This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jenhawk777. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Jenhawk777! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, PDF, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
Hi Jenhawk777! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, copyvio of quotes and wrong ISBN, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
Hi Jenhawk777! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Automatic archive, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.
Yes, we are well, hope the same goes for you and yours. So you found another gigantic neglected article to work on, that's admirable, hope you're having fun (I guess I have to read it now, grumble grumble. Keep making me learn stuff...). I don't know if you've run into WP:RX, but they may be able to help with jstor stuff and the like. Btw, IP's can't be pinged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: We're being translated!! That is totally cool! That was a fun article and I truly enjoyed working with you--no blogspots anywhere! :-) I of course would be thrilled if you decided to read Pagans but I would understand completely if you decide not to! I have thought repeatedly that the entire article on Christian thought turns on the section of persecution of minorities--and it's way down in the middle--who will ever read it? But I guess we can't take that approach, we have to do the best work we can do and leave the rest to fate. Pagans will probably be accessed more because of its topic which is way simpler than a history of thought! They have both been fun and interesting to work on. I hope I have done them justice. I am happy to be on WP these days, it's actually really nice. I learned a few things from dealing with you-know-who about how to avoid conflict, so that is actually benefitting me now I think. Since most things in my field are controversial, going to the Talk page first is working. People have all been really nice. Especially you of course! We are all safe here but staying home would have me climbing the walls if it weren't for WP. I haven't been anywhere in like three months! And boy am I sick of cooking! I didn't know about IPs and I will check out RX now--thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk. I will accept your guidance on academic preference for the present tense and will revert myself. However, I must abide by my "that" corrections. It is an aid to clarity and something feels as if it is missing if the "that" is not there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Laurel Lodged I knew 'that' was what you'd say! I left them all, just as you wrote them, thinking there are probably more people out there like you than like me. You do as you see fit. I am just happy to have your participation.
@Gareth Griffith-Jones:. Hello Gareth! So good to hear from you! If that sentence is Laurel's I think the decision is theirs. I am fine with it either way.
Oh wait, I'm not fine! That sentence is mine. The previous paragraph begins with "According to..." so I did not want a repetition. If you don't like "Lavan says..." let's come up with something other than either of these options--flip it maybe and put the attribution at the end of the sentence? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: Hey Laurel! One of the changes you made needs to be changed back. You changed Donatism to the person Donatus and that's incorrect. Donatus himself didn't come along until about 6 years after the group was already rejecting the traditores and the Bishop they were assigned. The group didn't have a name before Donatus, but they did exist and oppose re-acceptance of those that had handed over the scriptures. It should be either Donatism or Donatists since that's how they are known now--or probably more accurately "the group that later became known as Donatists." And look! It has a that in it! I hope you have a sense of humor... Later gater. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh I forgot to mention that Donatists didn't refuse to accept people back into communion. They only refused to accept them back as leaders. They were willing to accept them back if they would just be ordinary people. They wanted them re-baptised, which gave Augustine heartburn, but it wasn't communion, it was just leadership by traditores that they refused.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged: So I see the Donatus stuff hasn't been changed back, is there a problem? Do you have a source that says otherwise? There are sometimes differences in the sources, and if you have found some, they should be included. I have used Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa. United Kingdom, Liverpool University Press, 1996., and Frend, W. H. C.. The Donatist Church. N.p., Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2020. and works on Augustine. Tilley's introduction is the best explanation of the issues I think. On page xiv she explains that the division was already causing problems in 305, while somewhere down around xxv it says Donatus didn't take Majorinus' place as Bishop and become a leader of the movement until 313. If you have a source that says otherwise, let's include that there are two views. Otherwise, the change you made includes a mistake and should be removed as factually inaccurate. Please don't take this personally. There are so many little details in this area of study that anyone can and does occasionally make them--including me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:@Gareth Griffith-Jones: Okay, that was funny! Now I'll be humming that--they say of the acropolis where the Parthenon is, they say of the acropolis where the Parthenon is--now all day thanx to this! "I'll get you for this my pretty and your little dog too!" :-) Do you guys spend a lot of time on Youtube or what? How do you find these things? I know that means you've seen this one, right? [3]
Murricans are a funny breed--we allow sex, nudity, murder, blood and gore--and smoking--which I note Europeans warn about on their shows--but we pretend there is no such thing as pot. 'Splain that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gareth Griffith-Jones: Those poor people! That's tragic. Can they not get together and do something themselves without the government? That's what the dang crazy merricans do--we take up donations--and then get on with it best we can. Let the government try and get to floor eleven, right? I'm glad you liked the video, Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Welcome back! It sounds like a wonderful weekend. So they left the hoard sitting there or did I not read far enough?? Is it not worth anything in our modern day? Poor Vikings, that's just sad when your hoard loses its worth. What's a viking to do? We will all get to know our own countries better than we did before I'm guessing, so maybe some little good will come of all this. I have never been to Gotland either. Was the scenery pretty? I like visiting old battlefields too--they are very poignant I think. Glad you are home safely though! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. I never really look at the main page and would have missed it if you hadn't told me about it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I look at the Main page every day, thanking those who wrote the TFA, checking DYK and ITN, - but rarely scroll below to TFP and TFL, and just learned that - while all other sections are there every day - the list comes only twice a week. Views were more in DYK range than TFA, and I liked that the lost operas received more views than all other linked items, probably because it sounds a bit mysterious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Today's recommended reading: Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
They must have moved me. I joined WP in 2017, was here for about a year and experienced almost constant harassment from one particular editor. I am not the only one he harassed and he has since been banned from WP for at least a year. I was encouraged to return and see what it's like when no one is following you around and bullying you, so I did. I've been back about a month but I was gone for nearly two years and that must be why they moved me. I will go change it. Oh--and you will be finding several mentions of your name as I am telling everyone who was helping me with the Biblical criticism copyvio about you! You're my hero of the day! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones Fixed. The "#" symbol automatically adds the number, but I think she typed the number 252 after adding the symbol. And I just rejoined, but Jenhawk must not be aware her username is still on the list of "active" members after she was sent to the "inactive" list. She just needs to remove one of her signatures. Jerm (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha!! Well I screwed that up didn't I? I just copied myself from the inactive to the active list without checking. How is it they had me in both places? Oh well! Thanx to you Gareth Griffith-Jones and Jerm all is well now. I don't mean to be high maintenance but I sure am glad of friends who take such good care of me! I have been napping after missing so much sleep this week! So lovely! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
October editathons from Women in Red
