User talk:Jaredscribe

No one has left me a barnstar yet. You could be the first!

On second thought, I don't need 'em. What I would really appreciate is ... some WP:CANDOR on the following projects and occasional content disputes. But don't take sides with me, take sides with the WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Have I been blocked? Rather than simply logging me out with no explanation, will some wise WP:WikiElf please inform this user that he has been blocked, and for how long, and for what subject matter? Read the history on the article Antony Blinken, if you want to know the facts of this dispute. I left them in the edit summaries. Basically, the Knights who say "ni" are at it again. Y'all should stop empowering them. Banishing my kind will have unintended consequences that are harmful to the other species. (Previous content refactored into a separate essay)

Jaredscribe (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Jaredscribe (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe. You aren't blocked from editing. I'm not sure who the rest of your help request is addressed to. If, after my confirmation, you still need further help, feel free to file another help request with clear and concise questions. Best, Darren-M talk 11:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the login session expiring often, this happened to me yesterday, seemingly randomly and sometimes minutes apart. I didn't check as it didn't persist but WP:VPT may be a good place to inquire about it. —PaleoNeonate – 18:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? —valereee (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PaleoNeonate, it happened to me a dozen times over the course of a few hours, and I accidentally made some IP edits. I think it was on the National Security Council article, but it might have been elsewhere. Now everyone knows who I really am. :) I didn't know about WP:VPT before, thanks for teaching me something useful.Jaredscribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some Elf Lord Darren-M could research the database and tell me, because I forgot. If I've committed any vandalism or trolling, or other artwork, I'd like to credited please. And if in the future I do get blocked, will you at least allow my talk page? And where do I go from the outside to learn the status of the account block?Jaredscribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a WP:WikiWarlock watching from above and practicing the dark arts on us, please stop. Just tell the world on my tribute wall who I am and what I've done. Wikpedia is all about collaborative research, right? When in doubt, just write an essay. Magic is stupid and unproductive. It takes as payment that which you value most, and the power that it gives in return ends up enslaving the one who wields it.Jaredscribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee Why do you even ask?Jaredscribe (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because I can't figure out what you're getting at. This whole elf/knight epic fantasy thing you think is somehow important re: your recent edits, the fact you seem to think there's a conspiracy w/re that, the fact you aren't blocked and never have been...I just don't get it. What are you even talking about? —valereee (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Antifa (United States). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bacondrum (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion page, I alleged that a non-WP:NPOV exists in the article. I furthermore observed that, the page being protected to users with 500+ edits, you were allowed to edit it and I, as a newb, was not. Your demand for references of the obvious - the relationship between Antifa, Antifaschistische_Aktion, and the KPD - references which are clearly cited on that very page, strikes me as disingenuous and obscurantist. My pointing out the very real difference in privelege between us is valid, and not personal. These constitute "attacks", if you insist, on editing and administrative behavior, not on any attribute personhood. Your response is a red herring, and fails to address the merits. My claim stands. 15 Dec 2020

I'd prefer to get along, please try and be more civil. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bacondrum (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer so as well, thanks Bacondrum. I hope you will agree that at no point have I attempted to disparage or even discuss anyone's race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, birth defect, nor ancestral legitimacy. I beg you to dismiss the charge of personal attack. I did respond in condescending tone (though honestly, logically, and with reliable sources), to repeated request from you and another editor for citations previously given (in the article), questions which I perceived as tendentious, but which may not have been. I admit there has been some "incivility" going on here, in which I've participated. I will try not to contribute to it in the future.Jaredscribe (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed. The dispute is about Presentism. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Antifa (United States). Hey, Jared! Tone down the rhetoric. I understand that it's frustrating to not be able to edit directly yet, but that doesn't give you the right to be hostile toward other editors at that talk page. Please assume good faith. —valereee (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valereee Please send me a link to our ANI dispute section. I can't find it on the noticeboard. Did it get archived? Also see my responsa above on this my talk page. After a few days away from this issue, I intend to respond on ANI.

For reference, here is my opening statement allegedly failing to assume good faith:

This text from Antifa (Germany) belongs in the first paragraphs of the article, which obscures (deliberately?) the origins and dominant ideology of the movement

That the article is unnecessarily obscure - is an accusation which I stand behind. It seems to me that the article expresses a POV:Americanism and POV:presentism, that treats history and the rest of the world like they don't matter.

That the article is deliberately obscure - I've never made that accusation. I asked it as a question. Was it deliberate? This is an insinuation, not an accusation. Maybe it wasn't deliberate.

Moreover, if my insinuation that conscious bias may be at work constitutes a failure to assume good faith, even this hardly constitutes a personal attack. I hope you will reconsider and dismiss this exaggerated charge, so that we can deal with the more accurate charge of "incivility", and eventually get back to making an encyclopedia. Jaredscribe (talk) 11:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm reaching out because I saw you listed as a fr-en translator, and I see you're also interested in some religion articles. I'm wondering whether you know exactly what this is saying? It's a profile on a mathematician in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Found on this webpage ^[1]

Dans son Curriculum Vitae, avant de vous laisser l'exploiter in extenso, il y a lieu de repérer quelques principaux éléments:

Religieuse de la Congrégation diocésaine des Soeurs de Saint François d'Assise de Tshumbe, elle émit ses voeux perpétuels le 02/08/1978.

Is this saying that Omana took a nun's vows? Is she still a nun/could a nun also be a grad student in Canada and later professor? That's how it seems to me. I haven't been able to find a copy of her CV.

Thanks for any help! IllQuill (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I asked too soon: I found her listed as a sister on the Diocese website.^[2] It looks like she is a reverend sister. IllQuill (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are a few principal elements from her CV, before showing it in full: (paraphrase)

- A religious (nun) in the congregation of the Sisters of Saint Francis of Assisi of Tshumbe, she made her perpetual vows in 2/8/1978.

And to your question @IllQuill:, yes and no. From consulting the the University's profile of her, as its new Rector, and CV, it seems she took her vows the year she received her B.Sc. from the University of of Quebec. She was later a Mathematics grad student and PHD in Belgium, and professor in Kinshasa. You probably already figured this out, but good luck and happy editing! Jaredscribe (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! IllQuill (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IllQuill, Did you ever make an article? Sorry I didn't help more; I'll have more free time after the holidays, in a few weeks.

le 26 novembre 2010 à Tshumbe, la Révérende Soeur Rebecca Gemma WALO OMANA OTOKOYE a été promue Recteur de l'UNITSHU.

Née le 15 juillet 1951,Soeur Gemma WALO est la première femme du Congo-Kinshasa devenue Docteur en Sciences-Mathématiques près l'Université Catholique de Louvain (U.C.L./ Belgique). Elle est jusqu'ici professeur Ordinaire à l'Université de Kinshasa (UNIKIN), Faculté des Sciences, Département de Mathémathiques et Informatique et Directrice de l’Ecole Doctorale régionale en Mathématiques et Informatiques de l’Université de Kinshasa.

Ok, I just found it at Rebecca Walo Omana. Nice work. There should be one at fr:Rebecca Walo Omana. Maybe I'll get around to that someday. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk)

Yes I did end up making one, I'm sorry I didn't ping you or anything! I've also been very busy recently. Thank you so much for the follow up! If you do end up making the French page that would be cool, but I know there's more things I'd like to do than time to do them :) IllQuill (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm AleatoryPonderings. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Antony Blinken, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(disputed)

Hi Jaredscribe, it looks like you restored an edit of yours that was reverted within 24 hours. This violates the discretionary sanctions on the article. Please self-revert your edit. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being previously unaware of the 1RR discretionary sanctions on this article (it was my first contribution), I self-reverted my restoration of my reverted edit immediately when informed, and took it to talk back in January. I had other things to do and forgot about it and moved on, but a consensus of three editors formed, backing my proposition. Disappointing that this highly relevant historical fact has been missing from the record, right when people were wanting to know about it. So I've restored it as of today. Presidency of Donald Trump#Transition of power and Farewell addressJaredscribe (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jared, it appears you attempted to restore the talk thread about this from Archive 12, but it looks like at least one of the talk threads still would need to be restored on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any text you add should only be added after the discussions are back at an article talk location. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brought discussion back to current article talk, restored the section 22 March 2021. Thanks MelanieN for supplying the missing citation. It seems Onetwothreeip is intent on removing the quotes from Trump We pray for his success.. and Biden very generous on the grounds that they "aren't relevant". But they are the MOST RELEVANT aspect of this whole paragraph. Without the quotes giving the main actors causes and reasons, historians will be unable to a connect factoids into a historic narrative. Is that our goal for an WP:ENC? I think not. (Although it is for some factions and media who profit from misunderstandings and the political drama it creates). These facts been NOTED by the media and by us, therefore they are NOTABLE. The quotes are highly relevant to the subject of "transition of power", and should be restored. Likewise, unless the goal is to obscure the facts for some reason, he shouldn't cut the title "Transition of Power" into the undescriptive mere "Transition". I ask him to restore these cuts himself and pre-empt an edit war.Jaredscribe (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the point of needing to trim the article: yes, in general long articles can be split up. Although this article isn't longer than Presidency of Barack Obama or Presidency of George Bush (although their tenures were longer), so its debatable whether the article is "too long". A managing editor should read this: Wikipedia:Summary_style. If a managing editor claims that the details "can be included in the child articles", then he should do that work himself, PRIOR to cutting it from the main parent article, and provide a link in talk to the relevant sub-section proving this, IMHO. Otherwise its disruptive, and it erases the work of editors who've worked hard on this for four years to give us at the end the raw material, and who have now moved on to other subject matter. We should respect their work by not taking it lightly and not demanding, that they now return and do the work of defending its "notability" while we cut it up.Jaredscribe (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, given the above (and ongoing aggressive cutting already called out by SPECIFICO), this editor Onetwothreeip should step down, IMHO, from the position he is trying to assume as "Managing Editor", and cease and desist from the aggressive cuts to the article of content that has previously been curated by editorial consensus. WP:Competence is required for that role more than for that of ordinary editors, and he has not demonstrated this, and has demonstrated too much hubris. Moreover, there HAS been earlier consensus (3-1) about "Transition of Power" section, and he is misrepresenting an earlier discussion in Jan by claiming in talk that The content doesn't have consensus but I can agree to a more narrow version there has been none. Other constructive editors have been driven away, as I was in Jan.Jaredscribe (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No editor should presume to say about any current events "This has no historical significance" or "this isn't relevant" or "I can 'categorically' say that no one outside America cares about this." as Onetwothreeip has done. This is hubris. A real historian would have more humility. The fact is, we don't know that, and we aren't even qualified to evaluate, and WP:NOR. This is an encyclopedia, not a historical analysis. What right do you have to decide what is significant or relevant to me? What right do I have to decide what is or isn't significant to you? In general WP:PRESERVE, so that historians can research the sources and do the work later. We don't have the perspective to make these judgement calls. And the fact is, it has been "NOTED" by the news media, and by myself and other editors as well. Therefore, "Transition of Power" is NOTABLE, as is almost anything else in the article that meets the WP:Verifiability standard, which is the content policy that we should be applying here instead.Jaredscribe (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to be a source for historians. It is often inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to select which quotes should be used in an article. It is completely inappropriate to deliberately construct a historical narrative, as anything of that nature should only come about as a result of neutrally and objectively summarising the article subjects. These quotes in particular are not any more relevant than anything else Donald Trump has said, and we obviously can't include everything he has ever said here. Not to get too much into this, but I am also very keen on avoiding the flowery and grandiose language often used by enthusiasts of American politics, such as with phrases like "transition of power".

As for the lengths of similar articles, Presidency of Donald Trump is much larger than that of its predecessors, at 430,000 bytes. Presidency of Barack Obama is 290,000 bytes and Presidency of George W. Bush is 140,000 bytes, both despite being two terms. I completely reject being or wanting to be a "managing editor" or historian, so you can consider me to have "stepped down" from both of those. I am very much willing to defend those claims you are quoting me as making, though it would be more accurate to say that something has not enough historical significant for the article than to say it isn't historically significant. I am not claiming to know what is relevant for yourself or myself, it is an assessment of objective reality. Overall I think your content is good for Wikipedia, but I would avoid adding such content to articles which are already extremely large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest discussing these changes on the applicable Talk pages before making significant edits to policy and guideline pages. Testimony given under oath is not automatically a reliable source, especially for claims about living persons (WP:BLPPRIMARY). As for C-SPAN videos, they would still fall under non-free content because Wikipedia's license allows for commercial use. Our policy is intentionally more restrictive than U.S. fair use because of this. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. tedder (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples where you have attacked and/or not shown good faith. You seem to be aware of this, it's important enough that it's one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars. It's non-negotiable.

- "The unwillingness by Another Believer to acknowledge the bias or even the meaning of the statue, is a manifestation of this same bias"

- "[ If an editor is unable to do this, (s)he should refrain from discussing the matter. WP:Competence is required]"

- "Consider staying out of this one, unless you have something constructive to add."

- "we have some problems from this user Another Believer"

- "The disruptive editor in question here, Another Believer..."

I'm not coming here to argue content or personal opinion. Your invitation to edit Wikipedia is contingent on these Five Pillars. tedder (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only content disputes I've had with this editor is on the two articles in question, I haven't followed him around or harassed him on other pages. I assert in talk pages that there is a bias, and that these article violate neutrality. This is not a personal attack nor is it harrassment. The editor's claims in both articles that my additions were "not constructive" and the text from the "monumental inscription" is "unsourced", are inaccurate - the inscription is published (inscribed) on the monument itself. And this is relevant to the article - that is, constructive. I wasn't the first volunteer to add this and get reverted, either. I was a brand new user, and this was very discouraging, so I gave up and left wikipedia for a several months. Is that harrassment also? Are you willing to affirm the principle of WP:Don't bite the newcomers?Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I returned after a few months to finish the work, and I reminded him that WP:Competence is required An editor can be in good faith (I continue to assume it) and still have bias of which he is unaware and can still lack competence in some areas. An editor can be in good faith and still be disruptive. Pointing this out is not harrassment, and nor is it a personal attack, nor is it passive-aggressive - I'm speaking directly to point of the content and to the editor's apparent misunderstanding of WP:Reliable sources.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of other editors on Spanish–American_War_Soldier's_Monument held with my position and I was able to continue constructing the article and restored a more or less WP:NPOV.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the The Promised Land (sculpture), the dispute is ongoing so I added the template for Neutrality challenge. There is an established process for dealing with this, the entire content dispute is handled on the talk pages. The only thing happening here is that I am defending my actions by demonstrating that I am in good faith in taking them - since this is apparently doubted. Also, I sincerely believe (perhaps incorrectly) that they are the right actions to take in this case, although I'm still rather new and still have alot to learn.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, assertions of harrassment and personal attack are a misunderstanding or red herring, and are not helping. If I have inadvertently harrassed this editor by suggesting that he lacks competence and is being unintentionally disruptive, then certainly I was not doing it for the purpose of harrassment, but rather for the purpose of improving the article. I continue to assume that he is in good faith. These accusations are coming from a sysop, who may be able to win the argument by an appeal to force, unless my reply here appeases him. I'm begging him to reflect on this and reconsider. However, I will avoid these articles for a while because improving them is not worth the risk of being blocked, to me. I beg all wikipedians who believe (as I do) in the encyclopedic mission and in the WP:SOP to remember that Wikipedia is WP:Not a bureaucracy. I hope that some arbitrators and admins will adopt the principle that User:Jaredscribe/There is justice, or at least strive for it, although I know it is denied in some quarters. This may be my last post for a while. If I am blocked, I still love you wikipedia!Jaredscribe (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe,

I'm currently working on the Sanaa article and would like to add a section on the city's music. I found the following three French-language sources that may have useful information: [1] [2] [3]

It may be a bit much to ask, but is there any way you would be willing to help me understand what they're talking about? Alternatively, if you wanted to directly add any useful content from them to the article here, then that would be a huge help.

Thanks,

3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 3 kids in a trenchcoat this is interesting to me, and I'm honored. (btw, what does yr uname mean?)

Both articles mention the Qanbus, a fretless Yemenite oud, and a musician named Yahya al-Nunu, active '80-'95, who apparently held musical seances from afternoon to the following morning. The Mokrani article also mentions Hasan al-Ajami. In a month or so I'll have more time to research this and listen to their recordings. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also it looks like I gave the wrong link to one of the articles before, try this one instead. (Also my username is a reference to the trope of a group of kids masquerading as an "adult" by standing on each others' shoulders, typically hiding themselves in a trenchcoat: See here) 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its taken me so long to get to this, 3 kids in a trenchcoat. I made a section for Music of Sanaa here: :fr:Sanaa § Musique, and cited all three articles. Now other french wikipedists can read them in depth and write more. I'll wait a month and see what they come up with before translating. Sanaa Chant was put on the UNESCO fr:Liste_représentative_du_patrimoine_culturel_immatériel_de_l'humanité in 2003, and it had a redlink on the wikipedia page, which I pointed to the new section. According to the Mokrani article, this was done due to the advocacy of the ethnomusicologist Jean Lambert of School_for_Advanced_Studies_in_the_Social_Sciences, who wrote the other two articles you gave me.Jaredscribe (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredscribe No worries, thanks for your help! 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — please note that the edit instructions on date articles (such as the March 13 and 14 ones you recently edited) clearly state that "Each addition now requires a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it. Simply providing a wikilink is not sufficient and additions without direct sources will be removed." Your additions did not cite sources.

Furthermore, per WP:DOY, the 'Holidays and observances' entries "should also be limited to those events that occur on the same date annually and to observances that are currently celebrated". This clearly does not apply to new moons or similar phenomena.

Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you're continuing down this road. That's your call, of course; I won't waste my time any further, since you're clearly convinced your way is the right way. Bye, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our content dispute was in the edit summaries of March 14, which happens to be in 2021, the new moon of Aviv, spring. Among other things. [[4]]

Thank you DoubleGrazing for not wasting any more of our time. And although it is "my way", it is also the way of world and the course of nature, which I hope that someday you will acknowledge, having reverted this twice. The new moon of spring, occurs every year on the same day, the 1st of Nisan. I notice that March 1st tends to move around a bit. I understand that you Gregorians of the graeco-roman tradition see it differently. But your way is not the only way to count time or to memorialize the past. And our tradition is adequately explained, sourced, and cited on the linked articles. It even made its way into some notable controversies about the dating of Easter, and to schisms and orthodoxies that make your culture what it is today. Undoubtedly, this will be discussed in the coming month.Jaredscribe (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying erase mention of Palm Sunday, Good friday, Christmas or New Years, nor of any of the other half dozen saints days and religious propaganda that is spread on the Main Page. I simply ask to include the Lunar new year#middle east on the main page on the day when it occurs, along with all the other trivialities and sectarian interests. I would appreciate it DoubleGrazing, if you would please inform your fellow WP:WikiKnights, to stop removing mention of obvious facts of nature and of Jewish and Asian historical perspectives generally. And please stop the edit war by restoring the mention of the Lunar new year#middle east 2021, that your colleague Firestar464 has reverted. You can remove it again after March 15th, or even better, archive it with "News" for the record. The "news" editors deleted mention, claiming that the new moon was not "news" to them, having not occurred to their religious hierarchs or their mass industry to print articles about it. Jaredscribe (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will reoccur. Next year it may seem to be on a "different day" to you, but it will be on the "same day as today", to me and to us. It is disappointing for me to discover that ignorance and systemic bias are not merely an accident of culture, but seem to be a matter of policy here on wikipedia. But you have the technology and the data, you can do the math. We can figure this out together and fix it. I hope that the WP:Encyclopedia mission will prevail. Jaredscribe (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to WP:RGW. Now please follow the policies. Thanks. Firestar464 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is listed as a participant of the WikiProject Countering system bias in religion.
I would like to know if you agree with this edit: DIFF.
24.78.228.96 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Steak and Blowjob Day, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see you are close to being WP:NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Jaredscribe, I ask you not to tag me; I've no interest in the matters discussed on this talk page. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTTHEM. Thanks. Firestar464 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged me, here are my two cents. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written as a consensus-based collaboration by editors from a wide variety of backgrounds, who build articles by summarizing what has been written in reliable sources. It is not evident, as 331dot points out above, that your editing currently fits into that paradigm. If you're interested in working on the encyclopedia I suggest finding some sources of unimpeachable quality and using them to quietly improve an article; if you're only interested in promoting a lunar calendar or religion please do that elsewhere. Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate_a_point. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. I have made a Talk:Steak and Blowjob Day § Sincere apology for disruptive soapboxing, there, and on Talk:Cake and Cunnilingus Day § Sincere apology for disruptive soapboxing. And in advocating for inclusion of a Lunisolar calendar and the holidays of Asian Civilizations, I pledge to not exclude the white european and american perspective. If I have offended anyone, I'm terribly sorry.Jaredscribe (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DMacks for blocking me for only 31 hours. In retrospect, I think that was fair. I should have taken my WP:SOAPBOX diatribe over to the deletion or notability noticeboards instead of on the article itself. Thank you for apparently recognizing that I was new and in a frustrated mood, and for making a proportional response rather than coming down like a ton of bricks. As you can see, I made a public apology on the talk page, which is a more appropriate place to debate the political and social aspects of a "lame joke gone viral", such as S&BJ day. Also, I'm committed to becoming a productive editor and learning and respecting the content policies. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I learned this from R.Eliayahu Weisman, an independent scholar at the Portland Kollel, a Jewish study hall that is open to the community. My personal experience leads me to consider him a more WP:RS than most of the Secondary and Tertiary sources cited in the article, and he makes better use of WP:PRIMARY. However, oral tradition is not "published" in the ordinary sense. This is an interesting case study in how an living oral tradition can sometimes be superior to the non-practiced, written tradition Christian and secular scholars writing about Judaism while reflecting their own Anti-Jewish prejudices. In the Etymology (2nd paragraph), he cites the RaDaK, who was a scholar from the medieval period, interpretation of Genesis 1: "peru u REBu", "Be fruitful and MULTIPLY" Perhaps someone can improve his contribution, by searching for this teaching (which is probably published) and citing it here.

