User talk:Alastair Haines

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA

We are the promoters of the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Vädersolstavlan

Hello,
You are a volunteered copyeditor listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and I'd be glad if you could have a look at the article Vädersolstavlan I just nominated for peer reviewing. My shortcomings in English most likely makes copyediting both necessary and easy.
Thanks
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to self -- this article now at GA. Could reach FA. Author has very good SL English, lots of content, copy-edit assistance important but not drastic. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hi, I saw your name on the wikipedia:peer review volunteer page. I'm currently working on a science article called the Kardashev Scale, the page has gone through a lot of changes in the last 3 months, some of them reverts that I wish to overturn. I've sent out some notices to people who have worked on the page previously but I'm having problems getting open opinions and feedback. Their ideas about what they want the article to be about and look like are pretty set. I need outside opinion.

In my opinion the Kardashev scale has 3 primary interests:

• 1) A benchmark used by Seti scientists in there search for extraterrestrials
• 2) A catch-all vocabulary term for a scale used by scientists, in classifying advanced civilizations. This has important implications when speculating on sociological structures of advanced civilizations. But also, it is a necessary analysis when talking what about clues might be left behind or generated by alien species; which then might lead the the discovery of extraterrestrials.
• 3) Because it is can be used for the speculation of advanced civilizations it is a magnet for those interested in science fiction. Not many science fiction writers actually talk about the scale or the power generated by fiction species in power(WATTS) terms, but science fiction enthusiasts are interested in the Kardashev Scale.

My primary goals are in advancing the content area of number 2 and diminishing the fictional content. After all, it is a scientific not a fictional topic. My secondary goals are to find and add published content on the extension of the scale. The feedback I have gotten is pretty much divided between goals 1 or 3. And I don't want to create a editing war!

So please read the article and the discussion page and tell me what you think!!

• 1)Is the article presently fine the way it is?
• 2)After you read it, did you get the impression that it was a science article or a science fiction article?
• 3)Was it too long, too short, easy to understand?
• 4)Was the article interesting, was it boring, did it feel jumbled or was it concise?
• 5)What do you think might be needed to be added to this article, what do you think needs to be edited out?

Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to self -- author has excellent, energetic, terse English style. Minor MoS punctuation issues. Difficult topic to circumscribe. Difficult judgement calls on where to expand explanation, and where to avoid digression. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Heroes Peer Review

I noticed that your user name was on the Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers list. I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Passed this for GA. Outstanding article, should reach FA. Grunt work required standardising format of almost 200 references. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another request for Peer Review

Hello! I, too, saw your name on the volunteers list for peer review, and would like some constructive criticism or general comments on the Preludes (Chopin) article. It requires a general, overall clean-up, and, in my opinion, a good Copyeditor face-lift, considering the not-up-to-par literary tone and other details that need fixing. Much effort has been given into the improvement of this article, by myself and others of the Classical music project. I myself am a copyeditor, albeit a novice, and so I humbly ask for your assistance in the reshaping and betterment of this article. Thank you for your consideration! :-) --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of Huldrych Zwingli

Hello Alastair, Looking over the field of volunteers, you and this article might be a good match for a peer review. I noticed that you have a five solas user box! I would be interested in hearing your opinions. I don't mind lots of criticisms. The last article I took to FA (John Knox) was reviewed by two historians and they made some tough, but valid comments. Thanks in advance for your help! --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Article is now FA. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One more request for peerreview

Hello Alastair, if you have the time I think the article on Nahuatl which I have nominated for a pre-FA peerreview is right up your ballpark. I would certainly appreciate any comments and suggestions you have that might lead me to improve the content, style and grammar of the article. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Academic Journals Collaboration notice

The current WikiProject Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week is Electrical Experimenter Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.

Speedy deletion of Template:Books of the Biblical Apocrypha

A tag has been placed on Template:Books of the Biblical Apocrypha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review of Jack Warner

Hi Alastair, Thanks, again, for all of your help on Jimmy McAleer! The FAC languished for more than a month, but I'm happy to report that the article was promoted. Earlier today, I requested a peer review for a piece on movie mogul Jack Warner. The article includes plenty of information, and it's fairly engaging; but I know it would benefit from your outstanding copy editing. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, as always! Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

rongorongo peer review

Hi Alastair,

I've requested peer review for rongorongo. If you're interested, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. kwami (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Retiarius

Hello, Alastair! I got your name from the list of peer review volunteers. I hoped you might take some time to look at retiarius, an article I put up for peer review yesterday. I hope to take it to Featured Article Candidates soon, but before that, it would be nice to get some feedback from people who are interested in ancient history. The peer review page can be found here. Thanks for your time! — Dulcem (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of Facebook

I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of PHP

I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the Kardashev scale

I think you had a lot of good suggestions I'll have to take sometime and think about how I can improve the article. I was wondering if you could explain a little more by what you meant by saying the article was TOO concise? I'm struggling with understanding that, since I tend to ramble and always find I need to work at being more concise.--Sparkygravity (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that explanation was helpful. I've had editing conflicts, in the past, where information was deemed irrelevant and removed. Information that I felt gave a breadth to the topic which made it easier to understand for younger readers or lay audiences. So your explaination is an outsiders opinion that helps me. I understand what your saying, now, about being too concise. Kardashev scale is a rather broad and speculative topic, with fictional, scientific, social, and even teleological implications. I have to think about how to embed the article with this conceptual information, including formatting. I'm thinking that it might be helpful to either add to the introductory paragraph, or introduce a new paragraph that tries to summarize but expand the tools, references and wikilinked topics a younger reader would find helpful. I think I've tried to implement a wider range of perspective into each individual sub-paragraph.... but so far I don't know if that's been really helpful or appreciated. I'll think about it some more. Thanks.--Sparkygravity (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Heroes GA promotion!

Wow! Thanks for all the kind words you left on my talkpage. I am really excited that everyone's hard work on the Heroes page during the hiatus paid off and we have been elevated into a GA. I think we are almost ready for FA status. It is just the refs section. The refs are jacked up...seriously, I dont know what to do about it. I cant really find anyone to commit to cleaning them up. To be honest, refs arent my thing. I hate hate hate formatting refs because sometimes I am just in the mood to write and I dont feel like formatting and all that...but the project really needs to find someone who can help us. It would be great if you could copyedit. I have been petitioning the LOCE to come to do it for months, but they are so backed up that they havent even had time to come and edit the article. If copyediting is something you are good at, I encourage you to come and do it. I think those are the two areas that would stop us from being a FA. Refs and lack of proper/professional copyediting. I want to reach FA status before the new season begins, so I can try to get Heroes as the article of the day on the premiere night and try to get it at FA with a hire standard before people start coming and tearing the page up when the series returns in the fall. but, thanks for your kind words...and thats for listing us as a GA article. Let me know about the copyediting and I will work on finding someone to clean the refs. thanks...cheers to you!--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 06:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for review of Nahuatl - now it is at the FAC

If you want to participate it is found here. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Aang

I saw your name on the PR volunteer list, so I decided to come to you. The Aang article was kept from FA status mainly for one reason: prose. I would really appreciate it if you could look over the article and provide some comments on the prose or maybe even copyedit it yourself. Thanks. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c e m l)} 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Aang

Thanks for the review! I appreciate the copyedit. You suggested I should either develop or drop the Buddhist influence paragraph. Since I believe the paragraph is important, I decided to develop. I have expanded it a little bit by adding relations to the show. As for your other comment, even though it does not seem to have much hope, I wish to make this article FA anyway (or at least attempt). One last favor for me would be if you could just check over the influences paragraph again and see how much more it needs. Thanks again. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Retiarius again

Hello, Alastair! Thanks again for your input in the retiarius peer review. I have now submitted the article to Featured Article Candidates. If you have time, your input there would again be appreciated. — Dulcem (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rongorongo FA

Hi Alastair,

I've put rongorongo up for FA[1] if you wish to comment. I've expanded it slightly since you were last there. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean that the scripts were cognate, only for the etymology of the name that the root rogo is an old AN root. — kwami (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Patriarchy (ethnographies)

Template:Patriarchy (ethnographies) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neitherday (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review assistance requested

I started a peer review at WikiProject video games for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. If you could copyedit it or put in any other suggestions, I'd appreciate it: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review#The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Ocarina_of_Time. Thanks! Voyaging^(talk) 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex

You're the only person I know that's paying attention to my work on the Sex article... at some point I run out of ideas on what to include / add. Can you tell me which parts are the most confusing / hard to understand? I can work on expanding and/or simplifying these. Also, is there anything where a diagram would help a lot with understanding? I've gotten pretty good at making diagrams. It helps to hear what an outsider to the field sees as confusing in an article.

While I was writing this I changed my mind about my justification for the opening statement regarding male, female, and hermaphrodite as the three possible sexes - people are going to think a single species can have three sexes. I've reworded it to remove that sentence. Do you think the current version sufficiently emphasizes that it's a dichotomy? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree on both points you made and made the changes. Thank you! That last sentence about gender was mostly there because I felt guilty about removing all the gender information that used to exist in this article and worried about what to do if people came here and didn't find the information they were looking for. That's going to be one of the major issues with an article about a word with so many different (but related) meanings, I'm afraid.

I hadn't noticed that you had established androdioecy—you obviously know quite a bit about this material too! :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 16:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reviewers Award
		For your review effort during the Nahuatl FA nomination process. Thanks, you did a great job!·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Food of the Gods...

I had mused on getting pork to GA or FA at some stage. I wondered in your middle eastern studies whether you'd seen anything re discussion of the evolution of the restriction of pork. There is some material on Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork which I may import to the main article (the bit on Maimonides seems good), would be good to get some references on this stuff.

And then there is Scottish pork taboo...gosh, one learns something new every day! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dweller found some stuff on Maimonides and I was wondering what you thought as well. I am a complete neophyte in this area. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tafl games

Greetings! I would like to request your feedback on the article Tafl games. My goal is to get the article up to WP:GA standards, and I am ready to make the necessary changes to improve the quality of this article. Your thoughts and ideas would be most appreciated! Feel free to post your review on the article's talk page or on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Wilhelm meis (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tafl games is awaiting a review for its Good Article nomination. Perhaps you would like to review it for GA pass/fail? Wilhelm meis (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder. Looking forward to your feedback. Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Please see WP:GAN. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with the tafl article. If you ever need my help on a peer review or anything related to games, heraldry, or anything else, drop me a line. Wilhelm meis (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hi! I was wondering if you'd be able to look over this peer review (article). It's got a long way to go, and any input would be greatly appreciated. :) This spam message brought to you on behalf of the current Tzatziki Squad collaboration. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

G'day

G'day esteemed person who has expressed interest in Sydney based meetups at this page (I hope that's the correct wording for the formal greeting!!). You may have heard that Australia is to have its very own 'chapter' of the Wikimedia Foundation - and further, there's a meeting coming up to discuss / enact the chapter's incorporation (details here). I'm afraid that I don't know too much about the details of what this entails, other than having a private hope that we might get a secret handshake, and maybe cheap coffee at wikimania (this is a poor attempt at humour - I'm sure that the Chapter's do great work, and it's a good thing that Australia is to have one).

If you're interested in meeting up this weekend (the set date is the 20th) - or later, then please do head over here and sign up, or make a comment at the talk page... the drive to create the chapter has largely come from another town in Australia that I'm afraid I haven't actually heard much about.. and anything they can do.... right? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1)

Hi, seeing such a great job you did on Aang, I wanted to ask if you could look at Avatar: The Last Airbender (Season 1). It requires more general advice because it has not been copyedited yet, but I just want as much advice for where I should go with this article as I can get. Thanks a lot. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for encouragement

It is wonderfull to edit articles with people like You and Andrew. We have a lot of work. All codices. Yes all. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and other are not finished. But I work on "History of the Text of New Testament", it will first this kind of book in Poland. It is really very difficult job (relashionship between families of manuscripts). I do not know when I will finish it. Not quicly. To much complications. From time to time I write some articules in polish, english and russian wikipedia (usually about biblical manuscripts). It is much easier than work with this impossible to finish book. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Drinks and a wiki chat?

G'day sydneysider - fancy a 'not quite a meetup but a few drinks' sort of thing? - We can chat about the new aussie chapter, the price of eggs and have our very own 2020 Wiki Summit! - or just sink a couple of cold ones and gass bag about the good 'ol days of wiki, when an editor could get some repsect (not a typo)! I've suggested something here so take a look and sign up if you're up for it... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we do.

Hello Alistair:

I have the impression that the focus of your contributions to the talk:Genie discussion is more on underlying principles than on the specific case. Also my question of you is general rather than specific. So I have brought my question here.

You wrote: "And I have not heard a coherent case for excluding the name. That's my point, it doesn't matter what we do, it matters why we do what we do."

I can agree that our reasons for actions are important, but why do you say "it doesn't matter what we do"? That is a very sweeping statement. I'm not certain you mean it that way but I suspect you do.

Thank you and best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alastair

Thank you for your well-written response to my criticism of the opening section of the gender article. I must have been angry at something when I wrote that, sorry. Just letting you know that I will put together a response for you and supply some evidence this time around. However, it may be awhile as I have final examinations coming up next week. Good luck with you and although I came off poorly in my first post my efforts are to better the information provided.Ripcurlprfection (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Further to your comments, I think you might be interested in following and/or contributing at WP:BLP and WP:BLPN (and talkpages) where those interested and/or experienced in these issues discuss both individual questions as well as have more policy-based meta discussions. You might also be interested in various essays, pages and guidelines that have been created by other editors, e.g. [2], WP:HARM and Wikipedia:Coatrack. My personal opinion is that since every case is different, it is hard to set in stone that many 'standards', though as you will see the WP:HARM does contain some clues. In this particular case, I found it telling that two very experienced editors who are often, by their own admission, quite unsympathetic of a "Do no harm" reasoning, thought that this was a clear case where this applied.[3] [4] --Slp1 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another peer review

Hello Alastair. I have come by with another theology-oriented article that is undergoing peer review, Thomas Cranmer. Please help if you can. Thanks! --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nair

Saw your comment on Ricky's page. If you look at the Nair article now, I've added a reference for the marriage format from Google Books. It describes the process in some detail. I also recommend O. Chandumenon's Indulekha. I can't remember the version (I bought it on Amazon though), but in a letter he describes the Nair Marriage format in great detail. --vi5in^[talk] 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Do send me the results of your study/research when you are done. I expect it will be a pleasure to read! --vi5in^[talk] 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism

I'm not really sure what your question is. I only added ref quotes to the Daly and Wilson and the Buss, et al. citations, but the exact same issue could be said for the later Evolutionary history citation in the same paragraph. Frankly, the direct quotations seem out of place and I would put them into the ref tag themselves but there is doesn't seem to be anything in the article that they specifically are attached to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3

Hi, you peer reviewed Facebook a few weeks ago. If you have time, could you please take a second look at the article as it is now and post some comments at the peer review? Please let us know if the comments you posted last time have been addressed or not. I would like to bring the article to FAC soon, so any copyediting help would also be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

Tomorrow 6pm (hopefully!) Andjam (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request:Anekantavada

Hi Alastair, I see your are listed as a volunteer for Peer Review on Religion and Philosophy related articles and need your expertise. This is a request for additional peer-review of article Anekantavada. This article had been peer-reviewed by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) who suggested that someone with interest in religion and philosophy should also peer review the article. Besides peer review I would also appreciate active improvements on this article (like copy editing, tagging for citations/ NPOV, wikifying links etcs and other stylistic concerns) That is, if you have time. The problem is not a single article relating Jainism is a featured or A-class article and all the articles are in a pathetic state. Hence I would doubly appreciate your efforts.--Anish (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have changed the Structure and added some material......can you check it out ?--Anish (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

OK, this is an OK overview - there is a great book called Becoming Attached by Robert Karen, which is a great read and readily digestible by laypeople. Enjoy. 05:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute at documentary hypothesis

Alastair, I'm currently having a dispute on the Talk page at documentary hypothesis. Neither I nor the other editor can convince each other of our respective positions. Would you like to be brave and offer an independent opinion? PiCo (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your masterly handling of the situation Alastair. As you say, the two positions weren't really that far apart, but it needed someone like you to find the way out. As for nominating you for the big one, I'd be delighted, just let me know. PiCo (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewording talk section

That's what happens when a cooler head prevails. Thanks again for your assistance. Faith (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Judas

Can I possibly bother you for another intervention? Talk:Judas_Iscariot#Death_section outlines my view on the problem, while it's going again turn into an edit war with an editor trying to retain OR. Thanks Faith (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Faith (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Well, it was a help to me, because it gave me a new reference (as if I need any more books, lol). Faith (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alistair. I do not much appreciate being described as an 'antagonist' in this discussion - I am simply an ordinary editor, trying my best to ensure that Wikipedia has wide, balanced and scholarly coverage of the issues. And I have not 'vanished' - you need to remember that we are not all in the same time zone, and some of us have families who also place demands on us, and sometimes it is worth taking time out to compose a considered response rather than a hurried one. Your phrasing could, frankly, be taken to imply that you are not being even handed. I want to emphasise that I do not, in fact, question your even-handedness. But if you are going to involve yourself in a dispute between two editors, you need to be scrupulous about what you say and how you say it, on both sides. It would also have been appropriate to post a message on my talk page to let me know what you were doing. That would have been helpful to me, and would have left me with a more confident feeling that you were trying to be fair.

