banned, and I think, now, that I fully agree with this (for reasons I already mentioned on the discussion there). However, given I've only been on Wikipedia for about a month, I've no clue how to completely propose dealing some 300 pages at once (and it would be very tedious to do one at a time). Are you aware of how we can advance this proposal?Wallingfordtoday (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wallingford. No bother at all. Feel free to drop in on my talk page any time. I'd like to clarify that not all individual Bible chapters should be off-limits in my opinion. For example, Isaiah 53 is a frequent topic of conversation in Jewish and Christian sources, and I think it's appropriate to have an article on it. It's probably appropriate to have an article on each Psalm -- they are each individual poems that have long been commented upon. Genesis 14 is a genuine topic, and so is Deuteronomy 33.

The regular forum for this kind of thing is WP:AFD, but as far as I know the general method is that articles are proposed for deletion one by one. Doing this for a couple hundred articles would, unfortunately, result in everyone having the same discussions over and over. The reason I brought up the issue over at WP:AN was to test the waters and see if there was any way, somewhere or other, to have a centralized discussion of the issue in general before proceeding. I'm still not sure where that's supposed to happen -- I just saw the largest concentration of editors concerned about chapters discussing in one place and thought it was worth mentioning.

If the other editors generally agree, I might go for it. If it winds up being controversial, I will likely leave it alone because WP:AFD is a hotly political space and I try to keep my level of involvement in the endless Wikipedia wars at a fairly low level. Alephb (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Historia Philippicae et Totius Mundi Origines et Terrae Situs

Perhaps not quite the right kind of old book, but I thought you might enjoy this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It does look like an interesting old book. Alephb (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

biblical names
... you were recipient no. 1833 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if my memory is just really bad, or if I just somehow didn't hear about this when it happened. Thank you for letting me know! Alephb (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Apology for the inconvenience

Thank you for the ANI notice you posted on my Talk page. It came before I took a planned break, so I can only respond now. My deep and sincere apology for the inconvenience that I caused in relation to the articles on the Bible chapters. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Hey aleph. As you know, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm currently in a bit of a tang with PiCo on the talk page of the Virgin birth of Jesus page. We've both agreed that a request for comment should be made to settle the dispute, though I'm unfamiliar with how to create one. Can you give me any help?Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Haven't "seen" you for awhile

I hope everything is ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello.

I hope you are well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gråbergs! I'm doing well now. I left for a bit while caring for a dying family member, who passed away about two months ago after a long battle with Parkinsons and Alzheimers. It made proofreading Wikipedia articles seem like a bad use of time for a while.Alephb (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

My condolences and glad you're doing better. See you on the watchlist! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back

Sing a glad song unto the Lord. Achar Sva (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back

Hello Alephb and welcome back, I didn't notice you returned until I saw Asa of Judah. This is my new user name, but you knew me as Judecca. Anyways, keep up the good work. BTW, I did eventually create History of Mar Qardagh, so you can take that off of your user page. Happy editing and cheers! Jerm (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerm! I've got the History of Mar Qardagh removed. Alephb (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

... and thank you for placing real family above this. Your help is welcome for improving psalms articles, working on 103, 85 and 31 right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda.

In a fairly unrelated note, I saw recently that you'd reverted one of my changes on a Psalm article (something to do with a Psalm being "known as" a specific Latin phrase), and once I saw the revert, I think I remember we had some discussion on that very issue before (in 2017 or 2018, maybe?) that ended with me agreeing to go along with your way of phrasing things. My apologies for accidentally crossing that line, and of course you'll get no further argument from me on that. By the way, I now have my settings set up so that I don't receive any little ping when someone reverts my articles, so if I wind up doing anything else annoying on the Psalm articles and you want me to stop, just let me know and I'll alter my practices accordingly. Alephb (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you but I think you are even right in not saying "known". The psalms seem to be better known to English-speaking Christians in the version from the Common Book of Prayer than the KJV, but the latter is our free source. There was a heated discussion while you were away about the translations of the Hebrew, which ended with most translations of the Hebrew to English being removed, as under copyright. I haven't checked why Psalm 103 looks as if it escaped, and am too tired. I liked to have the chance to compare KJV to a translation from the Hebrew next to each other, - but holy copyright ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been all worked up about copyright on Bibles for some time, so maybe it's better I missed that one. Well, at least in the case of the KJV, we can say it's "of the Hebrew" in the sense that it is a translation made from the Hebrew, though it's scholarship is a bit dated and it does take a specific theological line sometimes. The RV, ASV, and JPS (1917) translations are also in the public domain, and probably all three have a better claim than the KJV in being faithful the Hebrew, at least philologically if not poetically. But they all leave something to be desired, and for newer versions I'd hesitate to have any opinion at all over what consitutes "fair use" legally. Alephb (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PS: I did contribute some little bit myself to work on solving this problem, by producing a rough draft translation of most of the content of most of the prose books of the Hebrew Bible over on Wikisource: [23]. The problem, as the talk pages make perfectly clear, is that any unusually-minded person can just go ahead and do all sorts of silly things in a Wiki translation, and that there is no real system for quality control there. And there's already at least three legal questions surrounding the copyright status of the material that has accumulated over on that project, which likely means it's a dead end, so it was useful to me in practicing my Hebrew. I've also given a bit of assistance to the Open English Bible project, but I'm not too hopeful on that project's chance of ever being completed either. Alephb (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Charles Spurgeon

Hi, regarding your edit on Psalm 19, our "Background and themes" sections in the updated Psalms pages quote many Christian preachers and theologians, as well as Jewish commentators, without identifying them by trade. We rely on the blue link to send readers to find out who they are. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there some other wording you'd prefer? In the Psalm 19 article, for example, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak, and the Malbim are identified as working within a classical Jewish perspective, while "C. S. Lewis" is specifically identified by trade, and called a "20th-century British writer". If you don't like the idea of referring to someone as a "preacher", might there be some other appropriate way to give readers some idea about who Spurgeon was without clicking through to another article? Maybe "theologian" or something? Alephb (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP

You probably came across that before, but if not it can be useful. I mention it because nowadays it has an entry for "Scriptural texts". I made a redirect for it, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, and thought that perhaps it could be of use to you in a discussion at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, that does look useful. 98.28.188.184 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

I noticed that you have not edited since January, and hope that all is well. Also taking the opportunity to fix a few things the archive bot couldn't handle. —PaleoNeonate – 03:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:PaleoNeonate. I am doing well, and I hope you are as well. I have been somewhat pre-occupied with some other projects I'm working on, as well as with the various business and personal complications that have arisen in the current coronavirus-filled environment (I'm in the US). So while I still fix the occasional typo when I see it, at the moment I don't have immediate plans to do much on Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Panigaon

A tag has been placed on Panigaon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Panigaon is a location in Assam. Paigaon is a village in Uttar Pradesh. There's no connection.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of minor biblical places for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor biblical places, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor biblical places until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)