Women in Red| October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179
@Gerda Arendt: Indeed! Lots of tree trash but no downed trees. If you can keep the windows intact, it's more likely you'll keep the roof on, and if you keep the roof on--unless a tree falls on the house--you are probably safe. We were without power for about 12 hours which was amazingly quick work on the part of the power people. Had all the bathtubs filled with water and didn't need them at all. Thank you for sending a thought upwards for us Gerda. What's a good song of gratitude and rejoicing to commemorate? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biblical criticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång If, as I assume, it is writing (for us on Wikipedia) being thus described - I love it! Thanx. It's nice to hear from you. Keeping busy I assume. I have been out of town for a month - went to stay with my mother for a bit. She is aging and unwell. I am home for a bit now. Praise God hallelujah and amen. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed an opinion on WP-editing. Sorry about your mother. My part of Sweden is slowly easing into winter, but with 10 degrees C and lots of rain we're not there yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi -- it's not successfully nominated yet -- after you put the template on the talk page you have to click on the "Initiate the nomination" link and create the nomination page, then add that to WP:FAC. The instructions at the top of WP:FAC should get you there, but if not, let me know and I'll help. A bot removed the link you added earlier since you didn't complete it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
It's gone! The template I put at the top of the talk page is gone! Did it go away because I didn't initiate? But I did save it so if I add the template back in will it create a second one?! I do not get this! Should I replace the template? Bless you Mike Christie. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure what you’re seeing. You should be able to just add {{subst:FAC}} to the article talk page and then click on the “Initiate nomination” link that that will create on the talk page. On WP:FAC there’s a section called “Nomination procedure”; are you following those instructions? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Thank you so much! I think it's right. It's on the list at the nomination page now and the template is at the top of the Talk page. I know this topic, I can write and research, but I find so many of these WP instructions intimidating, that I also know it sometimes takes a lot of extra patience dealing with me. Bless you for your kindness and patience. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Look, also Youtube videos, - enchanting, said a critic about the Mendelssohn that I heard on 3 October, - this video is older, and the YT in the article comes with a Bach encore as she played for us. - I put the FAC on my to-do-list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda Arendt !! I had either blissfully forgotten what an emotional wringer a FAC review is or had associated it all with my former nemesis so that I am not sure I was as mentally prepared as I thought. Neither was the article apparently. They think of things that don't occur to me, so lots of work to do I'm afraid on consistency of style within the references. I have gotten recommendations from friends that the reviewer doesn't like, so I am undoing a lot of extra work. One thing at a time. I will pedal as fast as I can! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the lovely image. It has turned cold here - I am up north with my mother right now - and I am not used to this weather anymore. I am a cold wimp! Just twiddling my thumbs at FAC right now. Have done what was asked and no one else has shown up to ask more. Waiting. I know you're busy, so I don't expect you, but there are others I pinged that I am hoping will take an interest. Nothing I can do but wait. There's been a big argument over something called wikicup - whatever the heck it is - that has been occupying everyone's attention, so maybe when that's done, reviewers will reappear. Thanx for thinking of me! Take care of yourself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, understand. SG was THE FAC authority already when I joined Wikipedia, DYK? The article is not everybody's field of interest, and long, - three good reasons to stay away ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
A-a-ah! SG certainly knows her stuff backwards and forwards. If this article succeeds at FA it will be due to her diligence and willingness to help. I learned more from the effort at FA the first time than I had previously learned the entire time I'd been on WP, and the same is true this time. It's like having a personal tutorial with demonstrations. It's absolutely wonderful. She's been completely tough and totally great. WP needs a training program, and this has been it for me. Poor SG having to put up with me, but she never lost her patience. She's been awesome. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey Mike Christie!! For an opportunity to practice even more kindness and patience you could jump in and participate in the FAC review yourself! What a great idea! That would be wonderful! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It is! Thank you Gerda Arendt for showing me. I rarely look at the main page and now think I should do that more often. I clicked on the pic by a blocked user, got a copy of an old version of your talk page and couldn't figure out what exactly you were referring to. The opera. is beautiful but you know my German is not the quality of your English so I missed half of what he said - but thank you for thinking of me! :-) Gerda thank you again for the FA review. Is there anything I can do for you in return - that doesn't involve reading German? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt I see you have removed the Lead equal signs that I added. I had to add them because I couldn't access it. The only other heading where I could edit source was collapsed. Sorry if I messed anything up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
It's your review, you can add headers as you like it. I thought a header in the TOC that leads to nowhere looked awkward. Perhaps move the collapse above it as long as you want to comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian ethics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation.
Hi -- just wanted to say that I'm planning to stop by and comment at the FAC for biblical criticism, and that I hope I can help smooth away any problems there might be. It's a big topic -- we don't often get articles like this at FAC, so that's a pleasure to see. I see Ergo Sum has just started a review so I might let them go through it first, and will post any comments I have after that. I'm looking forward to helping with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Mike Christie, by all means, please feel free to go ahead without waiting on me. I'm a bit busy right now off-wiki, so I might be a bit slow.
Jenhawk, I just wanted to stop by to say that FAC is a process best approached with a mountain of patience (a quality I struggle to manifest). Ironically, the very best articles are the ones that also go through the most grueling FACs because of their length, etc. Do not let this dissuade you. There are many editors here that want to help you get this article through once any wrinkles are smoothed out. Ergo Sum04:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
This is not the first time I have wept over this article, but this is the first time I have done so in relief and gratitude. Thank you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Collaboration
Hi again. I note that you have done a lot of work on articles involving Christianity, including a range of its myriad forms. 30 months ago I took Type of Constans to GA and have ever since had a hankering to take it to FAC. But I have lacked the theological sources - and to be frank the theological understanding. It may be that our inputs could be complementary. So, if you feel that you have access to the relevant sources and knowledge, would you care to collaborate on improving the article? If you don't, or if you lack the time or motivation, then that is not - obviously - a problem. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Actually it looks like you've done an excellent job. Most people won't have a clue what this is about, or care why it matters, but it is significant. You are right to want to include a more in depth explanation of the issues, but I'm afraid I am unsure how to be concise enough for WP without getting deep into the weeds of theology. This is more than you will want to know, I am absolutely sure of that, but let me demonstrate what I mean by getting in the weeds just so you'll know, and can make up your own mind on what to include.
Those outside the argument - inside and outside the church - just think it's petty - but the truth is, there is no single issue more crucial to "What should we think about these events - what kind of faith should we have?" than this one. "Was Jesus divine before coming to earth - or was he made divine only after he died? If he was divine before, did he give that up to become a man or bring some of it with him? When he was here, who was he? What was he?"
