Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:40, 5 March 2009

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scriptural reasoning. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scriptural reasoning at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Religion: Interfaith Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Archives

1, 2, 3

Use of this Discussion Page

Contributions to this talk page should be kept short and succinct please. Any contributions over 200 words, especially those that are not obviously focused on improving the article, may be viewed as obstructive and may be removed by administrators. Thelongview (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed disputed neutrality tag

I have removed the disputed neutrality tags. The discussion is now closed. See . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelongview (talk • contribs) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

History and Method

It would be useful for there to be a clear indication of what makes scriptural reasoning distinctive from other inter-faith chevruta (e.g. Hartman). This will have to await a suitable study in a reliable source. The article currently does not explain why there is a 'reasoning' in 'scriptural reasoning': it fails to elaborate the philosophical dimension. I'll think about this. Maybe someone else might have a go? Thelongview (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Misplaced Pages regulations state:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

• "Should fairly represent all significant views" means that such viewpoints cannot be omitted or deleted or eliminated by editors of other viewpoints -- especially if they are employed by or connected to organisations having opposing viewpoints
• The Scriptural Reasoning Society website constitutes a reliable source about itself and its own views, and these are cited verbatim without synthesis or elaboration
• "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" begs the question, that given that Scriptural Reasoning is a minority activity what is the majority-minority viewpoint here? The Scriptural Reasoning Society is a defined membership-based organisation with a defined number of members of about two hundred or more and a defined number of affiliated projects, and its resources make clear statements about the views of this organisation. Given that overall Scriptural Reasoning is a tiny activity of only some hundreds -- unless evidence to the contrary can be cited -- what is the "majority/minority" ratio being pretended here (The SR Theory Group has a membership of 37, and the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") has a membership of around 200)?

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed unverifiable claims, viz that there is a debate about who invented what. There is no such debate. There are the views of Scripturalreasoning, an editor whose sole activity on Misplaced Pages relates to this article, but these are not known (and thus not debated) by any of the international participants in scriptural reasoning. I have also removed the claims which suggest that scriptural reasoning is merely a species of inter-faith textual reading. The article currently does not properly specify the distinctiveness of scriptural reasoning, and that is a serious short-coming. However, it does not justify the false assumption that failures in this article license loose claims about the practice of scriptural reasoning. Thelongview (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Untrue Allegations Against another User by User Thelongview

User Thelongview, please IMMEDIATELY remove the FALSE STATEMENT "removed unverifiable claims, viz that there is a debate about who invented what. There is no such debate. There are the views of Scripturalreasoning". The true facts are:

• The very edit by user Thelongview himself states clearly the view that "Scriptural Reasoning was invented and developed by a group who now form the Society for Scriptural Reasoning"
• The above viewpoint expressed in his own very words by user Thelongview who is associated with the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning", is disagreed with and opposed by the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" ("Oxford School"), a registered charity and membership-based organisation of 200 or so members which clearly disputes and critiques the above view as a whole community - as may be confirmed from its website and statements by its Board of Trustees. Therefore, both user Thelongview's suggestion that "there is no debate" and his statement that this disagreement is the view of one person is disingenuous and FALSE, and must be removed IMMEDIATELY by user Thelongview

Moreover, given his status of employment and membership of organisations which are critiqued in the edit which he has now removed, the edit by user Thelongview - here constitutes a violation of Misplaced Pages regulations which state on COI:

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Misplaced Pages's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example, when 90% of an article about a particular company discusses a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the talk page.

Misplaced Pages regulations on referencing and reliable sources state clearly in relation to the critique referenced verbatim, that the published material by the Scriptural Reasoning Society constitutes a reliable source for the organisation's own views and declared information about itself. Misplaced Pages regulations, as stated above "Should fairly represent all significant views", and the edit by Thelongview violates NPOV.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

I have not removed any material which is reliably referenced. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk now has a page in which the views of Scripturalreasoning are faithfully reproduced. References to 'trustees' (whose names or affiliations nowhere appear on that website) are spurious: the website material was clearly mounted online by Scripturalreasoning. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk, whose material is mounted by Scripturalreasonining, is not a reliable source. Thelongview (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Promotional Advertising of Scriptural Reasoning and Independent Notability

• The article Scriptural Reasoning should not be used to promote and advertise the practice of Scriptural Reasoning, nor to make exaggerated claims about 1) the alleged uniqueness and pioneering novelty of Scriptural Reasoning (when there are other near identical practices), nor 2) exaggerated claims about the number of participants in Scriptural Reasoning
• Promotional phrasing such as about Scriptural Reasoning being "internationally prominent " as in the edit by Thelongview must not be used. The edit by the same user that "Scriptural Reasoning was invented and developed by a group who now form the Society for Scriptural Reasoning" is contentious and disputed by the network that forms the SR Society ("Oxford School").
• The article should not claim, imply or seem to suggest that greater numbers of people participate in Scriptural Reasoning than is actually the case. The evidence indicates a few groups, with a considerable amount of publishing activity from a single Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group (now SR University Group) of around 37 or so people. The Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford Group") has a membership of around 200, and some of the listed groups such as that at St Ethelburga's Centre, I believe are defunct (unless someone has more accurate or up to date knowledge).
• In addition to the Shalom Hartmann Institute, there are various international organisations which have for many years sponsored interdisciplinary-interfaith chevruta-style reading of sacred texts (as well as Jewish-only reading), such as the Jewish Christian Muslim Conference and increasingly the Limmud International network of conferences -- as well as others. As coverage of all these forms would require their own article, it suffices to state that Scriptural Reasoning is just one of a number of types of such practices. Scripturalreasoning (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I followed the link to JCM Europe. There is no reference to inter-faith chevruta on this website. I also checked the Limmud website. Also no reference to inter-faith chevruta. Not verifiable. Out it goes. Thelongview (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Out it goes?" Well, I never actually added any in the first instance - so funny that. There are actually referenced links to interfaith chevruta-style text study certainly by Limmud, though the JCM website does not have much detail on its conference activities. In any event, I didn't and don't actually think it is necessary to list every single type of interfaith chevruta-study everywhere -- but simply to report that Scriptural Reasoning is merely one of a number of such practices which take place internationally. This Misplaced Pages article must not be used by you and others as a promotional brochure to advertise Scriptural Reasoning. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Party Referencing and Independent Notability

In order to pre-empt debates around "independent third-party referencing" it is noted and placed on the record that among the great majority of published references to this article Scriptural Reasoning:

David Ford (founder of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is repeatedly cited
Peter Ochs (founder of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited
Steven Kepnes (member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited
Chad Pecknold (member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited
Nick Adams (member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited
Mike Higton (member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and of the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of the same 37 people) is cited

In a couple of instances, referenced authors are also editors of Misplaced Pages Scriptural Reasoning. These points have already been noted previously by other editors and administrators.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for this talk page to preempt debates. It clogs up the page disruptively, and will discourage administrative comment because of WP:TLDR. Please remove this comment and my response immediately unless it serves a purpose. Thelongview (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The note above serves very important point fundamental to the editing of Misplaced Pages Scriptural Reasoning, in highlighting the overwhelming referencing of the article from one tiny group of people who are involved parties in promotion of Scriptural Reasoning, and from one viewpoint ONLY -- The Society for Scriptural Reasoning, and the absence of independent third party viewpoints on Scriptural Reasoning. It also notes the self-published references of authors who are now acting as Misplaced Pages editors of Scriptural Reasoning. This Misplaced Pages article must not be used or abused by you or anyone to advertise or promote the practice of Scriptural Reasoning.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unassessed Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles