| Revision as of 11:40, 5 March 2009 editThelongview (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users617 edits →Untrue Allegations Against another User by User Thelongview← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:54, 14 October 2024 edit undoKowal2701 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,061 editsm →top: Oral tradition taskforce tag, Added {{WikiProject Anthropology}}, replaced: WikiProject Anthropology|class= → WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yesTag: AWB | ||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Skip to talk}} | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
| {{ |
{{Not a forum}} | ||
| {{ |
{{Old AfD multi| date = 20 February 2009 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Scriptural reasoning }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=|Interfaith=yes|InterfaithImp=}} | ||
| {{archivebox|auto=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Religious texts|importance=}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| }} | |||
| == Repeated == | |||
| == Use of this Discussion Page == | |||
| @] Many of the edits you have repeatedly made to this article are biased, unsupported/unverified in the literature, inflammatory and defamatory in nature. You deliberately misdescribe Scriptural Reasoning and the individuals and institutions involved in the development of its practice. You propagate disinformation about the practice of SR and the individuals and organisations who promote it. | |||
| 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. ] (]) 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Kindly desist from your vandalism of historic contributions made in good faith. Desist making unsupported and highly biased claims which seek to discredit the practice of SR and the reputations of the academics, practitioners and institutions involved with its development. Desist from misrepresenting others' intellectual property to promote religious bias, intolerance and discord between religions. Please desist from posting links to websites which fraudulently publish materials under the assumed identities of individuals and institutions which have not given permission to do so. | |||
| == Removed disputed neutrality tag == | |||
| If you continue to publish unverifiable and biased material about Scriptural Reasoning I will pursue a dispute resolution. ] (]) 14:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| I have removed the disputed neutrality tags. The discussion is now closed. See ]. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Promotion, Criticism and Editorially Independent Sources == | |||
| == History and Method == | |||
| The subject matter of the article ] is highly contentious and controversial, with articles and books published in high quality reliable sources WP:RS on different sides of the argument - some writers tending to support and promote Scriptural Reasoning, and other academics strongly criticising aspects of Scriptural Reasoning. | |||
| 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? ] (]) 14:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Scriptural Reasoning in the real world has also been the subject of very large and lucrative monetary funding, career advantage for its promoters, and engagement with political power - in ways that have developed strong vested interests WP:COI who are keen to protect Scriptural Reasoning from criticism. | |||
| == NPOV == | |||
| Misplaced Pages regulations state: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ''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.''</blockquote> | |||
| Misplaced Pages WP:NPOV policies mean that "all encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing...all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. | |||
| ::* ''"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''')? | |||
| ::--] (]) 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 ], 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. ] (]) 09:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages WP:RS policies require reliable sources cited in articles to meet WP:INDEPENDENCE standards, which is stated by policy, "Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Misplaced Pages for self-promotion WP:PROMOTION advertising or marketing WP:NOTADVERT, personal financial benefit, and other abuses". | |||
| === Untrue Allegations Against another User by User ] === | |||
| User ], 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: | |||
| WP:INDEPENDENCE means that, "In determining the type of source...Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" | |||
| * The very edit by user ] 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 ] 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 and statements by its Board of Trustees. Therefore, both user ]'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 ] | |||
| None of the reliable sources WP:RS listed in the ] Misplaced Pages article "References" section and written by Christian, Muslim and other academics who CRITICISE Scriptural Reasoning and aspects of its historical conduct are published by publishers (all of them respected academic publishers and independent newspapers) whose editorial boards or newspaper editors have any connection to Scriptural Reasoning. | |||
| 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 ] - constitutes a violation of Misplaced Pages regulations which state on COI: | |||
| <blockquote>'''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 ], 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.</blockquote> | |||