The disagreements began quickly. The gnostics were the first real group. They came along in the first century and said 'matter is evil' therefore a divine Christ could not have been a real human - he just looked like one without actually being one. If that's true, it negates all kinds of important things: the goodness of creation that is declared in Genesis one, and the basic goodness of humankind that is also in Genesis, and Jesus' real human suffering that is foundational to atonement, and much much more. The eventual response was to write the Nicene creed - which was more about affirming the human nature of Christ than the divine one as no one really doubted his divinity at that point in history.
But this didn't make the questions go away.
It all hovers around one of the oldest scriptures in the New Testament, Philippians 2:5–11, which is part of an old song. It is a remnant of the oral teachings dating from before the New Testament was written. There are actually several of these 'oral remnants' scattered throughout the New Testament. Since so many were illiterate, scholars believe the early church used easily memorizable short creeds, and songs, and such, to teach the basics to new converts, and then just incorporated them into the material they eventually wrote down.
It's verses 6-8 that cause the trouble. Verse 6 starts out saying: "Who, being in very nature God" or alternately "Who, existing in the form of God." The word for being/existing is the Greek hyparchōn whose meaning can be 'being' or 'existing' also includes "to be in possession of." The word for nature is morphe’ - the word we get amorphous and metamorphosis, anthropomorphism, and polymorphous and other such words from. It can mean form - or 'nature' - and it can also mean outward appearance. So which is it? Does this say Jesus had the nature of God as in 'the very nature of' or is it 'form' - as in 'he had the outward appearance without the inward reality'? Did coming here involve a change of "essence" or just a change of appearance? Think of all the questions that raises!
To make things more complicated, verse six goes on: "Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. The Greek for 'grasped' is harpagmos, and imo, figuring out its meaning, and the author's intent, (not Paul - remember this predates Paul), and all the baggage that has gone with it, has caused more conflict than any other word in history. Scholars simply do not agree on whether it is a verb or a noun, where it comes from, or what it means.
That's because harpagmos is only used this once in the entire NT, so there is nothing to compare it to. The Greek Septuagint uses harpazo, which might be a root word, but is not the word itself. Assuming this is the root doesn't tell us why the word evolved, or how, or what that change means. Its few secular appearances in Greek literature translate it as "rape" or "robbery": “taken by force.” It's difficult to understand how this meaning could fit with the first part of the sentence. King James has: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God". Honestly, does that make sense? So some have concluded this indicates Jesus wanted to take divinity, rob God of it, and therefore he never had it. He had one human nature here on earth and didn't become divine till after he was raised from the dead - if then.
Synonyms (harpagma and harpagmon) were found in Eusebius' histories that mean "an advantage" instead of take by force. This is all about active and passive verbs, but what it results in is this: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage." This at least makes a little sense within the context of the conversation about humility going on here in Philippians. This is the most widely accepted rendering amongst biblical scholars (NT Wright, Gordon D. Fee, J. C. O’Neill and so on). It is widely used in modern English Bible versions (NIV 2011,HCSB, GNT, AMP, NCV,ERV, NLV, NLT, NOG, MSG, ISV, GW, NRSV and CEV).
I deleted several paragraphs - whole books have been written on this - but I wanted you to see why this is an issue and some of what is implicated by it. All of Christianity was impacted by the decisions made, and that impact rippled outward for centuries. If you can figure out how to communicate that succinctly, then I will know you are probably divine as well. :-)
^Hoover, Roy W. “The Harpagmos Enigma: A Philological Solution.” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 64, no. 1, 1971, pp. 95–119. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1508973. Accessed 16 Nov. 2020.
^Shaner, Katherine A. " Seeing Rape and Robbery: ἁρπαγμαός and the Philippians Christ Hymn (Phil. 2:5-11) ". Biblical Interpretation 25.3 (2017): 342-363. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-00253p04 Web.
^Colyer, Peter J. (2014). The Self-emptying God An Undercurrent in Christian Theology Helping the Relationship with Science. Cambridge Scholars Publisher. ISBN9781443869836.
Well I am good at boiling complex issues down - it is one of the things I do on Wikipedia. Of course, you are probably going to end up thinking that I have over-simplified or even trivialised it. But if you can live with that creative tension we have a mission. I have a reasonable grip on the military, political and dynastic issues.
As you say, a pivotal moment in the evolution of Christianity, played out against some of the most seismic military events since the fall of western Rome. I know a fair bit more about writing for Wikipedia now than when I first put this together, so I will have a run through tomorrow - it is late here - tidying it up and flagging up where I think I need theological explication. Then you can point out the bits I have missed and we shall see where it leads. Obviously your work on your FAC takes priority, I understand that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
a pivotal moment in the evolution of Christianity, played out against some of the most seismic military events since the fall of western Rome is a brilliant sentence that should be included somewhere. :-) I indulged myself today, but will put FAC first again hereafter. I don't want waiting on me to cause any frustration for anyone. But I am genuinely looking forward to working with you. I have collaborated before and enjoyed it very much. I think WP produces its best work when we work together. Thank you for this opportunity. Have a good evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Jenhawk777! So you asked me which shows I like? I'm actually very obsessed with the Turkish TV series Diriliş: Ertuğrul and it's sequel, Kuruluş: Osman. They're a lot like Game of Thrones, just that they're based on historical events and people. Also, I have a question for you. Are you a Christian? You seem to be interested in editing Christianity-related articles! I was in fact a Muslim a long time ago, I'm not a Muslim anymore but my parents don't know about it. Currently, I'm an Atheist. Limorina (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Limorina Forgive me, it is 2 in the morning and I am beat to death, I will write more when I can, but I am in the middle of two reviews right now. Things will slow down eventually. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Indents
Jen, I saw you asked someone about indenting; this is something I didn't learn to do correctly until I'd been editing here for several years. The rule is easy to remember, but hard to figure out if you don't know it.
You probably already know that ":" indents, and "*" indents with a bullet. If you are posting in the middle of a discussion, and the previous line is some mixture of ":" and "*", then the rule is: copy what the person you're replying to did, and add a ":" if you want to indent, or a "*" if you want to indent with a bullet.
For example, if you responding to a bulleted list, where every entry has a "*" at the start, if you want a bullet for your response, copy the "*" and add a "*", like so:
* Blah blah blah.
** Response.
This will produce:
Blah blah blah.
Response.
If you just want to indent without bullets, it would be "*:" instead of "**" for the response; that produces:
Blah blah blah.
Response.
For long strings it's the same rule -- reply to "*::::" with either "*:::::" or "*::::*", for example. A couple of notes: if you leave blank lines, then start with something like ":*:", it can look weird -- you can get double bullets. It's usually best not to leave blank lines in complex interleaved commentary for that reason -- see WP:LISTGAP for more information. You will sometimes see other editors come along and close up gaps in lists for that reason. The original reason for the rule was that a list in an article would look bad if there were gaps; it's much less important in talk page discussions but sometimes people close up the gaps anyway.
Mike Christie That is both clear and helpful, thank you! I have not been in discussions with bullets before this FA, so I had no previous experience, and the one person who told me how to do them did them in combination with each other and it confused me. I have been creating empty lines between the separate bullets because it is so hard to read them in edit source and easy to get lost in the mass of writing. I separate them so I can find them, but if that's wrong I will quit doing it. There are so many little details like this on WP. I despair of ever learning them all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually the blank lines are fine if they’re between bullets; it’s when you put a blank line in the middle of some indentations more than one deep that they cause problems. And yes, it can be hard to find the right bullet in the wiki text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh good! Lines between bullets make it easier for me to find stuff in the wiki text. I haven't knowingly inserted lines in the middle I don't think - but who knows? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
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.
HouseBlaster WHOA! That sinks it for a bit. I had no idea. Please put the GA on hold for now, and I will fix these, then I can renominate later. Should have done the detector myself. I know better and I apologize. Blast! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
HouseBlaster I know that I did not copy that. Let me see if it's a backwards copy vio. That has happened to me four times on BC. I'll get back to you on this. I suspect that's what's going on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that's what it is alright. It's a speed dating site from Belgium. I will go put a backwards copy vio template for both of those and exclude them. What a pain. Notify whoever you need that thiese are backwards copy vios not actual ones. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
HouseBlaster If I have done this correctly, those two sites are now on the excluded url list and running the copy-vio again should mean that they don't show up. The next site mentioned - the Catholic one that shows 35% chance or whatever - always shows that same quote, but it is quoted, so it's not a violation. The detector doesn't always recognize and overlook quotes. You just have to check that it's properly quoted. Isn't this the weirdest thing? The first time it happened to me it totally freaked me out. This makes 6 backwards copyright violations on my articles! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I'm late to this discussion! I too found the backwards copyright violations using earwig during my review. Glad they're not legitimate :). DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa SångDocFreeman24 With "nude videos" and porn!!! But it's a supposedly "Christian" dating site, so I guess they think an article with Christian in the title will attract them! Yeah this makes 6 now between the two articles. It still blows my mind! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Ha ha!!! Wouldn't that be fun! Remember when someone made a stink about the image of Eve at the top of the page? I can hardly imagine what the explosion following that suggestion would involve!!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving!
Jerm (talk) has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!
Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The prayer is translated from the song (which was DYK the day before, see the link), anonymous 19th century:
God father, son and spirit be praised
unite what is divided
give those who lead us the light of your wisdom
give our world the peace
give us the strength to heal
let us love and praise you with the angels
Amen. - We - group of pilgrims to the (Catholic) Kreuzkapelle - sang it - all stanzas while in a service it's normally just three - outside the (Protestant) church of Walsdorf [de] (makes me think that also should have an article) on 19th September, two day's after a funeral also remembered on my talk. The refrain says "Heiliger dreieinger Gott", holy three-united (?) God, and then, as the article says, "Licht im Leben, Heil im Tod", light in life, wholeness in death. Amen. - Heil is probably the word most abused in German. It should have to do with Heilig (holiness) and Heilen (healing). Better translation? Where divided parties unite, there's healing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I am willing to help in theory, but I don't know how much I will really write. Most of my original work on Wikipedia has been in templates, lists, and categories. When I have created articles they have been about (the less controversial) history, or very short. Until now I have only borrowed books on Christian ethics, but plan one buying one or two, and might write a little. I am always willing to be a sounding board though. tahcchat20:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
tahc Okay, I just wanted to be sure you weren't feeling excluded. You do whatever you are comfortable with. If you're happy then I'm happy. As to owning books, no one can own all the many books we use on WP - not even me and I have a wall full and more. I use google books, google scholar, and the resource library here at WP. I will take advantage of your offer to be a sounding board especially when it comes to that history article. Keep in touch, okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones !!! Hello friend. Thank you. It's been a bit stressful working on a GA and an FA at the same time, but I didn't nominate them together! If Biblical criticism finally makes it to FA after all this time, I am thinking I will never do another one! The people have been great, but the level of detail they focus on is not my strength. It's had me in tears a time or two, but now that the Rfc is resolved on Christian ethics and HCTP is done, maybe I will be able to relax a little. Getting ready for the holidays in RL, how about you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, don't knock yourself out! I'm doing fine and being ultra-careful on social distancing. Worried about the increasing division of the US that is being stoked by Trump. And clearly, there is more ahead. I would describe his actions as treason. And we look like having a rough, tough, dog biscuit on January 1, 2021. All the best! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones Hasn't the whole political thing been the most absurd you have ever seen? I have never witnessed anything else like it in my entire life. Only in America! America is a great country, but it is also occasionally an embarrassing country to be from... Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I was told in no uncertain terms at the Teahouse today that Donald Trump "did FAR more to battle [the pandemic] than ANY president ever in american history", hopefully we can all agree on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
LOL!! I had to read that one out loud to my husband! OMG! Representative of Trump supporters I suppose not to recognize he is the only President to have to deal with a pandemic, but thank goodness he won't be the last! I don't like Biden, but a yellow dog would be better than Trump. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, and thank you
Thought I should post here too. Life and some personal things have caught up with me and I don't have the energy left to finish an in-depth FAC review. I wish I could do more, and I'm sorry.
I wanted to express my sincere gratitude to you and Axl, along with the chorus of people who already have. I can only imagine how much thinking, writing, and research went into biblical criticism, from this to its current state. It's amazing... in my months here I haven't seen such an article risen like a phoenix from stubby (maybe Start-class) ashes. You say that the reviewing editors restored some faith in this place; your work has reinforced my faith too. Thank you. Ovinus (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Ovinus No apologies necessary, it happens to us all. Bless you and thank you for that. It is deeply appreciated, and if you collapse your comments or strike them at the Fac that would help - and then copy this comment of yours and post it at the Fac review, that would be even greater! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian ethics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.
I suspect that Wikkipedia is feeling like a large and confusing place at the moment. It may or may not help to hear that I consider this perfectly normal. I still feel that way sometimes. This reflective essay - User:Gog the Mild/Reflections on my first year's editing - gives an insight into my feelings after my first year of serious activity. It reminds me of a description of life (the real sort) "Most days it's just stumbling around in the dark with the rest of creation, smashing into things and wondering why it hurts."
Do you have any insight to the chaotic situation which seems to unfold on to so many saint/historical figures? Hildegard of Bingen for instance, the double infobox is surely less than ideal – and her work in the sciences, philosophy, music etc, is surely more significant than her being a saint? Augustine of Hippo as well has two infoboxes and two sidebars... Aza24 (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Aza24 Hi! Nice to meet you! I know nothing about info-boxes except that they are controversial and seem to cause everyone a lot of grief. I don't add them or remove them from articles I work on, but I have to say I agree with you that her work, if not more important, is certainly at least as important - surely! You have the ability to edit and add to info-boxes too you know, so I say Be Bold! Tell people why and what and then DO! I only added one section on Augustine and it was pretty much a finished article before I got there. Good luck! If you decide to modify that info box, come back and tell me how it goes. Hopefully your reasoning will be accepted as good enough that there won't even be a ripple. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Infoboxes are surely controversial, but perhaps more on whether they should or shouldn't be included into articles, not if there should be two or one of them. I suppose I meant to ask that, given your work on Christianity related topics, is there a reason that the infoboxes for these, among many articles are split into two and not combined into one? Is the idea of Hildegard/Augustine the saint vs the historical person so different that they should be presented as two figures hence two different infoboxes? If not, I'll see what I can do about starting a discussion to alter one of the infoboxes to be combinable with the other. Aza24 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Aza24 Sorry if I wasn't clear. You are right, they should not be split. Definitely start that discussion, then just do it. If you have to start an Rfc or third opinion, I will come and put in my two cents. Then you can do it, but surely no one will oppose. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
To all of you who supported me and did their level best to help get BC through its FAC, I can't tell you how grateful I am for all you did, and how sorry I am to have let you down yet again. Please forgive me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The Christianity Barnstar
You deserve this for your herculean efforts to improve Biblical criticism and respond to the comments at its recent FAC. As Gog mentioned in the closing note, with some additional work it will have a good chance at passing next time around. {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I hope the wording of your message at the talk page isn't meant to imply you're leaving Wikipedia. FA or no FA, Wikipedia needs knowledgeable contributors like you. A. Parrot (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
A. Parrot Thank you, that's kind of you to say. Taking a break for a bit. I invested too much in BC. We will see what the new year holds but probably not coming back to it any time soon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Jenhawk, you certainly have not let me down. Maybe take a break for a month or two. I am sure that you can push this article through in the new year. Axl¤[Talk]06:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Axl Dearheart I think I may feel worst of all about you. If I think I can drum up the stamina, I will follow your advice - maybe sometime in the new year. Maybe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
You've let no one down, Jenhawk, by any stretch of the imagination. FAC is hard—so I've seen now—but I'd love to help with (informally or formally) peer reviewing the article over months. And a good break is well-deserved. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Jen, you have not let me down (and I'm a bit irritated that you think so). The article is much improved. Take it to peer review, please, best immediately, now that we still remember. That can run for half a year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I let everyone who invested in this article down. There is no other way to look at it. It's my work that wasn't good enough. I don't see any way for that to change either, but I will take a break for awhile, and see what's what down the road. Thank you for your support and your friendship. They mean a lot - especially when I irritate you. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
You can't tell me what lets me down, because only I know what lets me down. Star or no star means nothing to me, only article quality. Take all breaks good for you, but for me it's better to have you around because you lift me up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång That's a good description of what it felt like. You know when I came back after my year and a half absence, I couldn't even look at BC. It was too painful. Then due to someone else, I got back involved in it again, and this time it's worse. I have just spent way too much time on one article, invested too much in it. I think I need to let it go. I will take a break for awhile regardless. Hope you have a wonderful holiday season. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with all the above; Jen, you’d be a loss to Wikipedia if you don’t come back after a break, and the article is close to passing and you can certainly shepherd it through now enough others are engaged with it. Of course it’s a big disappointment this time round, but it’s not at all unusual for an article on a major topic to take two or three rounds to pass FAC. And there are hundreds of other articles that you could help with, given your specialist knowledge. Please take as long a break as you need, but don’t give up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
Mike Christie I will take that break - maybe come back when I can stop crying. I will try and take your encouragement to heart and let the rest go. When I come back, maybe you could send me some of those articles you think I can help on. I am thinking I need to just let BC go. It has taken too much. Working on other things would be good. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Ping me whenever you're ready to come back and let's talk then about what articles would be good to work on. I don't know whether you should give BC another try or delay it for a while but there's no need to decide that now. And as Gråbergs Gråa Sång says, your efforts have made a huge difference: remember that the quality of the article and the FA star are not the same thing -- of course the FA star is recognition, but the article has been transformed by your efforts regardless of whether there's a star at the top. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Wishing you a joyful Christmas and a happy New year. We would like to use this occasion for giving thanks for editors like you for your works on editing, maintaining and expanding this encyclopedia. May the glorious message of peace and love fill you with joy during this wonderful season.
One Voice at Christmas-a 2016 Christmas album by the Welsh singer Aled Jones and produced by Classic FM.
"Christmas is not a time nor a season, but a state of mind. To cherish peace and goodwill, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas!"
Hello Jenhawk777, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, History DMZ(talk)+(ping)01:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
HouseBlaster UGH!! I am trapped in an FA right now and see no sign of release. I can't see me ever doing this again. Remind me of this next year when the insanity grips me, and I start thinking of doing this again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations, Jen, and see my talk today for an image of two women, article nominated for deletion but rescued with the help of many, - I laughed so much when I saw oatmeal, because the last post I read was about that there's probably scholarship on what Beethoven had for breakfast. After having looked at her article, you please look at the top of this page, and laugh! FAC is no question of life and death. Take courage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt Bless you dearheart. You are just what I needed today. And you're right of course, FAC is no life or death, but BC should be one, and as it will probably be the only one I will ever do, I would like to complete it. One reviewer sent me a link to what the article looked like before I redid it, remarking on the amount of work I had done. It's been so long, I had forgotten what it was like before I started removing and replacing unsourced and badly sourced statements and replacing them in some order. That helped too. People have mostly been amazingly wonderful. I love that people working together saved an article. That helps too. I love all your posts on music, they are always uplifting, so that helps too. Just being around being you helps. I'm so grateful you are my friend here Gerda. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, blushing a bit. I'm busy (Beethoven 250 years DYK, ... wanted a DYK for him, was challenged to do something really related to him, not just someone else related, a big challenge, because most of his better works had well developed articles, so not easy to multiply by five, but I took the challenge, and just managed!!), - so brief questions: "should be one", and why? It's good content for readers, isn't that enough? "... probably the only I will ever do", and why? Why set yourself limits? Finally: assuming good faith is one of the best foundations here. You know that he died who left us ten rules and "have a laugh"? The greatest shock for me in 2018. In 2019, Brianboulton, who - with Tim riley - introduced me to FAC. This year, it was Jerome Kohl. - Back to Beethoven, need to make qpq reviews, for "mine" and the list of his monuments by Aza24. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
BC should be a FAC because it's an important article that will be viewed a lot. These kinds of articles tend to be more important to readers than editors. It's already been backwards copied four times - once in an article in a published journal!! Word for word! So yes, if anything should be among the best of WP, this article needs to be that - not for the recognition of it - but for the actual quality. That's what matters, and having these really gifted people go through it with a fine tooth comb has polished it just as I hoped. After that I suppose it doesn't matter if it passes, the quality is still there. I am attempting to follow the ten rules as best I can, but I'm an American. Every now and then I feel driven to get out my gun... JOKE! That's a joke! Don't panic! I am just thoroughly annoyed this morning - and that's why I probably won't do this again. I feel better after talking to you. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
What a sweet thing to say, thank you! I give you three songs in return (sort of), and two are about courage. The list is on top of the pic, in case you missed it. Jöcker's song is too short for its own article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I add one when there's a good one with a good license. Jöcker is under copyright. There must be hundreds for "Kein schöner Land". I heard the one calling to seriously prepare one's heart in the morning, image also on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Take a complete break! I mean absolutely complete. Do not login to WP during what remains of December. You are too valuable to lose. Come back refreshed when it feels ameliorated, not before. Take care. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones Well, I didn't take a complete break, but I took a partial one, where I just worked when I felt like it, just by myself, and it's been good. I'm good now. I so appreciate your understanding and support. I have taken this way too much to heart and need to just let it go. I hope you and yours had a wonderful holiday season. Covid has put a crimp in everything, but I have high hopes for the vaccine. Don't know when we'll all be able to get it, but hopefully before too long. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A belated happy New Year!
Hey Jenhawk,
Sorry for not wishing you this earlier—I just came back from an enforced break. I hope you had a festive holiday season! And hope you had a good break yourself, if you decided to do that. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ovinus!! So glad to hear from you! I hope that break was enforced only by you, and that it did exactly what you needed it to. I took a kind of semi-break where I did some writing and research that I thoroughly enjoyed but didn't really interact with anyone else. I finished rewriting Christian ethics! I'm pretty pleased with the result. I intend to post a peer review request for it soon, but will probably tweak some things, since I just last night finished it, and they say don't make changes after asking for review. So I will wait a bit to post the request, but I would thoroughly enjoy a 'look see' from you if you felt like taking that time. It's also perfectly fine if you don't! Happy new year to you and yours as well! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes it was enforced by myself, I used a wikibreak enforcer script that prevented me from logging in for a while. I'm glad you had some enjoyment and could destress. And I will certainly take a look: I'll read over the article tonight and take notes at User:Ovinus/Notes_on_Christian_ethics. Ovinus (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Copyvios exclusions
Hi Jenhawk777, thanks for your additions to the copyvios exclusions list. I wanted to give you a gentle reminder to not forget the closing slash in the </nowiki> tag: [6][7]. The page is automatically parsed by the tool, so it's important to get the syntax right. Separately, and less importantly, I think these sites should be put under the mirrors section, as they seem to be (maliciously) copying our content, and aren't public domain. — The Earwigtalk05:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The Earwig Bless you, thank you, and I am so sorry! Thank you for fixing those for me. I will be more careful in the future.
I have no understanding of any of this and was just guessing where to put them, but I absolutely agree, they are malicious. I think they are fishing sites that just want your credit card info. So, do I need to go back and make that change? Or did you already move them? What is a mirror site anyway? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, thank you! A mirror is another website that copies Wikipedia's content (described at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks). Lots exist due to Wikipedia's popularity, especially for well established articles. Users who deal with copyvios are usually good about catching them vs. genuine sources, so I wouldn't usually bother with flagging them (and drawing attention to them) with {{backwards copy}}, unless it's actively causing confusion. Adding to the exclusion list is a good idea, though. — The Earwigtalk06:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I posted a backwards copy tag on the article's talk page because using the copyvio detector and seeing a 98% violation show up is a shock! I don't want any misunderstandings! This is my sixth backwards violation on various articles I have written! It still shocks me to see it! On Biblical criticism I had one show up in a published journal article! Fortunately, that made it easy to prove backwards copy with the date it was published.
I tried to post this one on the page the article redirects to, but it's an insecure site and I got locked out.
Thank you so much for your help with this. I didn't know you were a real person!! I'm glad to make your acquaintance. Is there a way for me to tell in the future what's in the public domain and what's a mirror site? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm definitely real, yes! Public domain sources aren't the norm and usually easy to catch; they will often be declared as such and are usually very old or found on government websites. An example is Encyclopedia Brittanica from 1911. Our guideline on plagiarism means these still need to be attributed in the article. For mirror sites, you can look for direct references to Wikipedia, formatting issues (for example, websites that copy our citation style incorrectly like "Some text.[1][2]"), or a publication date (being published after the Wikipedia article was written almost certainly means they copied from us). — The Earwigtalk21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The Earwig I'm glad you're real! You're also really nice. :-) This is helpful. I had a completely backwards understanding. By this definition, those are clearly mirror sites. I'll remember all of this, so thank you. I'm sure there will be more of these in my future. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Here in the Old South, where we value good manners over lesser things like sincerity, and honesty, we have a phrase: "damned by faint praise". It means the person doing the praising really didn't like it, but was too polite to say so. Those who know the 'code' know what their statement of "It was fine" or "It was interesting" really means. You probably don't have such craziness in Sweden. Aren't you glad you don't live here? :-)
She isn't responding, so I feel that my bare un-southern honesty probably offended her, but in my old age, I have decided all that crap is just a waste of time. I will always be as polite as I can, but I am into truth and straightforwardness now. Communication is too easy to get wrong, no one needs those games on top. I didn't think you were someone who practiced polite misdirection, but I was being sure I knew you as well as I think I do! She is certainly someone who is less than honest with herself more than anyone else. And I didn't say that! So - restraint! I will try not to dislocate my shoulder patting myself on the back for that... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
We probably agree on most things, however, I think we just do a completely different reading of history. You say: “One misogynist pig does not a universe make. Most human beings, including men, are decent and try hard to be as moral as they can, and that includes being fair to others.”. You later say: “There would need to be some actual data, a study of some kind, that demonstrated this as a dependable fact for the majority, and not simply personal perception based on partial information, and my grandmother not withstanding, there isn't. One person's personal experience does not prove anything about the breadth of experiences across society. That's why personal experience is called 'anecdotal’.”