Nonsense. Shaye J. D. Cohen is just an Yeshiva boy + higher academic learning. There are more like him. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Girth Summit. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sunday, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Girth Summit, that was most gentle reversion I've ever suffered. I wish more revert warriors would follow your example when dealing with newcomers, and leave a talk page note like this. As for the references, they exist on the linked pages; when I return to work on the article, I'll add them to the article body with citations, per MOS:LEAD as you suggested.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jewish Christian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pascha.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits, but you need to provide reliable sources. See WP:RS. Unsourced material is likely to be removed. Additionally, you’re adding things to sources that do not say what you’re adding.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not point out problems in the article itself. That's what the talk page is for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vchimpanzee for showing concern over my major changes to the lede: in general I shouldn't have done that late on friday when all or most of the knowledgeable and personally concerned editors would be offline for the the holidays. I'll try reformulating my proposal and adding it again or on talk, now that the week has begun. That said, I'm not sure what exactly I did to "point out problems in the article itself". If you would please inform me I'll try not to do it again. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I changed. The words in red that I removed would go on the talk page of the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vchimpanzee for correcting that and reminding me. Not sure what I was thinking; I must have accidentally saved it as a draft along with another section I was simultaneously editing. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if that orange tag for expansion isn't resolved by next year, Easter will not be included on the Main Page. Also, just because the titles have "Easter" or "Paques" in them doesn't guarantee that they actually exist, which is why you still need some sort of reference, just to prove someone didn't make up those titles. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 07:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe! I don't have time to look at the article in more detail or edit it right now, so I figured I would leave you a quick note - I want to make sure you're aware of Wikipedia policy on primary sources and that you're being careful to avoid original research in your edits to God in Judaism. Direct citations to the Torah, for example, aren't generally a good idea; likewise, citing Maimonides to demonstrate "a clear consensus in orthodox Judaism" doesn't adhere to either of the policies I linked. I would be happy to discuss this further if it would be helpful, and I might join you in working on that article at some point when I've got more time and focus to devote to it! ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 23:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will stipulate that when WP:USEPRIMARY there shouldn't be analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Thats why I quoted directly, without interpretation. In the meantime though I've added the interpretations to those verses given by sages generally considered reliable secondary sources within the field.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the "law and the prophets" are true and righteous, is a necessary assumption for the purpose of "Jewish theological discussion", which is what the hatnote states that this article is about. This is permitted on wikipedia per WP:MNA. If editors insist on rejecting this assumption, or on making me "prove it" by reference to modern academia, then we could give up and change the title of the article to "God according to Academic Consensus" and write about that instead.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To this claim, I cited the Jewish principles of faith § Maimonides' 13 principles of faith These 13 principles are printed in most Jewish prayerbooks. Within the context of Judaism, this is considered a reliable tertiary source. I understand that Torah Judaism is not a mainstream POV, but I'm not pushing that POV in those content areas. The Jewish POV is already excluded from most articles in the content area of Hebrew Bible and Judaism, which are dominated by christian and secular scholars who've always considered Judaism a discredited fringe theory. This strikes me as Non-WP:NPOV and basically ignorant (although, regrettably, it has been "mainstream" for much of European history); a legacy of of graeco-roman and christian theological jew-hate that wants to appropriate Jewish texts while denigrating the transmitters of those texts. I think the Jewish POV should be recorded as a significant minority POV, within the content area of Judaism and the Hebrew Bible. I also don't think it helps the encyclopedic study of comparative religion to defer to an anti-jewish "academic consensus" whose unanimity is overstated (and is itself a synthetic claim), while disallowing the Jewish POV on the article "God according to Judaism".Jaredscribe (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish POV is that there is one God. The God of Adam and Eve, is the God of Noah and his sons, is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the God of Moses, and the prophets. Since this was implicitly denied in the article God in Judaism, it has to be affirmed as a necessary assumption for the "Jewish theological discussion" that the article purports to be about. Editors are free to deny the existence or the oneness of God or to challenge the historicity of Genesis, but they are not free to do so in the name of orthodox Judaism. I feel like I have to prove that the WP:SKYISBLUE, and am then charged with making a "synthetic claim" for doing so. It is a "synthetic claim" of Judaism that God is one, not of my own opinion or research, I shouldn't have to prove that this is what Judaism holds, but since its being denied I'll have to. If you have a better way of stating this, or can make better use of the sources than I did, please do. I hope we can work together to make the article better. :) Also, we should be having this conversation on Talk:God_in_JudaismJaredscribe (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jaredscribe,

Can you please take a look at talk page of Messiah in Judaism and offer your honest opinion in section Effects of Messiah. Thanks so much!

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yaakov Wa. I'll study this article and respond soon. In the meantime, if you are knowledgeable in sources for Torah Judaism, the article God in Judaism could use some help. Also Mosaic authorship, and the Book of Exodus. WP:USEPRIMARY but no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. I think Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch would be considered "tertiary sources" per wikipedia content policy. Primary sources such as the Torah and the Nevi'im should be interpreted by reference to reliable secondary sources.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of the subject comes through thorough study of the primary sources. I don't know the secondary sources for this subject, other than Maimonides, and I don't trust any of them. Therefore I've declined to edit the article, per Wikipedia content policy WP:NOR. I've responded to Yaakov Wa. at length in Talk:Messiah in Judaism § Gentile nations in the Messianic era If my "original research" into the hermeneutics is correct, it will be confirmed elsewhere by other bible scholars.Jaredscribe (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If^[1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09 April 2021 03:25:27 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09 April 2021 03:25:27 (UTC)

I added a citation by Umberto Cassuto, not my own OR. Cassuto's The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Hebrew, Torat HaTeudot, 1941; English translation, 1961) was one of the first mainstream works to offer a detailed critique of Wellhausen. Cassuto argued first of all that the supposed terminological, grammatical and stylistic traits indicative of separate documents actually were common in Hebrew language and literature and were shared with other biblical and post-biblical Jewish literature whose essential unity was not seriously questioned, including liturgical, midrashic, medieval and even modern Jewish religious writing.Jaredscribe (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't put all my money on the Documentary Hypothesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary hypothesis as set out by Wellhausen doesn't have many followers these days. On the other hand, the idea that Moses wrote the Torah has none.Achar Sva (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sabbath of vision, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John B123. Yes, I know its not ready yet. I'm sure there are plenty of independent sources to speak to this, and I'll have time to work on it in a few months. I meant to leave it as a stub so that other editors could begin. Is there a difference between a stub and a draft? Will redlinks from other pages still point to the draft? Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe. A stub is a minimal article, but complies with the various guidelines for articles. Drafts are articles away from mainspace that have the potential to be useful articles but don't yet meet the minimum requirements, in this case referencing. Links from other articles won't point to drafts. I can have another look at it after you have worked on it if that helps. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to take offense at WP:CHOPSY. Learn that the person who imposed CHOPSY-supremacism unto Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales and he did that years before I began editing. I have only rendered explicit what was already the unwritten norm. I am not that powerful to sway most admins to whatever I pontificate.

Also, the Documentary hypothesis was left behind because scholars have improved upon its principles and methods, beating it at its own game. But for the fundamentalist Jews and the fundamentalist Christians the situation in the mainstream academia did not improve, if anything, the mainstream academia got more radical or theologically liberal than Wellhausen ever was. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know the history of these policies. I agree there is a need for quality standards, and I don't intend to WP:GEVAL for junk science and flat earthers. I'm not convinced that WP:CHOPSY is the right test, though. I'll take up that issue with you on the essay itself, which I'm not afraid to edit. I value logic and evidence more than I do "mainstream opinion," although I submit to that when it's verifiably true. I've found "scholarship" to be more reliable than "academia" (although most people don't know the difference) and like everyone else, I must rely on the testimony of witnesses and authorities to some degree, especially for history. Before we debate each other, which I think is inevitable, lets try to find points on which we can stipulate. I commit to acknowledging the truth, even when its spoken by my adversaries, or in a way that disadvantages me. I hope you will do so as well.Jaredscribe (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take up the other issue with you on Talk:Mosaic authorship, where it started. The limited issue in our content dispute there is "multiple authorship vs. single authorship", and in the exclusion of notable scholars holding the latter. So please don't project religious caricatures on me, its a distraction from the real question that we have to deal with. Kind regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not based upon logic and evidence, which are banned according to WP:OR, but it is based upon WP:VERECUNDIAM.

And, yes, theologically orthodox Christians who WP:SOAP for their own theology are troublemakers. So are theologically orthodox Jews, theologically orthodox Muslims, and theologically orthodox Hindus who WP:SOAP for their own theology. Wikipedia isn't made for WP:SOAPing. Here we only promote mainstream scholarship and mainstream science. Those who have a problem with that are unfit to be Wikipedia editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you also promote video games, porn, and fan fiction, the the various trivialities of pop culture. Is that less "absurd" to you? WP:SOAPing for vanity is acceptable and encouraged on wikipedia. Most of these articles are not supported by scholarship. In fact, academic journals are considered generally unreliable when it comes to Brittney Spears, Jeep Wrangler, and French cheeses.Jaredscribe (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this editor to please stop projecting religious caricatures on me and to deal with the limited question of "single authorship vs multiple authors". The continued use of ad hominem insinuations, while avoiding the actual issue of textual criticism is both poor argumentation and scholarship, and it is also a violation of WP:CIVILITY, imho. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I believe in Spinoza's God, which is the faith of a tiny minority. But since I do not WP:SOAP for it, the point that it is a non-mainstream belief is moot. People who WP:SOAP for a religion or a political ideology are unfit to be Wikipedians. Instead, presenting what the mainstream academia thinks about that religion or ideology is allowed.

The gist is: evangelism (seeking to convert people) and ideological propaganda are not allowed.

You're fighting for privileges, I'm fighting against privileges. There is no neat way of privileging Chabad without at the same time privileging Salafi.

Also, your pretense to speak for all Jews is completely bogus: it is patently false that all Jews knee-jerk reject modern Bible scholarship (of the WP:CHOPSY sort). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation by Umberto Cassuto, a mainstream bible scholar who was a departmental chair at the Hebrew University. Here is the contribution that tgeorgescu has rejected, and has now badly mischaracterized.

Cassuto's The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Hebrew, Torat HaTeudot, 1941; English translation, 1961) was one of the first mainstream works to offer a detailed critique of Wellhausen. Cassuto argued first of all that the supposed terminological, grammatical and stylistic traits indicative of separate documents actually were common in Hebrew language and literature and were shared with other biblical and post-biblical Jewish literature whose essential unity was not seriously questioned, including liturgical, midrashic, medieval and even modern Jewish religious writing.

I'm seeking to restore a WP:Neutral POV to the article Mosaic Authorship, by including at least one Jewish scholar's opinion. I am not SOAPing, I'm not "fighting for priveleges", I didn't cite chabad or Salafi. This editor is making straw man in order to change the subject and avoid the issue - which is "single authorship vs. multiple authorship", as I've repeatedly stated. It has nothing to do with my belief, his, or anyone else's except the scholars who are cited. It is not "evangelism", nor is it "ideological propaganda". And Umberto Cassuto was a Jewish scholar who clearly does not reject modern Bible scholarship. He advances his arguments on the basis of comparative literatures and textual criticism.

I've been accused here of claiming to speak for "all Jews", but no diffs have been given. I think this editor is now WP:AOBF. If he wants to continue this prosecution, he should provide a diff rather than mischaracterizing my contribution to support his baseless accusations. Now, certain objective observations can be made (and verified) about the truth claims of "orthodox Judaism" - such as that they hold Moses to be a prophet. It may or may not be true, but they really do claim this. Refusing admit this POV of a notable minority, among the many others is basically non-neutral, on an article dealing with Moses. However, I have never claimed to speak for "all Jews". The editor, on the other hand, does claim to speak for "all modern scholars" and for the "academic bias." And he seeks to exclude Umberto Cassuto and others who argue for a single author, from that community. Now he accuses me (falsely) of the totalitarian presumption that he is himself actually practicing. And his claim is bogus: he does not speak for all scholars. As I said before, this editor should stop projecting religious caricatures on me, its a distraction from the real question that we have to deal with.Jaredscribe (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who wrote This article should be deprecated and merged with the articles on baal, ashtoreth, biblical minimalism, the documentary hypothesis, and anti-jewish propaganda. It doesn't even bother to quote a Jewish source post Moses as a minority opinion on the Jewish God. It is not encyclopedic - it is IGNORANCE. Jews will recognize this immediately and avoid the article, but the typical gentile reader will be confused, and our readers deserve better. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE weight should be given to all notable minority opinions, and that ought to include the opinion of the religion or faith tradition under study. And this goes for any religion, Jewish, christian, athiest or otherwise, and in fact it goes for any subject of study.

It probably shouldn't be stated in WikiVoice, but a Jewish source held as reliable within their stream of transmission and tradition, can be quoted and the quote can be attributed, and this is WP:NPOV. And for us to consider their opinion on their own Bible and their own God, alongside "our" own "authoritative mainstream" opinion, does not make us "religious fundamentalists" as you seem to think. It makes us scholarly and slightly less ignorant and dogmatic than previous generations of European and Anglo-American scholars have been. Although it appears that neither of us is "christian", nevertheless we can both probably agree that "Christians believe that Jesus is divine", as you explained above. User talk:Jaredscribe § A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

I'd like you to follow that principle on articles about the Hebrew Bible and Jewish God and theology.

It is hardly controversial for us to say, for example, that "Orthodox Jews believe that 'Elijah was a prophet, but not divine'", and that 'YHVH IS Elohim, and is one', and is Eternal, and that 'Idolatry is forbidden and has been since the time of Moses or before', despite is persistence in popular religious syncretism. This is WP:MNA

Then there can be Jewish secondary and tertiary sources, with attribution if necessary, explain how this is generally interpreted today within their communities and schools of thought.

But if you disallow even an Jewish minority opinion from appearing alongside your "academic mainstream" on articles about Jewish God or the Hebrew bible, then yes, that is Anti-Jewish, and you stand accused along with my own enlightened secular undergraduate college and many others, and with most christian seminaries. (please don't take it personally, this is systemic, and it has been for quite a few centuries before us - or before the Antisemitic movement appeared on the scene to try and make this deliberate ignorance into something that was respectable on the basis of biology and racial "science".) I'm not accusing Academia or Wikipedia of being 'antisemitic' in the racist sense, when I assert the presence of an anti-Jewish systemic bias. Read David Nirenberg's book, if you wish to understand this phenomenon, and I will be happy to entertain scholarly responsa to the assertion. Or even academic responsa, provided they actually respond, instead of merely scoffing.

I agree with somewhere between 90-97% of your presentation User talk:Jaredscribe § A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

, but other than the 5P I haven't actually read your recommendations yet. I'll read it and respond. I understand the need to exclude certain fringe theories that have been decisively asked and answered. I hope we will someday find common ground. Please stop caricaturing me as "religious fundamentalist", though, that is unnecessary. In the context, it is pejorative. In point of fact, it is untrue as my user page demonstrates - Like Ecclesiastes, I prefer to start with natural philosophy. Your tendency to impute motives and to caricature opponents is a straw man fallacy, and now I tend to distrust your judgement. Maybe you're just overworked, and should do a little less.

But I will speak in defense of all religious fundamentalists everywhere - they have a right to edit articles about their own fundamentalist religions, and about their religions' fundamental beliefs and practices and texts, provided that they attribute and don't pretend neutrality by using WikiVoice, and provided they give WP:DUE weight to other points of view, including those in opposition.

This is what I have been doing, and I think it is in substantial agreement with WP:RNPOV

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to avoid extremes.

The minimalists would make out of the Bible a pious fraud and I think that's going much, much too far.

On the other hand, if we try as moderns to read the Bible literally in the way fundamentalists do, we make nonsense of it.

I would try to avoid both of those extremes.

— William G. Dever [5]

Morals: taking the Bible at face value is WP:FRINGE. And you are unable to change that. You accuse Wikipedia of being anti-Jewish, instead of recognizing that your strategy of taking the Bible at face value is unfit for Wikipedia.

Cassuto stands for a POV which existed long ago in WP:SCHOLARSHIP and did not get traction in the mainstream academia. Shaye J. D. Cohen would find that PhD candidates who follow in Cassuto's footsteps are ill-advised. Joel S. Baden, idem ditto.

The question isn't "Was Cassuto a great scholar?" but "Did he convince the scholars?". Thinking that he has "proven" that the Pentateuch had only one author is clutching at straws. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that he "proved" it, or that he did or didn't convince anyone.

I ask that Cassutto's thesis (whose books have recently been reprinted and translated) be considered with attribution, and his argument presented alongside all the other 19th and 20th century views presented at Mosaic authorship

Jaredscribe (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither taking the bible at face value or asking you and wikipedia to.

On this article article section Jesus#Religious_perspectives, wikipedia presents the christian view of Jesus, alongside the Jewish, manichaian, and Islamic views. Religious and sectarian sources are given for the assertions therein about their theologies - and its not inappropriate to have these on a topic of broad social and cultural interest.

The same thing could and should be done for the article on Yahweh, which has not a single Jewish post-exilic source, nor a single christian, or Islamic perspective given. That is absurd. Thats why I proposed the article be deprecated and redirected to Tetragrammaton, and its content merged into

Ancient Caananite religion and ancient Israelite religion, or some such, since an article on God in Judaism already exists.

There are also some major WP:SYNTHetic claims in that article, showing images from Phoenicia, that are hypothesized by some teriary source as maybe being related to a storm god or a sky god who might possibly have been related to the Israelite God. That is not sound; thats not scientific. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and if there is not clear and convincing evidence that those images were used to represent the ancient Israelite God, and they shouldn't be in the lede representing the article. It is a violation of our policy on WP:Reliable sources and its use in the lede is a form of WP:OR that vastly overstates the case.

Probably the most notable thing about the Israelite God is that he is ANICONIC - not represented and not representable - and this is not controversial. The fact that syncretism took place in popular religion doesn't disprove that, any more than the existence of a three-legged dog disproves that dogs have four legs. Other people in the talk page have pointed that out.

And if you don't accept a pre-exilic origin of the law and prophets establishing the aniconic nature of the Israelite religion, then any 20th century attempt at reconstructing Bronze and Iron age Israelite religion is at least as dubious as the Pentateuch, if far not more so.

Jaredscribe (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a clear POV-fork. Jaredscribe (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, If you want to know what CHOPSY say about Antijudaism and its role in the development of the social sciences, read David Nirenberg from Princeton (formerly U of Chicago) and hear what he and his colleagues say about the phenomenon. Jaredscribe (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this anything you know about (or know someone who does)? In the article Month, it is stated that Karaite Judaism rely on first crescent sighting. In their own article, it is written that they trace their origins to the Saducees, who had this practice – but it doesn't say that the modern Karaites still follow this practice. So I'm reluctant to add anything to New moon without a better source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Karaite practice, except hearsay and intuition. From what I understand of it, there is no such thing as "following this practice" in the Karaite school: rather, each person is obliged to reason for themselves from self-evident first principles and from written Torah. However I've heard hearsay from rabbis that the nature of communal life led them to make decisions and set precedents, and from this they reinvented the rabbinic wheel, so to speak, forming their own traditions and version of oral law, contrary to their stated goals of not having one. In other words, an 'authoritative' tradition shouldn't exist, but because of human political necessity it does. And so by virtue of the fact that it exists (when it shouldn't) its not authoritative. But since this is my own "original research" (based both on common sense and on anti-Karaite rabbinic propaganda), you shouldn't trust it unless you can verify it somehow. The point is, John Maynard Friedman your reluctance is reasonable, and its doubtful that a better source even exists. When in doubt, stand still. Jaredscribe (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for adding the Dershowitz, Rheingold citation to New moon. Thats exactly the book I've been looking for, and it already has a wikipedia page Calendrical Calculations, whose title-link I added to the citation after putting the google books external link on its article. The algorithm code is Common Lisp in the public domain, and Rheingold distributes it on his website. It would be nice to include Asian and other non-solarian holidays and records of history in the "on this day" section of the mainpage, per WP:GLOBAL. Do you know if anyone has attempted to implement this algorithm on wikipedia's calendar?Jaredscribe (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Steak and Blowjob Day. DMacks (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the well sourced material I added within the /* Cultural Analysis */ section. I didn't add the Daily Dot citation, it was already there as the very first citation given on the article. I was simply the first editor to accurately reflect what the source in its own lede paragraph about the topic at issue. I ought to be thanked, rather than threatened.

The Daily Dot considers it a "lame joke gone viral"^[1]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jonathan Barnes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Constitution Day (Spain), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Iron Front (United States), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe, could you translate an ES article to EN? It's this one. You can summarize it if you think is better. Thank you so much. --Cristina CF22 (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)--Cristina CF22[reply]

An article you recently created, Badkhin, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Gpkp [u • t • c] 08:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it Gpkp, I meant to put there but couldn't figure out how to do so.Jaredscribe (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredscribe, plz feel free to recreate it, but with references. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 05:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is already article at Badchen, so I merged my contributions there. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paideia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Iron Front".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yoga as exercise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashtanga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! are you still doing Spanish to English translations? Thanks! Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jaredscribe! Your additions to 2021 Western North America heat wave have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chlod (say hi!) 22:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nyāya Sūtras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Draft:Ronot society seems to be written in Franglish. (Per Wikipedia:Translators available), if you think the subject is worthy of article status, could you have a look at improving it. I couldn't find a template notice for "improve translation". Bogger (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaredscribe! When doing a search through the Talk namespace, I saw that you moved your user talk archives there instead of User talk, where they belong. I've taken care of the ones that were there currently; in the future, please double check the namespace before moving. Thanks, Vahurzpu (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alexander Kaye has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jaredscribe,

A lot of your edits are much appreciated! However, there is a major issue at RSN with several users believing that it is perfectly fine to say "According to Haaretz Haredi Judaism is a radical and dangerous new cult". This is dangerous and if not stopped now, all of Judaism will be under attack! For example they can say "according to (fill in the blank) Judaism is the opposite of good". The discussion is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Another_unreliable_Haaretz_article

Contacting journalists and reporters can very helpful because sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to wikicrats who like to hide behind what they claim to be policy.155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is ridiculous, and I can only take it as trolling. Lunacy is a perfectly cromulent word since many centuries in the English language. See lunacy in Wiktionary. Bishonen | tålk 17:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sabbath of vision, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Basic Errors in Modern Thought, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User:Jaredscribe/Diatribes. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kirchhoff (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaredscribe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sabbath of vision".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jaredscribe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Badkhin, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found the article. Redirected Badkhin to Badchen. Jaredscribe (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]