| However, a significant number of the sources listed in the "References" section of the Misplaced Pages article ] and which are written by those who SUPPORT or PROMOTE Scriptural Reasoning are published in published sources that appear to fail to meet the standard of editorial independence WP:INDEPENDENCE. | |||
| 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 ] violates NPOV. | |||
| For example, there are repeated citations in this Misplaced Pages article from ] which while an independent and respected WP:RS on other theological topics is certainly not an independent Misplaced Pages source for Scriptural Reasoning - David Ford, Peter Ochs and other leaders and promoters of Scriptural Reasoning are members of the Modern Theology Editorial Board, and many of its articles on the subject of Scriptural Reasoning are written by authors connected to them. Likewise, the so-called "Journal of Scriptural Reasoning" and "Journal of Textual Reasoning" are in fact websites run largely by the same group of persons who are involved in the promotion of Scriptural Reasoning. | |||
| --] (]) 10:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <ref></ref> | |||
| Notably the published vehicles, ], "The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning", "The Journal of Textual Reasoning" have never once published a single article that has ever been critical of Scriptural Reasoning as originated and strongly promoted by David Ford and Peter Ochs, rather the Festschrifts and writings by the same old SR names again and again tell the opposite story, with the same authors citing each other over again in their essays and papers. | |||
| ::I have not removed any material which is reliably referenced. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk now has a page in which the views of ] 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 ]. The website scripturalreasoning.org.uk, whose material is mounted by ], is not a reliable source. ] (]) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Rather a case of "Circular Reasoning". | |||
| == Promotional Advertising of Scriptural Reasoning and Independent Notability == | |||
| * The article ] 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 ] 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 (now SR University Group) of around 37 or so people. The Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford Group") has a membership of around , 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 and increasingly the 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. ] (]) 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| In conclusion, the content of the Misplaced Pages ] article that tends positively to support Ford-Ochs Scriptural Reasoning much exceeds in size the content which is critical of Scriptural Reasoning and which cites Misplaced Pages-standard independent reliable sources WP:RS . | |||
| ::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. ] (]) 10:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Notwithstanding this, the recent incidents of disruptive editing which targeted published academic and journalistic references and other content that was critical of Scriptural Reasoning, highlight the financial and other vested SR interests WP:COI which have impacted upon the article - and the need for independent-unconnected administrator eyes to ensure that WP:NPOV is maintained through the inclusion of criticism of Scriptural Reasoning. ] (]) 03:48, 17 October 2022 (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. --] (]) 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 ]: | |||
| '''David Ford''' (founder of the ''Society for Scriptural Reasoning'' and of the of the same 37 people) is ''repeatedly cited''<br /> | |||
| '''Peter Ochs''' (founder of the ''Society for Scriptural Reasoning'' and of the of the same 37 people) is cited<br /> | |||
| '''Steven Kepnes''' (member of the ''Society for Scriptural Reasoning'' and of the of the same 37 people) is cited<br /> | |||
| '''Chad Pecknold''' (member of the ''Society for Scriptural Reasoning'' and of the of the same 37 people) is cited<br /> | |||
| '''Nick Adams''' (member of the ''Society for Scriptural Reasoning'' and of the of the same 37 people) is cited<br /> | |||
| '''Mike Higton''' (member of the ''Society for Scriptural Reasoning'' and of the of the same 37 people) is cited<br /> | |||
| In a couple of instances, referenced authors are also editors of Misplaced Pages ]. These points have already been noted previously by other editors and administrators. | |||
| --] (]) 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 ]. Please remove this comment and my response immediately unless it serves a purpose. ] (]) 09:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The note above serves very important point fundamental to the editing of Misplaced Pages ], 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 ]. This Misplaced Pages article must not be used or abused by you or anyone to advertise or promote the practice of Scriptural Reasoning. | |||
| ::::--] (]) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:54, 14 October 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scriptural reasoning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | 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. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Repeated
@Havruta Many of the edits you have repeatedly made to this article are biased, unsupported/unverified in the literature, inflammatory and defamatory in nature. You deliberately misdescribe Scriptural Reasoning and the individuals and institutions involved in the development of its practice. You propagate disinformation about the practice of SR and the individuals and organisations who promote it.