The injustice committed against women is NOT anecdotal. If you want actual data, I will just refer you to the whole history of Humanity. Let me explain:
Starting with their body, women for the past 4,000 years have had no rights. (Apart from some anecdotal occasions and societies) Their bodies were not theirs. They were allocated to a man like any other asset, like cattle or land. We gave birth like animals. One after another. 10, 15 babies, whatever. Most of them died in infancy. Did women want that if they had had a choice? No. Do you want evidence? Well, the fact is that when we have been able, we have had fewer babies, better fed, better educated. Were women forced to have 10, 15 kids? The toll that many children took on their physical and mental health is inimaginable. I don’t think we women had a choice.
For most of history we have not been able to own property (specially if we were married), we were not allowed to study, to be leaders in the community, majors, governors, judges, business owners, doctors or lawyers. Those mideives, who managed to make a living helping deliver babies (who better than them who had so many?) were seen with suspicion and sometimes burned at the stake. According to John Stuart Mill we were no very far from mere slaves (i recommend you read ‘The Subjection of Women’ if you havent).
Most men have for thousands of years actively taken advantage of this because it was in their interest. Not just one or two. 99.99% periodic…We disagree on what is normal or acceptable. I do not consider acceptable or normal that hardly any man in history has fought with everything they had to change this. To make the lives of their daughter and granddaughters better. You say men could not imagine what it was like to be a woman? They only had to ask. There are some exceptions. According to WP, Marcus Cicero (whose ‘On obligations’ and ‘On Friendship’ should be part of every teenager school curriculum) considered misogyny an illness, probably cause by a fear of women. John Stuart Mill petitioned for women’s votes in the British parliament in 1866. Apparently influenced by his wife Harriet Taylor Mill who was a philosopher and a feminist.
And then there’s Jesus of Nazareth. Where do I start? No only did he, according to the Gospel of Mary, taught Mary Magdalene things he did not teach the rest of the Apostles, he also told Martha of Bethany to stop cleaning to listen like her sister Mary. Think about how revolutionary this was. A leader with thousands of followers, telling women to stop doing what they were supposed to be doing and do what they really should be doing that is to learn. He stopped the mobs from stoning the adulterous woman. Not by patronising her like: “come on guys, dont be so harsh, she is just a woman. Have compassion.” No no. He told them: “who the hell do you think you are? I KNOW all of you have sinned as much as her in the past. Come on, lets see who is the brave one to say he hasnt and be the first one to throw the first stone!”. Again, this was revolutionary. He was confronting his fellow men. He was asking for trouble (which he got).
Just to be clear. I am just a mother of two from London, trying to do her job and homeschooling at the same time. Who enjoys playing the piano and a G&T. My time for WP is negative. I dont know who our supposed mutual acquaintance Grabergs is. I have edited just three or four articles. But when I read that sentence is shocked me for how preposterous it is. How can be HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that Jesus ever advocated complete equality between the sexes when he was always on the side of the disadvantaged? When he said the last ones would be the first ones? And we, women, were definitely the last ones? One could even argue he wanted MORE than equality, that he wanted the roles and the powers to be reversed! Can’t you see how absurd that sentence is? They may as well suggest that everything Jesus said, he didn’t, actually, really mean? And this is not about women in particular. If women were in power and men treated the way we were treated, there is no question which side Jesus would have been on. Maybe that is why so many women followed him, far too many, like you say, for the Roman Empire’s liking. Thats why they were probably happy to die and be eaten by lions on the arena. They saw Jesus as the only way out. They saw him as the way out of misery.
The article said that the BEST ATTESTED fact if the twelve apostles were men. Why best attested in comparison to what? The visit of the three wise men visiting the manger? And he never says “to the exclusion others”. They just happened to be men and it was the beginning of his ministry (and that group of men, we dont know about other groups…). And then i had to hear from an editor that Jesus defending the adulterous women was no historically accurate! What in the gospel is historically accurate? Where is the archeological evidence? And why those events that happen to be “not accurate” seem to always work against women’s benefit? We don’t have to included EVERYTHING scholars say, specially if it is ridiculous and prejudiced. Would we also include their comments if they said the earth is flat because Jesus never said it was round?
Can you not see why my trust is eroded?
Of course christianity has been unfair to women (and anything other than equality IS unfair). Religions are a reflection of the society. Those in power will pick and choose what it is convenient to them (like Ehrman). But Jesus of nazareth? Give me a break. He did NOT pick and choose.
You say most people want to do good. Look at history, a long list of wars, slavery, fights between egocentric kings, death, mass rape...look at the world we live in and some of the way some countries are run. In the US elections 70million people voted for a man who is as corrupt, disrespectful and narcissistic as one can possibly be. You can be as naive as you like but does not do anyone any good. Think what trying to think the best of people did to Germany in the 30s and 40s…Jesus for one wasn’t naive. He was well aware of our tendencies to sin, to do nothing, to think everything will be ok so that we don’t have to fight. No Jen. We people will mostly take the convenient easy way out. (But then I am from the beautiful Basque Country. Always ready to fight :D )
Oh and my theology is not confused. That was rude ;P. It is crystal clear. ‘Where are the women?” was a genuine question. Are we being silenced or bullied? I definitely felt both. That is why i posted on Jimbo’s website.
Sofiairiondo First, “One misogynist pig does not a universe make. Most human beings, including men, are decent and try hard to be as moral as they can, and that includes being fair to others.”. was a specific comment, about the specific individual which you made a specific accusation of bias against, at a specific time - now - on the specific environment of WP asking specifically to change WP in response. It was not a comment on all of history. That's because history is not relevant.
The only valid question here is, what happened, specifically, with you? A general historical tendency cannot be used to answer that. One cannot safely make assumptions about today based on yesterday. That's a logic error. Lots of philosophers and logicians, such as Hume, have demonstrated it. It's because individuals are not predictable. Individuals sometimes follow patterns, but sometimes they don't, and in fact, individuals break with history relatively frequently. Those are "paradigm shifts" on a large scale, rebellion on a small scale, or revolution, as you see fit, but history is filled with such shifts and breaks and jumps and starts.
Large groups are predictable because of the effect of large numbers, which can form patterns and see trends, and those statistics can be used to make predictions - but only for those large groups; they cannot be used to predict or explain what any individual will or 'did' do. Stanley Milgram did a famous experiment back in 1974. He was Jewish, and he wanted to know whether what had happened in Nazi Germany could happen here: how could ordinary people bring themselves to turn a blind eye and participate in the Holocaust? So he did an experiment demonstrating that it could happen here, because people can be pressured and coerced into doing "evil" by authority figures - but not all of them. There were always a number of people who would refuse, take the consequences for themselves, buck the pressure, buck history, and do what they knew was right. History is one thing. Individuality is another. Judging the world based on the assumption that no one can be different from history is an error in judgment. It's the opposite of the rule we have here of assuming good faith, which is basically just treat others as you want to be treated - not how you feel you've been treated. That's Jesus' biggest ethical rule. It isn't based on history, it's based on hope and faith and good will.
A history of men taking advantage of women does not prove anyone took advantage of you. A history of men taking advantage of women does not prove any specific individual man will do so. That's over-generalization, and it's a wrong - and destructive - way of thinking.
Damn straight Jesus was a revolutionary! If you had checked out any of those references I recommended you would have found that most NT scholars agree with you: part of where he was most revolutionary was in his treatment of women. There is lots of good support for that view - it is the majority view - and it would be relatively easy to trash E and S. I personally disagree with Ehrman on nearly everything he says, and I don't have much respect for the quality of his scholarship, so I thoroughly enjoy seeing him get a good thrashing, but if you don't have the time to do the research, you don't have the time to write on WP. Our standards are high, but that's why WP has survived where so many others like it have failed.
You ask me Can you not see why my trust is eroded? and I am answering that yes, I see, but that no, it doesn't mean that I think it is justified. Deal with each individual separately. Deal with each instance separately. Do not bring assumptions based on historical trends into these specifics until you have specific evidence that it belongs. From what I have seen, you do not have specific evidence of bias on the editor's part. You wrote: The article said that the BEST ATTESTED fact if the twelve apostles were men. Why best attested in comparison to what? The visit of the three wise men visiting the manger? And he never says “to the exclusion others”. They just happened to be men and it was the beginning of his ministry (and that group of men, we dont know about other groups…). And then i had to hear from an editor that Jesus defending the adulterous women was no historically accurate! What in the gospel is historically accurate? Where is the archeological evidence? And why those events that happen to be “not accurate” seem to always work against women’s benefit? We don’t have to included EVERYTHING scholars say, specially if it is ridiculous and prejudiced. Would we also include their comments if they said the earth is flat because Jesus never said it was round?
So, one at a time: Best attested is a specific standard. Here is a blog explaining some of the criteria used for judging the historicity of the NT: [8] Please read some of it, skim it at least, these are important and will be ongoing aspects of discussions if you continue to write on religion on WP.
The story of the adulterous woman is widely accepted among scholars as being added at a later time. That doesn't prove the event didn't happen, and such an assumption is unwarranted, but it wasn't included originally and so it makes it questionable. This: And why those events that happen to be “not accurate” seem to always work against women’s benefit? has nothing to do with that being written later.
What in the gospels is historically accurate? Well I think it's been effectively demonstrated that most of it is.
We don’t have to included EVERYTHING scholars say, specially if it is ridiculous and prejudiced. Would we also include their comments if they said the earth is flat because Jesus never said it was round? Actually yes we do, and if you go look, you will find mention of those who believe in a flat earth on articles where it is relevant. We don't pick and choose what we want to include based on whether we agree or not. If we did, that would make each of us the authority on that matter and on what basis can you claim that? We quote the authorities, we aren't them. There is no original work allowed on WP for that reason. If you want to write what you think, my advice is to start a blog.
Most people do want to do good. Look at history, but when you do so, look at who was doing what, and how many there were, and whether it was the majority. There have always been those who don't want good, but they are outnumbered. Most people just want to be left alone to live their lives, play their music, love who they love and live in peace. There have always been screw ups, but they don't last do they? Look at history. Do. Good always fights back, doesn't it? Yes people voted for Trump and then enough others didn't that he is now gone. You can't just see one side. Not if you are going to write on WP - or be happy in life. And I don't agree Christianity has, overall, been unfair to women. Not so. But we can argue about that one later, for now, this is one of the longest talk posts I have ever written, my dinner is ready, so I am done for now. I don't mind you posting more here, but I would like to see some evidence of a willingness to learn and adapt. If you don't ever read any of the things I suggest, I will eventually assume the opposite, and then we will part ways. I will wait and see what you do with this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Jen,
I disagree with most of what you say. If I felt treated unfairly by WP is because I had ALREADY been treated unfairly. And history is ALWAYS relevant.
Jesus I am sure he assumed good faith (as I did when I first wrote), until he was proven wrong, as I was. When he called the pharisees hypocrites and white washed tombs I am SURE he was not referring to ALL of them...
Regarding the adulterous woman. Have you considered it might have been taken out BECAUSE of how revolutionary it was and then someone with some morals put it back in when it was found it have been taken out? The SAME WAY some people are trying to get rid of it NOW?? It made not sense to make it up, and include it at a time when they called Mary Magdalene a prostitute. What are you doing Jen, helping them with this nonsense? I copy what I said on the talk page: "The article of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery has some points that indicate that it may have been there earlier than some scholars think "However, in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398) was discovered in Egypt, in which Didymus states that "We find in certain gospels" an episode in which a woman was accused of a sin, and was about to be stoned, but Jesus intervened "and said to those who were about to cast stones, ‘He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and throw it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take a stone and smite her.’ And no one dared," and so forth. This is far from a direct quotation, but it may be a loose summary of the episode. Barring the possibility that Didymus was referring to some other Gospel than the four-Gospel collection that was typically used in the churches in his time[citation needed], this reference appears to establish that the passage was present in its usual place in some Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 300s onwards."
If this paragraph is true it is extremely telling. I think it is very plausible that this passage had been taken out of manuscripts as it was (and is) revolutionary and someone with some principles found out and put it back in. Think about it. It makes no sense at all to 'make up' such a passage in such a patriarcal society."
Knowing how men have treated women through history (and that is why history IS important), if there is anything in the Bible about Jesus taking the women's side, you can easiy assume he did 10, 20 or 100 times more...
Most people do good because it looks really bad to do bad, because people know you have to be decent to live in society or you wont get far AND being really bad gets you in trouble. But most people will look the other way. Ask any black person...
I think you and I will always disagree. I have lots to learn but so do you. I am sure you have read C.S. Lewis. Pride is the worst sin. He calls it pure evil.
Apparently the bit at the end of Mark about Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene was also added later.
The Gospel of Mary was not included in the bible (of course).
The bit about Jesus being born to a virgin woman was probably made up but it happens to imply good women should not have sex (no one wants women having sex when they feel like it...).
Why the things that are made up and the ones that are kept ALWAYS seem to go against women?
About the US election. I think if you remove the female vote and the black and other minorities votes, you will find that if it was up to (mainly white) men, that man would have been re-elected. Think about it. Sofiairiondo (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
Quotations related to Calvin Coolidge at Wikiquote
_(5247428631).jpg)