I am sure this was completely unintentional on your part, and as I have said, I do not in fact question your even-handedness here. On the contrary, I find your contribution both fair and helpful. It is really useful to have the participation of someone who actually knows what they are talking about; I certainly would not claim to be an expert - all of my contributions are motivated by my frustration at seeing articles about biblical subjects reduced to mindless prattle by uninformed fundamentalists on both sides (I mean the 'Jesus never existed' camp as well as the 'Every word of the Bible is literally true' ones) - and I struggle to try and include what examples I can find of good scholarship which reflects what I understand as, very broadly, the mainstream view - that the Bible was written by ordinary people, decently trying to express what they understood as theological truths, in a very human and fallible way, in a culture very different to ours, and not simply intending to create a one-dimensional, historically exact narrative of events. (Trust me, I'm an archivist)

I want to make a couple of points about the Judas article that you might find useful. One thing I do know about is web usability and readability, which is why I make a special effort to ensure that the articles I work on are not just fair and accurate, but also accessible to ordinary readers - for example, making general statements higher up, more detailed discussion lower down (the 'upside-down pyramid' approach), and using ordinary language (people tend to stop reading at the point where they find something they don't understand).

The first point may help to explain what I was doing with the Matthew reference. I mentioned the fact that the quotation from Jeremiah was problematic, simply pointing out that the reference appears to be in fact from Zecharaiah (which I thought was hardly controversial). I added, further down, the view that "the Matthew account is a midrashic exposition that allows the author to present the event as a fulfilment of prophetic passages from the Old Testament books of Zechariah and Jeremiah." I'm not saying that could not be improved upon - certainly it could be expanded, and would offer a very interesting insight into how the Gospel writers work, which you touch on in your comments. And if it is controversial, I am perfectly happy for the entire reference to be shifted from the Matthew quote to the lower section, or a new one.

What concerns me is that, instead of suggesting a rewrite or asking for a citation, the editor FaithF simply removed the reference to the problem, leaving the reader with no explanation as to why a quotation from Jeremiah is supported by a citation to a completely different book of the Bible. I was even more concerned by the fact that I was accused by the same editor of Original Research in this, in stating what is I believe an admittedly simplifed version of a common observation. FaithF does seem very quick to accuse others of Original Research. That seems to me to run contrary to the principle of assuming good faith. I notice you have not challenged FaithF on this. Should I take this to mean that you agree with him / her?

The second point, about using everyday language, is relevant to your insertion of Greek text and detailed Bible references. The Greek especially, in roman and in Greek script, seems excessive to me - does it add anything? I'm not sure it does, and I worry that it might put off readers. Remember, this is not an academic dissertation - it's for a general audience. This sort of material might be better off in footnotes. I mention this here and not in the talk page of the article because (a) it's a general point you might like to consider in other articles (forgive me if I sound like I'm lecturing to you, I don't mean to); and (b) I frankly have neither the time nor the energy to commit to making small attempts to improve articles when these are likely to be met with accusations of bad faith. If you feel like considering them in the article, please go ahead.

Finally, you might like to have a look at the article on Internal consistency of the Bible, where the same editor has completely overhauled the article in recent days. Much of this is useful - large tables of pretty useless to-and-fro POV commentary about specific lines from the Bible and whether they are contradictory or not have been removed - but now, where there were occasional sections which attempted to reflect a balanced view of some controversial lines and what they tell us about the thinking of the Gospel writers - there is, mostly, an extended essay on 'What inconsistencies have been alleged and why they aren't really inconsistencies' - complete with the usual allegations of original research, inaccurate synthesis, and insinuations of bad faith, as well as citations from eighteenth and nineteenth century publications and obscure apologetic websites.

Of course, that is just my viewpoint, and I am certainly not neutral in this, and I'm not asking you to agree with me. But I would welcome a balanced and considered view of this, if you can find time to offer an opinion. If not, well, thanks again for your highly constructive contribution to the Judas article.--Rbreen (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Added my gold coin :) Faith (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, I've added a very brief response to your reply on my talk page. --Rbreen (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal consistency of the bible

Dear Alastair: I've made an edit in the article Internal consistency of the Bible, in the section Old Testament. It seemed to me that the article was bogged down in apologetics, sort of "here's an alleged inconsistency, let's show why it isn't." I've tried to show why the inconsistencies, alleged or not, matter: how apparent inconsistencies led to the DH, how inconsistencies between the DtrH and Chronicler's History can elucidate out understanding of what Chronicler's is saying. Faith is a very active editor of this article and will doubtless go ballistic. You might like to come and have a look and ensure that everyone keeps cool! (Yes, even I need to be cooled down - I have a tendency to tease people, and sometimes be perhaps a little too short-tempered.) PiCo (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ballistic? No. I simply reverted with a note on talk, because PiCo's changes removed all the sourced material from two sections in favour of editorial SYN and OR. It is annoying, however, that PiCo made all these changes, and informed three editors for support, without saying something to me who is called "a very active editor of this article". But no matter. Faith (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PiCo was talking to me there Faith not you. I'm sure he doesn't mean it, he's more frustrated and worried about himself exasperating you. He knows you have a case. And he knows I understand what he means. And he's being a bit naughty hoping I'll smooth over any ruffled feathers. But he's welcome. ;)

PiCo say sorry to Faith for suggesting ballistic behaviour was a possibility!

Faith, I think you're doing just right. You are making decisions within policy and it is a very healthy restraint on others. Can you consider being a little slower and more gentle when you're right all the time? A lot of us blunder around a bit and appreciate a little space.

I've sometimes found this the most difficult thing at Wiki -- going slowly and letting some wrong things happen, so that it means we all end up going forward together. I've probably got lazy and I'm not bold enough often enough, so I'm appreciating your energy Faith.

But still, think about this, if you're right and backed by sources, you'll win eventually, why rush? Also, if someone's wrong and working without sources, it's not going to last in the long run.

Hmmm, I'm not sure if PiCo is a man (very sorry if I got this wrong, didn't mean to insult you;). Don't know this aspect of who you are either Faith. Don't want to open a can of worms if this is an issue. Crazy, but I'd prefer people told me a lie than leave me hanging. It's almost as though a basic part of a normal social introduction is missing. But don't mind me. Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(I'll AGF and not ask what you were smoking at the end here, lol). I guess lack of introduction is The Way of the Wiki (I envision that the title of a Haiku.) PiCo doesn't need to apologise. It's not a big deal, and I'm not that easily injured. I'm not trying to "be right", but only a bit more correct than you mere mortals (lol). Seriously, I didn't mean any offence. Even though it's to be expected with a wiki, it's annoying to spend several days clean up a hugely horrible article, searching all over for proper online and book references, to have it replaced a day or two later with more OR. Anyway, this is probably why I should exit stage right, and do something more constructive (like trim my toenails, an endeavour which would produce results lasting longer than a day or two). I'd forgotten how frustrating wikis can be. Faith (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PiCo is a man. The nick comes from the first syllables of my first and second names, with a small change: Philip Coggan. (Google that name: there are two of us: the first is an extremely eminent financial journalist with the London Financial Times, much-respected for his insights into the financial system, author of several highly-regarded books; the other one is me). Alastair, it's nice of you to suggest I might study at a biblical college, but I think I'm a bit too old to do it properly - Hebrew is beyond me I fear. But I sincerely wish you all the best with your career. Let's meet someday when I'm back in Sydney - or if you come to Phnom Penh. PiCo (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, and also bless you. Faith (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Journalism

Congrats on being offered a full-time job with the C-B Gazette. Many, many journos get their start with local newspapers - take Andrew Denton, who I understand is doing quite well. Whether you want journalism for a career I don't know - print journalism is supposed to be a dying trade, along with print itself, newspapers going out of business all over the place, magazines not much better off, and journalists staying alive on Red Cross packages. My big secret is that I don't actually need the money I get from writing - I'm 57 and have superannuation and investment income, and the writing is because I like doing it. (My real-life employment was with the Dept of Foreign Affairs and then with the UN).

But if you're a writer, you'll write, like a fish will swim and a bird will fly.

Good luck, and let's stay in touch. (You can email me if you like - the email link is included on the personal page, somewhere). PiCo (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Heraldry

Indeed, I have been studying heraldry via the Society for Creative Anachronism for several years, and even put my meager skills to use in my brief term as local herald for my shire (local SCA group), which involved helping others learn about heraldry and the principles of design employed in SCA heraldry. SCA heraldry is admittedly a little different than period heraldry. For instance, the SCA gives a very short leash for marshalling and also has special rules regarding modern symmetry and offensive heraldry (such as using swastikas, which would have been appropriate in the Middle Ages, but would be considered offensive now). Heraldry did indeed develop into some "national" styles, although these did not necessarily follow lines we would recognize as national nowadays. In areas of strong German influence (more accurately, Holy Roman Empire influence), eagles featured prominently, while in areas of more French influence (including England), lions feature prominently. Some areas developed other distinctive attributes, in terms of symmetry and proportion (note the special crosses seen throughout Scandinavian heraldry and vexillology).

On another topic, if you know anyone who reads French, I'd like some help translating fr:Trictrac to add to the quality and world-wide view of Tables (board game). Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You might check [[Category:Heraldry_by_country]]. I think I'll add "starting new national heraldry stubs" to my "to do" list. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Judaisms view of Jesus

Hallo. Not sure if this is your department but I would value your ionput in the discussion here - [5]. I support the edit in question but I'd like to see some other opinions before RV'ing. Thanks.

Also, if you've read any of Kenneth Kitchen's books, Mosaic Authorship really could use a section with his views. BestWolf2191 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that response which was right on target.

The question is though whether this statement:

This article addresses Rabbinic Judaism's response to views expressed by the Christian theology of, e.g., the Nicene Creed, regarding Jesus of Nazareth (or “Jesus Christ”), as those views may impinge upon Judaism. For other purposes, see Historical Jesus or Jesus (disambiguation).]

ought to be added at the head of the article. I think I can understamd why someone would want to distingush between the question of the historical and "theological" (read evangelical) "Jesus so I support the edit but what do you think on that score? Thanks againWolf2191 (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Glossary

Alastair -- thanks so much for your kind words! I've been laying low of late, trying to finish the last touches on a book that's taken way too long to Galley proof. But it's nice to hear that someone out there thinks the same way on some things. It doesn't necessarily make me right to have you agree, but it certainly makes me feel better about it! :-) How have you been? Tim (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Alastair -- thanks for the note :-). What's your book about? Mine is a collaborative effort, which was going to be anonymously published (like the New American Standard) but is now going to have our names listed as editors. I'm a little behind the eight ball. It was supposed to be finished a few weeks ago and I have about two weeks to go. That means the people who purchased at pre-pub price will get their copy about a month late. In any event, we've priced it as low as we can at 16 dollars a copy Comprehensive New Testament. You won't see any commentary, though. Think "Nestle-Aland... in English."Tim (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Alastair -- I understand about being over the limit! Been there, STAYED there way too long. It's funny what happens to those dissertaions. Mine turned into a full blown edition of the New Testament "The Common Edition" (the result of an algorithmic comparison of what ten translations had in common and what they did not, with certain features weighted according to what users were looking for in a market survey I performed). The result was something like an updated evangelical RSV. I tried unsuccessfully to get it published, and even sent samples to Billy Graham and James Dobson in 1995, but Billy Graham's staff said he couldn't be bothered and James Dobson informed me there was no need for a standardized English version. I finally gave up and released it to Project Gutenberg online back in 2001. The Comprehensive New Testament corrects that previous text against the Nestle-Aland and maps the deviations in twenty translations in the footnotes.

I've always liked the Song of Songs (and never cared for the Artscroll version of it). What's your thesis?Tim (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole time you were describing your thesis I had in the back of my mind: "of course, doesn't everyone know that?" that comes when you see so universal a blind spot so blatantly exposed. Bravo! It's one of those "somewhere inside I always knew that but never realized it" moments you don't get very often. Hopefully it will get the traction it deserves and resonate. How long till you're done?Tim (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you have your own trilemma of sorts with this one. Erich Neumann argued in his works that the Hebrew Bible was a partriarchal overlay on older matriarchal Babylonian/Sumerian myths. Perhaps, but even those had burst the boundaries of the matriarchal ur-religion. Gilgamesh is certainly patriarchal. As for the Bible, I couldn't find anything in Neumann's works that referred to the Song of Songs, and that piece of literature would have been too late for his consideration anyway. I've pulled out Alder's Literary analysis of the Bible and will take a look at his SOS take sometime in the next week or so. I've always called the woman "Shoshanna" because of her comment about herself as the Lily of the valley (which is most bizarrely applied to Jesus in a Baptist Hymn -- another example of patriarchalism run amok; if the woman finds her flower metaphor stolen by a male figure!). Perhaps a literary angle? I think you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that Jews and Christians each see themselves as the spouse of a male deity, and apply the SOS metaphorically to themselves. In that light, regardless of the original intent of the author (which may not be provable), the RECEPTION has certainly been taken by the religious groups in empathy (identification) with the female character. At least, for Jews and Christians, the female is the central figure TO THEMSELVES. Could that be the window to wriggle into your analysis?Tim (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Trilemma

Hi Alastair - I've responded to your comment on my talk page there. I see in the meantime you've been commenting on the Lewis trilemma page - no response from me currently as I'm really busy, but the talk page comments will I hope elucidate ... --Rbreen (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus

Can you correct Codex Sinaiticus? This article is not finished, but needs some cleanning. One sentence is strange to me: "while the block of text has the reciprocal proportions, .91 (the same proportions, rotated 90°)." ".91" — it is mistake. May be 91°? I am not sure. I admire your linguistical possililites, because I now only similar languages (with exception for hebrew), and only one I know well. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explanations. I am impressed by sumerian, hieroglyphics, hieratyc scripts. For me it is abstraction. Maybe I should note, I am Ukrainian by nationality, but I was born in Poland. I have no problem with Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Polish. In fact these languages are similar (also Slovac, Czech), but only in Polisch and Russian I speak well. God bless you. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit help

Hello Alastair. I am looking for someone to copyedit Textual criticism, which I am working on toward FA status. Interested? Drop me a line if so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Alastair, Thank you for your words of encouragement, but I can only take a small portion of the credit. I realise that section is very long, and threatens overwhelming the article, so I'm not adverse to someone making it more succinct while maintaining the central points. I started to remove it today, but had a second thought and kept it there until someone complains. I believe I could have written an entire article just on that topic, as there is a wealth of material showing why those census lists are not contradictory if examined properly. Of course there are always the apologists one wishes one could gag, but I find it helpful to stick with the "oldies", knowing they have stood the test of time for good reason. I only drew on Ware's thesis as he echoes prominent scholars, but also deals with the entire issue, allowing us to avoid WP:SYN issues. You commented that people are "not really interested in the topic beyond a very short discussion, and the longer an explanation resolving a discrepancy, the more it looks tenuous", and I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, sometimes the answers aren't short and sweet, and I can only tell the impatient person that theological responses usually don't fit on a bumper sticker. When my patience is tested, I find turning to BLP issues a good diversion, making sure the wiki isn't harming reputations of real people; it's amazing how much garbage sneaks into the articles. --Faith (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I wonder if a separate article might be a viable solution. What do you think? We could then add a main article link, rather than a lengthy section on this article. --Faith (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pep talk and the very helpful suggestions. --Faith (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the informing me--Angel David (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada

Thanks for your previous help on the article. You suggestions on structure were a real help in improving the article. Qmwne235 (talk · contribs) has also substantially helped me past few days and on his suggestion I have put it for up for GA class review also. I request you to have a fresh look at the article. I hope this passes the muster for GA…this will give me confidence to nominate it for FA class. Do have a relook. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada has been promoted as a Good article. Your contributions have immensely helped improved this article. Thanks for all your help. I hope you will help me out to make this as a featured article. I also intend to work on other Jainism related articles and am counting on your expertise. Thanks! --Anish (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

i so want to steal some of your userboxes...

may i borrow some of your boxes?

by the way, good work on the comma john article.

-bc IsraelXKV8R (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedias in Classical Languages

Cudos on your support (Foundation mailing list). I don't think it will be quick or easy, but I think these requests will win out in the end.

I prefer arguing that these are "Classical Languages" (not "ancient" or "dead" languages), and that a classical language cannot by definition be dead. Don't let the opponents use their terminology unopposed!

The main language that has been excluded is Classical Greek, with every-so-often a new deletion threat raised against Latin (which always fails since an active community actually exists that is building it). The main thing that might possibly get Greek going is translating the interface and creating some pilot content. Dovi (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Sirius before the archaic period

Alastair, your sources and/or abilities may be helpful here - Talk:Sirius#Reference_to_Jay_B._Holberg. A detailed source I had on Sirius raise the possibility that it was imported to Ancient Greek (presumably recently) before the Archaic period (as it is mentioned in Hesiod by name at that stage), I guess because of its unusual formation. Now another editor is unhappy with how I have worded it and questioning a book by an astronomer on its linguisitic qualifications. Anyway, all help appreciated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

Hello Alastair. I'm having a (reasonably amicable) dispute with another editor on the Noah's Ark page. There's currently a vote on a certain proposed edit on the Talk page there. Perhaps you might care to look at the issues? PiCo (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada

Hi Alastair....Not seen you on the article for a long time. I was hoping you would help me out to make this as a FA. Your help until now has been fantastic and I am still banking on you. But if you dont have time I will understand...your efforts have changed and improved the structure of the article. Thanks--Anish (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

War of the disambiguated sexes

Hi, Yamara here. I'm not trying to give you hard time or edit war, it's just that disambig pages are simple affairs, designed only to guide people in finding an article with a specific name. A reader may wish to explore epicene from a related article page, but from a disambig it's pretty strictly by word form: on DAB we have to help readers find what they are already looking for, not distract them.

Your research and citations are excellent, but belong on an article page where debate and edits can expand. There's a disambig rule about one active link per line, which is why I've left femininity (and masculinity) as the main articles the page points to. Citations of "positive" aspects plainly belong there, as the noun suggests the quality of the condition. However, declaring "feminine" as objectively positive could invite ridicule, as some of the most frequent appearances in common usage are "Feminine hygiene" and "feminine napkin".[6] (And, in scholarly aspects, your Johnson quote example. His choice of words was always precise, and he is not suggesting anything particularly positive with his use of "feminine".)

Hope this clears up my stance, without any undue animosity. We can have WikiProject Disambiguation sort it out, if you prefer. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Immortality

I have held no doubt about your passion for these subjects, and considered asking for your assistance on Immortality's Christianity section (as per the tag there) while we were distracting over the DABs. For my part, I would welcome your input.

I'm glad you appreciate my insight as to immortality being a goal. I think we can demonstrate this is not OR, if we are careful and strict about our references. We should therefore let the sources speak their passion, and leave interpretation to cautious and creative editing.

Just as a comment from a preceding note of yours, I welcome collegiate approaches, but if any encyclopedia exists outside an ivory tower, it's Wikipedia. I'm a realist in this regard, and tend to edit with the expectation that the average person will both expect to understand all non-technical entries, and have her say in them as well. Look forward to seeing you in Talk:Immortality. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (reposted from Talk:Yamara)

Gender of God talk page

I removed your section titled Exploring a feminine Holy Spirit with the edit summary "your WQA ended with agreement that this is in violation of WP:TALK". You immediately undid this removal with the reply "not without talking with me it doesn't" [sic].

Nobody needs to gain your permission to apply Wikipedia policies. Whether you are in violation is irrespective of whether you think you are in violation. How many people need to agree that you are in the wrong before you will consider that you might be? Ilkali (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why I'm getting involved in this tiff is beyond me, but maybe it's because I think I see well-meaning editors making commendable contributions, but then lots of impatience and suboptimal levels of civility on top of that. I think we need to distinguish how ready editors should be to put up POV tags from how ready they should be for citation-needed/unreferenced tags. WP:NPOV tags should not be put up without at least a brief discussion on the Talk page. Citation-needed/unreferenced tags, on the other hand, can immediately go up, as suggested by WP:PROVEIT. --Atemperman (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to format Talk page back-and-forths, so I'll just reply to your remarks on my page here. I arrived at this mess by looking through the RfCs, and didn't want to spend several hours poring over what everyone has done so I could render an impeccably researched judgement. I understand all your points, and am sympathetic in many ways, but think that you invite trouble when you put on so imperious a persona. I think you're being too focused on being right, rather than on trying to achieve the best result. If you're going to add in the sources later anyway, then just say that, let the "unreferenced" tags stand, and remove them when you put in the sources. Since in WP, you don't have as much choice as you might in other forums over whom you're collaborating with, navigating these issues is as much about managing people as it is content.--Atemperman (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Hi alistair. i've done quite a bit of rearranging and sorting on the page if you'd care to have a look. I also put the individual developments of each tenet with the relevent tenet to see how it works. Fainites ^barley 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks Alistair! Re the reworking of the first para of the second section though - alot of what you've added is not actually what the source says which is a bit of a problem. Fainites ^barley 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to revert it all, it only took an hour! ;) I'm not sure whose text it was, or if it was correct. I simply tried to rephrase the text to say more straight-forwardly what I thought it was saying.

I was also trying to phrase it neutrally and appropriately. We're dealing with a controversial theoretical model. It all seems fine to me, but stating theory as theory, in the language of scientific method—observation, data, hypothesis, prediction, etc.—can go a long way to deflecting unnecessary scuffles.

If what was in the article before was out of line with sources, then what I've done will be too.

If what was there was OK, then mine should be too.

If I've misunderstood, then my text must go, but others will also misunderstand the text I changed.

If my text is factually wrong, then the old text was not sufficiently clear.

I don't pretend to be an expert at much except reading, so I don't mind being reverted.

Mind you, perhaps the only thing that's odd is me introducing the language of scientific method. That isn't much different to using "therefore" or "because" etc. I hope I didn't actually make claims that are out of line with the theory.

Anyway, revert away, I simply don't know enough about AT to object. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. I'm not reverting! The source is a book who's stated purpose is to explain attachment - published by the RCP Research and Training Unit. I was just concerned that we didn't attribute something to them they didn't say. maybe there's a better source that explains things more comprehensively - or explains a few extra bits. Fainites ^barley 11:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the lead - I always find these difficult. The general rule is that they should not be more than 5 or 6 paragraphs and should summarise the whole article. A tall order. Mind you - I've seen some medical/psych articles with very long leads that seem to work very well. Fainites ^barley 13:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

rongorongo FAC

Hi Alastair,

Rongorongo is up for FA again, if you'd care to comment. kwami (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Pentateuchal criticism or what?

Hello Alastair. I know you're busy with the important extra-Wiki part of your life (as I guess I should be with mine), but when you have time I'd like your opinion on something.

For a while now I've been dissatisfied with the fact that so many articles on bible-criticism subjects refer readers to documentary hypothesis for more details on how the Torah came to be written. This isn't really very sensible - for one thing, the DH is only one of several putative answers to the question, and for another is tends to assume that Wellhausen had the very last word on this subject - and that consequently, if you demolish Wellhausen, Mosaic authorship is revealed as the only game in town.

Anyway, I'd like to start a new article on critical theories on how the Pentateuch came to be written. It would concentrate on "models" rather than hypotheses - documentary, fragmentary, supplementary - and would deal with major trends since about 1975. Nicholson's book would probably be a good starting point. But my very first question, before mapping out this article as a stub, is: what to call it? Pentateuchal criticism? Origins of the Torah? What? Do you have any good suggestions? PiCo (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Alastair. I've created a stub called Pentateuchal criticism - so called because it's short, easily recalled, and ties in with all the other uses of the word "criticism" on similar pages. I'll add some potential sources soon - I've got Wenham, Van Seters and Nicholson at the moment. PiCo (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. There is a discussion about your behavior (which you should have been notified about) at ANI here

I believe Ilkali (talk · contribs) has a legitimate point in that the discussion on Talk:Gender of God that you seem to be in disagreement with would be better discussed on user talk. Perhaps in the interest of diffusing this issue, you could take it there. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark 16 cite disagreement

Hello, just letting you know I'm not trying to be a prick or anything, I'm just trying to have a well written cite for your info you added. Otherwise it's only a matter of time before someone removes it an being uncited. And I'm not talking about the manuscript cites (although links to online editions of them, if they exist, would be cool), but the cite for that claim in that edition of the NT. A simple link to that edition and chapter should suffice, but I don't speak Greek and I don't have a lot of time to do it myself. Roy Brumback (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, you're claiming that edition of the New Testament makes that claim. All I'm asking for is a cite or link to that page of that edition. Other wiki pages are not verifiable info, although the cites on those pages are. Is is really so hard to simply have a link to Mark 16 in that edition, if that claim is made in that chapter, or wherever it is in the book? You're not claiming that for instance Codex Vat. lacks the verses, but that that edition of the New Testament concludes that they are not part of the original autograph manuscript, and since that is a conclusion of the scholars who made the book, just citing the whole book, though technically accurate, is poor citation, as I would then have to dig through the entire edition to confirm what you say. Edition and page number or direct online link to the part of the book being cited are much preferred. I'm not doubting what you wrote is true, I'm just asking for a little bit more in the way of citation. Just saying you can follow the wiki links and confirm it yourself is not acceptable, as wiki pages are not always reliable or verifiable sources. If you don't want to do that, then it will be only a matter of time before someone tries to delete it all as unsourced. Take it easy. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Latin manuscripts

I'm certainly not trying to buy into that argument! Delete all reference to popes if you like. PiCo (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a comment in the article talk page abt the scope of the article (Old Latin and Vulgate) before reading your comment on my own talk page, from which I gather that you want to restrict the article to Vetus manuscripts. That should certainly make it kmore manageable - and leave room for a further article on Vulgate manuscripts. It is encouraging to hear that genuine authorities are interested in seeing Wiki become a reliable reference, but...the problem is, anyone can edit Wiki, and at any time. So anything we write now can be overturned at any time in the future. Students of culture will doubtless have a wonderful time studying Wiki in years to come (many a PhD waiting in the history pages), but I'm afraid that our names are writ in water - and unlike the young Mr Keats, this time it's likely to be for real. PiCo (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a better idea now of what you're trying to do. I can see that your list could be a real help to scholars. Given that Wiki isn't stable, have you considered putting it on a website? You could use Wiki first to iron out the bugs, and when it's as perfect as can be, transfer it to the site. PiCo (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God

Sadly I felt it necessary reported you for 3RV violation. Abtract (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. Since you deliberately reverted without consensus, merely shared your edit count with another user. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24h for a combination of 3RR, incivility, edit warring, and an utterly bizarre and impolite closure of an RFC. I really don't understand how you can possibly expect to get away with [7]; or indeed [8] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you observe the edit history and text of the talk page more closely, you will observe two editors "voted with edit counts" to force through changes, and offered an invalid and inappropriate RfC not addressing article content. I stand by my decisions. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit of First-move advantage in chess

Hello, I have seen your name in the list of Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers. I am currently presenting a chess-related article for FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First-move advantage in chess, and one of the reviewer (User:Tony1) has said that "prose needs sprucing up a little". Unfortunately I am not a native English speaker so I have no clue about how to improve the article on prose. Would you please like to have a look at the article and improve it where possible ? SyG (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyediting of the article. You may be happy to know that it became a FA! SyG (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek

saw the mention in newsweek. congrats!! IsraelXKV8R (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

they are yours for the taking should you want them. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating new talk page sections

This isn't a big deal, but: It seems like you create new sections in talk pages by editing the existing final section and inserting a new header underneath it, which leads to misleading edit summaries (eg your current addition of a 'Expanded slightly on Hinduism' section in Talk:Gender of God had the summary "/* First sourced proposal */: comment", suggesting that it is a reply within the "First sourced proposal" section). Could I suggest you use the "new section" link at the top of the page instead? It'd make it a little easier to interpret edit histories. Ilkali (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick hi

Hi Alastair. Just in case you're wondering, I'm tied up with the real world, so not much time for Wiki these days. Hope to be back in a few weeks & can get ahead with some of the projects we were working on. Hope the thesis work is going well. PiCo (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely I'll spark a revolution this time round. It's interesting work, a book that an Australian expat here has written- he wants me to upgrade the prose. It's about a young British boy who disappeared in Cambodia in 22004 - Jim was hired by the family to investigate (he runs a personal security business). No trace of Eddie was ever found, but the story 0of the investigation is fascinating.

I'll have a look for Newsweek - someone must have it. PiCo (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

2nd 3RR report

I've reported you for 3RR violation here. Ilkali (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you are simply asserting slander Ilkali. This is unacceptable behaviour.

But, after a month of warning you, you still ignore me.

Sadly, I am still waiting for generous community members to wade through all your personal attacks and discover they have no basis in fact. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"As usual, you are simply asserting slander Ilkali". 'Alastair Haines has reverted four times' is not slander. It is a verifiable fact, and one that I have a responsibility to report.

"after a month of warning you, you still ignore me". You have never warned me, Alastair. For something to be a warning, it must at least specify what will happen if things do not change, and you have never done that. Your threats are vague and void of authority. You cannot intimidate me. Ilkali (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a verifiable falicy,

as indeed are your other empty words here. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Gender of God. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a report at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a little difficult to follow the "contest the block" procedure when one is blocked from editing one's talk page.

The blocking decision was clearly made without examining the evidence. I expect an apology in due course. However, since I have limited time pursuing this will have to wait. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

recommendation

Hi Alastair, I'm sad to see your recent issues as regards gender of god. I understand you must feel frustrated but breaking WP:3RR will get you into trouble regardless of whether your position is correct or not. I have not looked at the situation and I don't know what's happened but as someone who knows that you edit with betterment of the project in mind I strongly urge you to pursue dispute resolution in this case.

Responding angrily (or what someone might mistake for anger) to other editors wont help. Repeating edits wont help. These are cul de sacs that will undoubtedly make you frustrated with the project. Mediation on the other hand might help. So might an article content RfC. These approaches may defuse the argument and improve the page. They will also help bring more eyes to the page in case there is a wider issue there.

It might also be helpful to temporarily disengage from an area of dispute. Drop me a line if you'd like an outside view - you can still post here or you are welcome to email me--Cailil ^talk 14:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, thanks for your advice.

Oddly enough, I'm currently opposing editors who are insisting on the claim that "God is nearly always male across religions", which is unsourced, and not clearly meaningful, since what god and gender mean varies with religion. They are also insisting on removing sourced text from Durkheim, Rodney Stark, William Sims Bainbridge and other sociologists and anthropologists of religion that explain the diversity of views.

Interestingly, I don't actually feel frustrated at all, the processes will work, it will just take time.

I haven't actually broken 3RR, that's a pointless exercise, as we both know.

As you point out, you have not looked and don't know what's happened, yet you assume the claim against me is true! You are far from alone in that. That would frustrate me if I thought that people had nothing better to do than to investigate and remedy any slander against me. No, I'm realistic, and I don't actually want genuine contributors caught up in a tedious, time consuming issue like this. Kind volunteers donate time to investigate these things.

I don't feel angry, I feel patient and hopeful. At every point I have sought to address the editor who is currently accusing me first, before I requested time from other users, and to give him a chance to change. I tried a WQA, but those who considered the case couldn't see then what has since become obvious about this editor's behaviour. Among other things, they were distracted by that editor's effective deflection of attention to me. Having found that strategy to be successful, he has repeated it over and over, with mixed success.

An RfC was raised at one point, by the editor above against me, which attracted only further misunderstanding, by a respondant, who like you admitted he hadn't had time to check all the facts, but it looked bad for me because it was two to one. Of course, this was used as further evidence against me.

My assessment of this is that involvement of people in a casual manner, only multiplies hearsay and clouds the issue. So I have appealed to the mediation cabal, for an individual who can stay with the process as long as it takes for all evidence to be considered. Actually, I think that will be enough to solve the problem.

I really appreciate you dropping by and offering such patient and helpful advice, even when you suspect there may be no smoke without fire. Actually, the situation is very simple, the editor has provided not a single source or discussion of article content in thousands of words, but has repeatedly questioned my motives for providing the sourced and neutral content I have provided. That some others have expressed their belief in this attribution of motives has led to a complete halt to addition of sourced text to the article.

Wiki editors should know better than to lock things down by invoking a majority.

In many ways I actually find the current issue a positive experience! It has made me even more appreciative of yourself and of others who have shown precisely the kind of maturity that is lacking in the current case. In two years at Wiki, I have been very fortunate in several discussions, when opposed by majorities, with only sources to back me. Others have sometimes rigorously challenged my interpretation, requested additional sources, and even edited robustly in such challenges; however, until now, I have been thrilled to see how respect for policies (not me or even my arguments) has led dissenters to desist when they can't find sources that unambiguously represent their own view.

Anyway, thanks once again, you really needn't worry. What will make me happiest is if you just get on with your own positive contributions to real life and to Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Gender and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and several related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God mediation case

I'd really like your input on the case regarding the Gender of God article [9]! Your initial concerns seemed a bit vague. I know it's asking alot to clarify them but it would really help move things along. -Rushyo (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark and support

Alastair, I really appreciated your comments on my Talk page, thanks. I sympathize entirely with what you say. There is very little which can be done when editors such as PiCo and Doug Weller refuse to adhere to Wikipedia policies. The processes for enforcing these policies are so labyrinthine and glacial that destructive editors are usually able to avoid any consequences whatsoever.

The main problem is that unwanted edits to a page can be opposed indefinitely if so desired. Say I propose in the Talk page an edit to the Noah's Ark article. All others have to do to obstruct it completely is to ignore the proposal. A week goes by, two weeks, and say I decide to include it because no one objected. Immediately it will be removed by members who don't like it, on the basis that I didn't obtain consensus. This is a farce, since consensus was consistently sought but other editors refused to engage in discussion. There does not appear to be any way around this other than to continue advancing through the various conflict resolution steps. In the case of the Noah's Ark article, PiCo willfully inserts material which was rejected by consensus, and deliberately deletes entire sections without any discussion at all. In addition he makes repeated accusations of bad faith. I have documented all this for the relevant parties when I need to present it.

I would certainly provide you with any assistance I can with regard to your own difficulties. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Taiwan boi, at this stage I'll express confidence in the mediators and other parties, that sources will be allowed to shape consensus. Should consensus not be reached, I will appreciate your support, in taking it to ArbCom. The Foundation obviously cannot afford to uphold head counts over published sources, nor be seen to tolerate personal attacks. It's just a matter of time. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, I'd like to seek your opinion as a third party on the long term behaviour of PiCo on the Noah's Ark page, and the resultant edit war. I would really appreciate your help in approaching PiCo with a view to breaking the current deadlock by explaining to him the correct editing procedures. This would take the form of a third party observation, with a view to developing into informal mediation. If he refused to discuss it with you and I after our efforts, I would take it to RFC. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest Alastair, I really appreciate it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, would you take a look at my edits to the actual article and tell me what problems you see in them? I did agree on the talk page that proper procedures should be followed, and I do think the article does get torn from pillar to post. Perhaps I haven't kept up with the debate well enough (evidently almost certainly not well enough), but my comment was about proper procedures and looking for consensus. Presumably because of that Taiwan boi posted a notice on my talk page that he intended to seek mediation, but I had no idea I was supposed to do anything but wait until something happened. He has now posted that he is giving me only one more day to respond. I did look at the requests for mediation page and there was nothing there so I assumed I was just supposed to wait until something formal happened. As someone who has taken a very minor role in this I don't see why I'm involved, let alone told that because I didn't respond to something that just looked like a notice about some future event things might be escalated. I would like to know exactly how I have not adhered to Wikipedia policies as I always try my best to toe the line. If I really have been out of line I will of course apologise, but I'd like some evidence that my comment on the talk page fails to adhere to Wikipedia polices (eg what policy and how? Frankly, I am fed up with this article and was going to take it off my watch list and wish I had. I definitely will once this bother is over, I have other articles I am much more interested in. I assure you that my comment was meant in good faith and I look forward to your comments. Doug Weller (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've stopped watching the article. I will add, as I did on my talk page, I am unhappy with being told I am assisting a vandal -- in fact, I'm unhappy about any accusations of vandalism in this case. (And as anyone can tell by looking at my contribution history, I spend a lot of time, probably more than I should as I'd prefer to spend it in positive improvements to articles, dealing with real vandalism on a variety of articles. If any mediation is actually going to take place I hope that such language is taken into account. Doug Weller (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alastair. Like Doug, I'm a bit confused as to what's required here. Taiwanboi is the only one who feels this is a matter of all-consuming importance - I'm quite happy to sit back and wait for a clear instruction from someone that I'm required to do something. Anyway, thanks for your involvement, I think you did pretty much what any reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. And now I suppose I have to go and say something on Taiwanboi's page. I wish he'd get himself a nice cup of coffee and a good book and go sit in the garden for a bit. Flowers, birds, peace'n'quiet, that's the way to go!PiCo (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was some kind of process under way. I wish someone would tell me these things. They really should tell me about this - I'm not ignoring them, but I don't spend my entire day monitoring the Noah's Ark page on Wiki! PiCo (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you read your own Talk page? You've been notified every time. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Saints

Thank you for your kind note, Alastair! There was a lot of work to be done with saints and related topics on Wikipedia, but it's been a pleasure working on it. Cheers! --Polylerus (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

De Nada!

You're welcome! It seems passing strange that definitions of "gender" and "god" would be irrelevant to a page on the Gender of God! I see that my revert is reverted already, so I'll have to dig deeper to find out what the hidden agenda is.

The publication is going well. Right now we're getting blurbs from reviewers, and the final galley should go out for printing next week. Provided there are no obvious problems with the final galley, the customers who've alread bought the book will get the galley (which will be identical in format and quality -- but two months faster).Tim (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! The link is www.cornerstonepublications.org

You should have it in a few weeks.

Alastair, thanks for asking. My wife and I have had a romantic comedy screenplay on hold ever since we fell in love with each other after working on it (the, uh, story significantly changed). Also on hold have been a few works of fantasy. And that's where I'm trying to get my hands into the market. There's a new boom on Robert E. Howard going on, but the writers are lifting characters and not stories by the author. The result looks like a new debacle like what happened when they did this last time (think Arnold Swarzenager trying to get closure for the death of his mommy) -- the original Conan movie had more to do with Bambi than the archetypal barbarian. There are some problems with Howard's writing that would need to be solved for a correct transfer to screen, so I'm sending a sample to one of the studios to see if the author can be handled more authentically. In any case, I really have to stay off of Wikipedia for a while or tone it down or I'll never get any real work done... As for gender and Judaism... historically the uroboric relationship between Marduk and Tiamat has masculine parallels in the Torah. I've mentioned Neumann. His work "The Origins and History of Consciousness" is a marvelous study of gender in world religion, mythology, and individual consciousness. "The Great Mother" is another magnificent work in the field. Although Neumann was an Israeli, he was not a rabbinic authority (nor even religious). So his analysis of what Judaism holds is an external analysis (if you're Orthodox). Internal analysis is a tough one, for any group... especially a religion. Judaism, for instance, is replete with metaphors of God as king (not queen), father (far more than mother), husband (and NOT wife) of Israel, etc. The prayer books routinely speak of God as our Father, our King, etc. As you and Lisa are discussing, there is no gender inherent to God per se on a theoretical level, and yet we relate to "Him" as children, a wife, etc. I've glanced around my library this morning and see some tangental discussion by Schechter in his "Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology" and of course Cohen's "Everyman's Talmud." But these are just digests. It will take a bit of time to track down some of their references in one of my Talmud sets (I only have Soncino, Neusner, and a few scraps of Steinsaltz). I apologize for stepping into the Gender and God discussion and then getting distracted elsewhere. I'll try to give a bit more priority to the subject on that page before I go on vacation next week. There's just not much time for me right now. One of my dearest friends in the world is having an engagement party in a couple of weeks in Chicago, and I can't find a way to squeeze that in -- and she's infinitely more dear to me than Wikipedia. But I WILL do some research for you on this subject, and I still have out that book I was going to review related to your thesis work (and in fact, I think I'll read that this week before doing anything more on Gender of God). Ah! And that reminds me... check out Artscroll's Tanakh. Their version of the Song of Songs isn't even a straight translation. Instead of a romance between a woman and a man, the woman is allegorized as "Israel" and the male lover as "HaShem." This is a traditional take, of course. But what is telling is this: you would be run out of shul if you tried to reverse the genders in the allegory. Does "God" technically have a sex? No. But a gender? Yes, but not exclusively. Just a few weeks ago my Rabbi brought it up, and pointed out the common idea that Elo-im (the dash should be "h") is a masculine idea and that Y-W- is a feminine one. The TITLE elo-im carries connotations of judgment, while the NAME Y-W- carries connotations of mercy. Rather than argue on the talk page, how about tell me what you are looking for and I'll try to do a little leg work for you.Tim (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments and compliments on talk page of Anekantavada that I do not entirely deserve. When I was looking out for some one to help me out on this article you came out to help me. You challenged all the edits and the structure itself and that ensured a GA rating for article. But thats not all........now I will be relying on your valuable contributions for other articles also.;)--Anish (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again I am indebted to you. Thanks for the FA nomination. Hope it passed the muster.--Anish (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God

I didn't remove a single source. I object to you claiming that I did.

"Not feminine" is implied by "has no gender". The converse is not true. Therefore, it is appropriate for the statement in the header to say that God (in Judaism) has no gender. This is confirmed by the two sources I put in. The fact that someone came afterwards and added a third source which says God is "non-feminine" doesn't in any way argue against what the first two sources said. Please leave it as it is. If you change it back to "not feminine", I will change it back again, because that's contrary to two out of the three sources brought. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, if that's what I said, you didn't remove a source, you removed sourced text.

I've changed the text to better reflect the relevant source, masculine is Paula Reimer's description; non-feminine is what she considered to be most important, which is why I noted it.

Personally, I think Reimer's views are clearly expressed, profound and spot on to the topic of the article. They are relevant even beyond discussion of Judaism. The lead doesn't provide sufficient room to develop them, which is a pity. Nor does it allow room for adequate expression of alternative PsOV. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They may be relevant beyond discussion of Judaism. They aren't all that relevant to Judaism. I brought mainstream sources for the simple fact that God is not considered male or female in Judaism. You brought Paula Reimers, but she doesn't even say what you're claiming she does. She's saying that we should view God as female. She doesn't say a single thing in that quote:

Those who want to use God/She language want to affirm womanhood and the feminine aspect of the deity. They do this by emphasizing that which most clearly distinguishes the female experience from the male. A male or female deity can create through speech or through action, but the metaphor for creation which is uniquely feminine is birth. Once God is called female, then, the metaphor of birth and the identification of the deity with nature and its processes become inevitable.

Where does this say a single word about how Judaism views God? This is a defense of those who want to use female language for God (a cause near and dear to your heart, perhaps, but that doesn't make it mainstream in Judaism), but it doesn't even mention Judaism, let alone how God is seen in Judaism.

Personally, I think the quote should be taken out of the article entirely. The quote from Alpert is already there, and two lengthy quotes by ultra-feminist rabbis in liberal streams is giving undue weight to a highly controversial view. Even most Conservative and Reform Jews don't agree with them, and the traditional Jewish view has always been that God doesn't have gender -- that we use masculine forms for God merely because no neuter form exists in Hebrew.

But I'd prefer to get some consensus before removing a quote, even one as unnecessary as this one. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alastair. Thanks for your note. While I do think that there is a distinction today between sex and gender, I don't believe there to be any evidence of such a distinction predating, say, the 1970s.

I don't think that Reimers' views are at all even close to the mainstream in Judaism, and so I can't agree with your statement that there are three views. One of the flaws in many of the liberal Jewish movements is that they treat Tanakh as though it alone is the source of Judaism. As such, they come at the written material as though they were outsiders. Sociologists. Such views may be of interest from the point of view of secular scholarship, but they have little to no relevance to Judaism, even if the person espousing them carries the title "rabbi".

Furthermore, I would contend that Reimers' point is irrelevant. Whether God is portrayed as masculine in Tanakh is besides the point. A person reading the bare texts of Tanakh could infer any number of things from it which may or may not conform to what Judaism says.

In other words, you are portraying the fact that God is described with masculine imagery in Tanakh as contradicting the fact that Judaism does not see God as having gender. But this is incorrect. The two facts do not contradict one another, and both are true. God is described that way in Tanakh. Judaism does not view God as having gender.

Reimers wants to argue that we should use feminine imagery for God. That's her personal view. It's argumentative, rather than descriptive, and doesn't speak to the question of how Judaism sees God.

You wrote: "From what I've read, there are actually three notable points of view—masculine, feminine and neither." But there is no notable POV in Judaism that God is feminine. There's no notable view in Judaism that He is masculine either, but it isn't strange that people (like Reimers, perhaps) who have not studied Jewish sources might conclude from the masculine imagery of Tanakh that there is.

Incidentally, two additional points. You say that "henotheistic religions (afaik) are unanimous that sex is not applicable to God." Judaism is not henotheistic. It is monotheistic to an extreme degree. In addition, it would be helpful to dialog if you would not use the Tetragrammaton when referring to God. Casual use of this Name is considered highly offensive to Orthodox Jews. While I can understand scholars using it in papers (though I disagree), its use in discussion with an Orthodox Jew could be seen as inflammatory. I'm sure you don't intend this, and perhaps you were unaware that we see it that way. -LisaLiel (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, please stop changing the header of that article. Labeling a reliable source as POV and another as irrelevant is arbitrary and without any basis. As you've said, you aren't exactly an expert in Judaism. Do you really want to know what Judaism says about the subject, or do you want to push an agenda? I ask, because while I'd like to assume good faith on your part, the fact is that all Jewish sources agree that God is neither masculine nor feminine. The only dispute is over whether we should be using masculine or feminine imagery (or both) when describing Him. And note: I say "Him", because "It" is offensive, and "Her" is controversial. "Him" is standard usage, but my using it doesn't imply that I think God is male or masculine.

Would you like me to add a few dozen sources for the fact that Judaism doesn't view God as having gender or sex? I'll be happy to do so if you want. But you haven't asked. What you've done is claim that a quote that doesn't mention Judaism or how Judaism views God is a valid source for how Judaism views God in terms of gender, you've labeled a statement by a major Orthodox rabbi as "POV" (!!!) and you've labeled a standard web source for Jewish concepts as "irrelevant". Why have you done this? -LisaLiel (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, your quibble about gender vs. sex isn't relevant here. The Hebrew Bible doesn't recognize such a distinction; nor does Judaism. The Hebrew language itself didn't possess a word for "gender" (as opposed to "sex") until about 10 years ago. Judaism does not view God as having gender or sex. Since those two terms are viewed as synonyms outside of gender studies, Jewish sources will obviously be using them interchangably. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach, by Suzanne Kessler and Wendy McCenna, a case is made for the term "gender" to be reflective of 5 separate and distinct concepts. Gender assignment, gender attribution, gender role, gender identity and gender role identity. See here for more details about that. I understand the concept, and I understand that biological sex in a human being is not the same as the person's gender. Please don't think I don't. But you are attempting to extend this distinction to God. That's where you're going wrong.

In Judaism, God is One. Absolutely unitary, without parts or aspects or attributes. This means that neither gender nor sex is relevant to God. There's an unending list of things that aren't relevant to God; it's impossible to enumerate all of them, because there are always new concepts being invented. Like gender, as distinct from sex. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman

Mr Ehrman now has a very bad problem. [10] According to Ehrman there are no such text to validate that the resurrection was not made up whole cloth by Greek communities before the canon text was put to paper. According to Ehrman because of no evidence it had to have been all "made up" with one outrageous tale trying to out do the previous. Well now, so much for that. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Gender of God, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Extremely WP:tendentious editing. Some reverts have been starkly contrary to consensus. You have already been reported twice under 3RR, completely annihilated any chance of reaching consensus and I cannot assume good faith anymore. You have repeatedly made borderline WP:personal attacks as well. Rushyo (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[11][12] [13]

Found after a quick 5 minute search through a few diffs. And no, I will not 'apologise' for criticising your behaviour. I don't imagine the myriad of other people, including an administrator who merely pressed a block button, will be apologising for validly criticising you either. Demanding everyone apologise every single time they state you may be wrong is uncivil. -Rushyo (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God [2]

Alastair- I see that Rushyo has resigned from mediating the dispute. That is unfortunate, because it is now me that is in charge of mediating this dispute, and I'm going to be real honest with you: I do not pull punches. The point of a mediation case is to find a solution that everyone is happy with, not as a platform for one user to attempt to punish other users with different viewpoints. Throughout this entire case you have been borderline uncivil, passive aggressive, stubborn as an ox, and clearly unwilling to accept the decisions of consensus. The fact that you hurl accusations at Ilkali but get up in arms when Rushyo told you to stop wikilawyering shows that you can, as they say, "dish it but cannot take it". Now, I'm not saying everyone else here has been purely angelic, but let me tell you something: acting the way you have does not help your case one bit!
I strongly suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously you improve your behavior. L'Aquatique[review] 17:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)