Kindly desist from your vandalism of historic contributions made in good faith. Desist making unsupported and highly biased claims which seek to discredit the practice of SR and the reputations of the academics, practitioners and institutions involved with its development. Desist from misrepresenting others' intellectual property to promote religious bias, intolerance and discord between religions. Please desist from posting links to websites which fraudulently publish materials under the assumed identities of individuals and institutions which have not given permission to do so.
If you continue to publish unverifiable and biased material about Scriptural Reasoning I will pursue a dispute resolution. Hands Frei (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Promotion, Criticism and Editorially Independent Sources
The subject matter of the article Scriptural reasoning is highly contentious and controversial, with articles and books published in high quality reliable sources WP:RS on different sides of the argument - some writers tending to support and promote Scriptural Reasoning, and other academics strongly criticising aspects of Scriptural Reasoning.
Scriptural Reasoning in the real world has also been the subject of very large and lucrative monetary funding, career advantage for its promoters, and engagement with political power - in ways that have developed strong vested interests WP:COI who are keen to protect Scriptural Reasoning from criticism.
Misplaced Pages WP:NPOV policies mean that "all encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing...all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Misplaced Pages WP:RS policies require reliable sources cited in articles to meet WP:INDEPENDENCE standards, which is stated by policy, "Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Misplaced Pages for self-promotion WP:PROMOTION advertising or marketing WP:NOTADVERT, personal financial benefit, and other abuses".
WP:INDEPENDENCE means that, "In determining the type of source...Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?"
None of the reliable sources WP:RS listed in the Scriptural reasoning Misplaced Pages article "References" section and written by Christian, Muslim and other academics who CRITICISE Scriptural Reasoning and aspects of its historical conduct are published by publishers (all of them respected academic publishers and independent newspapers) whose editorial boards or newspaper editors have any connection to Scriptural Reasoning.
However, a significant number of the sources listed in the "References" section of the Misplaced Pages article Scriptural reasoning and which are written by those who SUPPORT or PROMOTE Scriptural Reasoning are published in published sources that appear to fail to meet the standard of editorial independence WP:INDEPENDENCE.
For example, there are repeated citations in this Misplaced Pages article from Modern Theology which while an independent and respected WP:RS on other theological topics is certainly not an independent Misplaced Pages source for Scriptural Reasoning - David Ford, Peter Ochs and other leaders and promoters of Scriptural Reasoning are members of the Modern Theology Editorial Board, and many of its articles on the subject of Scriptural Reasoning are written by authors connected to them. Likewise, the so-called "Journal of Scriptural Reasoning" and "Journal of Textual Reasoning" are in fact websites run largely by the same group of persons who are involved in the promotion of Scriptural Reasoning.
Notably the published vehicles, Modern Theology, "The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning", "The Journal of Textual Reasoning" have never once published a single article that has ever been critical of Scriptural Reasoning as originated and strongly promoted by David Ford and Peter Ochs, rather the Festschrifts and writings by the same old SR names again and again tell the opposite story, with the same authors citing each other over again in their essays and papers.
Rather a case of "Circular Reasoning".
In conclusion, the content of the Misplaced Pages Scriptural reasoning article that tends positively to support Ford-Ochs Scriptural Reasoning much exceeds in size the content which is critical of Scriptural Reasoning and which cites Misplaced Pages-standard independent reliable sources WP:RS .
Notwithstanding this, the recent incidents of disruptive editing which targeted published academic and journalistic references and other content that was critical of Scriptural Reasoning, highlight the financial and other vested SR interests WP:COI which have impacted upon the article - and the need for independent-unconnected administrator eyes to ensure that WP:NPOV is maintained through the inclusion of criticism of Scriptural Reasoning. Havruta (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Categories: