Talk:Biblical criticism

message: of this article Biblical criticism
I started work on Biblical criticism in May of 2018.  It went to FA review in October of 2018. Then these people copied and published it in October of 2019. 
I have rewritten a lot of it now but a comparison with the November 2018 version, before my rewrites, shows this: [] 
 
Except I did not copy anything from them, they copied me--is there anything else can I do? Does anyone know? Is this sufficient?  I want to take this article to FA so I am hoping this will not be a permanent problem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common for other websites to copy from Wiki. I'm not sure if there is any policy against other websites from doing so, but this is a free encyclopedia so I doubt there's any rules on that. Jerm (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey  I'm sure you're right, but it certainly causes problems for me.  The one listed above was just the first--today, I found a second site and this one I can't trace and prove it didn't exist back in 2018 when I wrote most of this. The copyvio check comes up as a violation and as far as I know the software has no way to know when it was put online. That will sink any attempt at FA unless I can prove it's a backwards violation.  I could for the first one as it was printed in a journal, but the second one is just a website with no date or author.  The copy vio monitor could come along and blank the whole thing because of it and it represents literally months of work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're talking about the pdf file via link: ajol.info/index.php/jrhr/article/view/190039/179261 shown in Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It shows "Nov. 1, 2019" on the very top of the pdf. Jerm (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Can you click on the url and send me that link? It looks like the one published in the Journal of Religion and Human Relations which is dated.  The one that isn't dated and has no author and no home site or contact info is []. It seems to be Russian. No joke. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   OMG!  OMG!!  You found it?  I have lost sleep over this!  How do I locate what you are referring to--how do I find that cache? I need to be able to put it in the backwards copy vio template so this page doesn't get blanked. Can you send me that link?  PLEASE!!!Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

text:  I click on that and all I see is the same page I have seen all day--there is no date that I can find. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Google cached is when Google takes a snapshot of the website it last visited for historical use just in case that website goes down. It does not give the date of when the website went online, but if you typed up Biblical criticism then it really isn't hard to figure out as to where a website with no author and date got its content from. Jerm (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

text:  I found this video. This will solve the mystery (I hope). You need a PC. I can't because I use Mac. Jerm (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Okay, it's late and I have been stressed out about this all day, and perhaps I am not thinking too clearly. Be patient with me.  You said  and I am wondering where and how you found that, because nothing I looked at said so, and honestly some evidence of that is exactly what I need.  If I can locate that with a url of any kind, that is all I need. I can Google biblical criticism and get lots of options, including mine here, but as far as I can see that doesn't actually prove anything. I need something beyond supposition for Dianna. I couldn't understand the YouTube video--why do I need Javascript?  I don't have a PC I have an Apple computer. I don't see any mystery solved yet.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Click here, next to the website link is a grey arrow, click it as it should say "Cached". That's the time and date I got. There's nothing more I can do, Happy editing & cheers. Jerm (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   I am so relieved I could weep. I can't tell you how grateful I am for this. Thank you thank you thank you.  I have copied the url and will put it above.  Please consider me a friend forever, and if you ever need anything at all, if I can help I will very much want to do so. A thousand blessings!!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Thank you  For all your help and the lovely compliment. I copied part of this and put it in the comments in the template. I hope that's okay. Hopefully it will pass muster and not interfere when I get brave enough to put the article back under the FA microscope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

text: And thanks for the explanation on tichanlorsmagboa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backwards copy vio 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Anyone who thinks decorating the Eighteenth century section with his image is a bad idea? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gråbergs Gråa Sång  Afraid so. Both Buidhe and Sandy Georgia supported the removal of images that were just pictures of people, and when others asked about replacing some of those images, restated their opposition. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. If I feel strongly about it, I can always ignore them after the FA is done ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hah hah!!  I always did like your attitude!  It's no doubt why we are friends.  Irreverence is a good thing! :-) Things are stalling at FA again.  IDK.  I am becoming blasé. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite understandable, there's a discussion about it in my talkpage archive... from August 2018. No matter what, WP:s readers have benefitted.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, is there a specific word for a wall-ornament like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father of Biblical criticism 

message: === Comments from SandyGeorgia ===
Jen, I present here some ideas that I hope will a) make for a more pleasant FAC experience, while also b) making for an improved reading experience.  None of this is required by WP:WIAFA, so feel free to take this on board or not, but I hope it worthy of discussion among other collaborators. There are three different factors here contributing to a dense read, while at the same time, possibly discouraging reviewers from engaging.  Any one of those three factors alone would not necessarily be problematic, but the three of them together add up to an off-putting overall effect: 1) the rp referencing system chosen, 2) the parenthetical insertions of birth and death years, and 3) the length overall of the article. On the first, as I understand it, the use of {{ rp templates for pages was something you got stuck with it, not necessarily as a matter of choice.  It is an odious and ugly referencing system (that's an opinion :)  Stand-alone, it wouldn't be so bad, but when combined with the birth-death dates and overall length, it adds unnecessary clutter that distracts from the article content.  If you should decide, in collaboration and developing consensus among other reviewers, to ditch that system, now is the time!   On the parenthetical birth-death dates, I hope you can contemplate re-visiting the need for them as they just detract from the article content, and add very little in most cases.  With very few exceptions, the section in which content is covered, or the context from the writing around it, give us an idea of when the person (generally a biblical scholar) lived, and we don't benefit from this minutiae here.  In the few instances where it is not clear if the scholar was modern or historical, a brief explanation like ... 18th-century scholar ... could be added.  But it strikes me that in most cases, the era is clear enough from the context given, and the parenthetical dates are just adding clutter. The third factor is length.  It is ALWAYS hard to get reviewers for long articles -- even more so with a tough topic.  Many reviewers disagree with WP:SIZE recommendations on when to split, arguing that there isn't a natural place to split, but this article offers the perfect opportunity for you to have two FAs instead of one.  If you spin off History to its own article, that will be about a 4,000 word article.  And it would be easier to review.  And it would present you the chance to have a first FAC that would be likely to quickly succeed, while you work on the other (main) article-- that is, the parts except History.  That would then be a much more manageable article, and I think you could end up with two FAs, two more pleasant experiences, reviewers more likely to engage, and readers more likely to take on the entire article, as it won't take an hour to read. You then use summary style to summarize the History back to the main article in about three paragraphs. I strongly believe that splitting the article in two will benefit not only you, in terms of the FAC experience, but will also produce something more engaging for our readers.  And I think if you focus on this, get the other collaborators in here, work first on the shorter, History of ... article ... you will soon have the first FA, and a better experience, followed shortly by the tougher main article as an FA.   I suggest at least running these ideas by Gerda, Axl, Mike Christie, and maybe even Ovinus would find time to engage if they could engage first a shorter History article.   I won't have a lot of time to engage, because I am working to get Peer review going again and older FAs reviewed, but feel free to ask me anything anytime.  Good luck and best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk)
===Note from A. Parrot===
I agree with all three of Sandy's suggestions. When I'm reviewing, I'm leery of pushing my stylistic preferences onto the nominator, but now that I have an FAC heavy hitter to hide behind, I will say that parenthetical dates aren't ideal and that  citations are intrusive when reading and inconvenient when spot-checking. Unfortunately, the FAC coincided with a period where I felt unable to concentrate on major tasks beyond my day job—I'm very sorry about that—but I don't expect such a slump any time soon, and a "history of…" article would be a much less daunting prospect to review. A. Parrot (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no objections to  citations; I don't use them myself but as a reader they seem OK to me, and I would hate to see Jen expend a lot of energy (and it would be a lot of energy) in changing them without a good reason.  Re the dates: I asked about that at the FAC and Jen's comment was that it helps the reader to position them in time.  It does do that, and it would require the text to be expanded to give the reader the same context, so I decided it was OK.  I can see the arguments for and against them and would be OK with either keeping or removing them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I switched the referencing at dementia with Lewy bodies mid-FAC, and I did not already have the page numbers (I had to look up every one of them), yet the work was done in a day ... considerably more work than would be needed here, as DLB is a densely cited article, and Jen already has the page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  02:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  SandyGeorgia  A. Parrot I have read through this twice now, and for someone who speed reads (skims) as much material as I do daily, that says something. None of it matters now though. It's been closed, and I can't do more. This was my second try at this, I have spent months of my life, literally months and months writing and rewriting this article, look at the combined time for me, this time, and the first time at FAc, I have poured my heart into this, only to be disappointed yet again. I should have known this would break my heart, again, but I naively thought all I had to do was fix those references and all would be well. I am clearly not cut out for this. I've met some wonderful people, learned a lot, and gotten some really touching comments.  Ovinus reminded me of what this article was when I first got it: "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."  I've given Wikipedia my best, but it wasn't good enough, and I see no evidence that will ever change. I'm sorry. You have all been great. As Sandy says, Best wishes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prepping for the next FAC

message: I agree with all three of Sandy's suggestions. When I'm reviewing, I'm leery of pushing my stylistic preferences onto the nominator, but now that I have an FAC heavy hitter to hide behind, I will say that parenthetical dates aren't ideal and that  citations are intrusive when reading and inconvenient when spot-checking. Unfortunately, the FAC coincided with a period where I felt unable to concentrate on major tasks beyond my day job—I'm very sorry about that—but I don't expect such a slump any time soon, and a "history of…" article would be a much less daunting prospect to review. A. Parrot (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no objections to  citations; I don't use them myself but as a reader they seem OK to me, and I would hate to see Jen expend a lot of energy (and it would be a lot of energy) in changing them without a good reason.  Re the dates: I asked about that at the FAC and Jen's comment was that it helps the reader to position them in time.  It does do that, and it would require the text to be expanded to give the reader the same context, so I decided it was OK.  I can see the arguments for and against them and would be OK with either keeping or removing them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I switched the referencing at dementia with Lewy bodies mid-FAC, and I did not already have the page numbers (I had to look up every one of them), yet the work was done in a day ... considerably more work than would be needed here, as DLB is a densely cited article, and Jen already has the page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  02:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  SandyGeorgia  A. Parrot I have read through this twice now, and for someone who speed reads (skims) as much material as I do daily, that says something. None of it matters now though. It's been closed, and I can't do more. This was my second try at this, I have spent months of my life, literally months and months writing and rewriting this article, look at the combined time for me, this time, and the first time at FAc, I have poured my heart into this, only to be disappointed yet again. I should have known this would break my heart, again, but I naively thought all I had to do was fix those references and all would be well. I am clearly not cut out for this. I've met some wonderful people, learned a lot, and gotten some really touching comments.  Ovinus reminded me of what this article was when I first got it: "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."  I've given Wikipedia my best, but it wasn't good enough, and I see no evidence that will ever change. I'm sorry. You have all been great. As Sandy says, Best wishes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from A. Parrot

message: Just brief notes because I'm behind with article writing which is my focus:
# I use reference pages per template rp only when dealing with pdfs where I can't link to the precise page, to give someone searching for verification an idea. Otherwise, compare referencing in Vespro della Beata Vergine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note from Gerda 

message: ServB1 I have restored the original version of the article from which you deleted the lead. You attempted to move this to Biblical exegesis and that too was reverted and I agree with Gerda that was a mistake. This is not an article that is specifically about exegesis. Exegesis is what Biblical criticism does. Exegesis is the method by which Biblical criticism is accomplished. Any time anyone attempts to understand what someone else has said they are engaging in exegesis - not in Biblical criticism. Exegesis refers to the actual practice, procedures and methods; hermeneutics is concerned with the process; and the broad topic of Biblical criticism has been the overarching guiding principle for all of it. (A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament. Stanley E. Porter. 1997. Brill. p.6) 
If you object to these reverts, please come here and make your argument for your desired changes - with references. Please do not edit war. I am willing to cooperate with anything that improves the article but not with something that mis-categorizes its actual content. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical exegesis 

message: There are several variants of the New Testament that have errors, additions, changes, and skewed translations. Some of these different translations have been used as evidence for doctrinal differences. Maybe we could add something about this since it is such a large criticism?
Corawinkelman (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Corawinkelman It's an interesting idea, and it might possibly fit under textual criticism if you could summarize the problems in a short paragraph. Good luck and happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Biblical criticism, not Criticism of the Bible. Editor2020 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skewed translations 

message: Hello all,
This is just to say that I have made some stylistic changes to the sections regarding the influence of Protestant and rationalist scholarship, and the emergence of the historicity of Jesus as a major research area.
I’ve tried to keep the meaning intact, while structuring things a little more neatly.
For example, I’ve tried to make it a bit clearer where the various influences we link to are Protestant or rationalist in nature, and to clarify that these traditions are distinct from one another, but not necessarily opposed.
Feel free to offer feedback, or simply dive in and fix whatever mistakes I have made in doing so.
Foxmilder (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Focusing just on the style, you have made substantial improvements.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for this feedback — I haven't edited anything this substantial before, so it's very helpful to hear from other editors as to whether or not a given set of edits actually improves the page. Foxmilder (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have made some stylistic changes to the introductory section