Talk:Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 5101

Edition war
Respectable User:Qumranhöhle, have a good time. Recently there has been a publishing war, so before I conduct another one, I decided to address the issue here. The justification you put forward was "delete: copyright violation; irrelevant pseudo-references etc.", so please explain.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not here to explain anything to users who are obvioulsy not interested in reasoning, who do not even understand the difference between relevant and irrelevant or a book and a journal article. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is not possible to hold your position, it would not be a good idea that you oppose to restoring the deleted text. The edition war is not a solution or the end of an untenable argument. Kind regards.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You are a troll, and I won't feed trolls. It is as simple as that. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Respectable editor, my purpose in asking you is not to make you uncomfortable, but rather to explain forcefully, based on the rules of wikipedia, why you are holding your position. Please forgive me if I do not have the right words to express myself.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think having the text of the papyrus on this page might be helpful. Could you please give your reasons why you removed the text ? Maybe I should also remind you to use civil language. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I am not an English native speaker, maybe you can tell me what you mean by "civil"? Civil as against military? I am not aware that I have used military language. Civil in the meaning of civilised? Since when is it uncivilised to call things as they are? Fake references are fake references, bad articles are bad articles. It is a fact that several of Jairon's articles where deleted because of their ghastly quality. Please correct me in the case that "ghastly" is not a posh word. Is it uncivilised to recognise POV as such? I thought WP:NPOV is a basic principle. I am puzzled.
 * Would you agree that civilised behaviour is more than using seemingly polite language? Maybe those who banned Jairon from editing in the German version of Wikipedia creating new articles in the German version of Wikipedia found his overall behaviour uncivilised?
 * "I think having the text of the papyrus on this page might be helpful." - I don't think so. Is that a reason? Certainly not. Is "I think [it] might be helpful" a reason? Neither.
 * 1. As you may have seen, "the" text wasn't given, only some parts. Why should that be helpful? Why those parts and not others? 2. Wikipedia is not a depository for texts, it is not a database, it does not supplant editions. It should, however, give references to editions, as it does in the case of this article. Does, e.g., the the article LXX give the text of the LXX? No? Why then? Maybe, because this is not what Wikipedia does? Maybe because there is a copyright even for editions of ancient texts? Do you need more reasons? I don't, but I would appreciate I you would seriously check the points I raised. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For the meaning of "civil", please have a look at Civility. The correct German translation for what I wanted to say is "höflich", not "zivilisiert". If you look at the user page of Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco on the German WP, you will find that he was not banned from editing, but from creating new articles, so your allegation is not true. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that was a mistake, I intended "banned from editing in the main namespace".
 * Yet the rest does not answer my questions. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are still wrong about his ban. He was not "banned from editing in the main namespace". Please don't make false allegations. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that was wrong. Is it "civil(ised)" to circumvent this ban by creating new (ghastly) articles in the user namespace? Is it civil(ised) to have this discussion on an article discussion page? Is it civil(ised) not to answer to the arguments concerning the article? --Qumranhöhle (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

, The manuscript is important because it has YHWH to representing the name of God and because it is too early.

Let us analize your arguments: You wrote:

If you allow me to express my opinion, I think the refusal is for presenting information about the possibility of an original YHWH in the Bible (e. g. ).--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Argument 1 "As you may have seen, "the" text wasn't given, only some parts. Why should that be helpful? Why those parts and not others?"
 * Answer: this text is the part that has the tetragram and because of this, the text discussed by some scholars.
 * Argument 2 Wikipedia is not a depository for texts, it is not a database, it does not supplant editions. It should, however, give references to editions, as it does in the case of this article. Does, e.g., the the article LXX give the text of the LXX? No? Why then? Maybe, because this is not what Wikipedia does? Maybe because there is a copyright even for editions of ancient texts? Do you need more reasons? I don't, but I would appreciate I you would seriously check the points I raised"
 * Answer: Copyrights: "Re-use of text: Attribution: To re-distribute text on Wikipedia in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikipedia community. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which should be indicated on an article's face or on its talk page. For example, a page may have a banner or other notation indicating that some or all of its content was originally published somewhere else. Where such notations are visible in the page itself, they should generally be preserved by re-users."
 * Non-free_content: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Use of copyrighted text must be in compliance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. This means that the quotation must not be replaceable with free text (including one that the editor writes), must be minimal, must have contextual significance and must have previously been published."


 * I think, both answers by Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco make sense. The text cited consists of 2 verses, that is normally not regarded as a copyright violation. So, I support the restoration of the text.
 * But I don't understand why I saw "POV" in your edit summaries and I don't understand what is meant by "presenting information about the possibility of an original YHWH". YHWH occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, so why should it be a problem - big enough to cause an edit war - to have it in a Greek papyrus ? Could you please explain that ? Rsk6400 (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "I think, both answers by Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco make sense." I don't think so. We are at the same point as above where you wrote: " I think having the text of the papyrus on this page might be helpful." I don't think so, and I gave my reasons (whether you like them or not), you didn't.
 * Now we have clarified that THE text was not presented anyway, the discussion moves to the question whether this kind of "quoting" is a copyright violation. That is not the point, that is another question and that is not a sober way to conduct a useful discussion. The copyright violation referred to presenting "THE text" - as you obviously assumed, i.e. the article mislead you.
 * So, what is "quoted", is partly incorrect. Furthermore, it is useless without giving context to the readings, it is useless without a physical description of the fragments and the point that the manuscript gives "the divine name" in paleo-Hebrew letters is already included in the article - the "quotation" does not add anything to it. It is simply not encyclopedic.
 * "I think the refusal is for presenting information about the possibility of an original YHWH in the Bible" - ah, here we get to the point where Jairon involuntarily exposes his POV. Wonderful! Appreciated! --Qumranhöhle (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me change the phrase "of an original YHWH in the Bible" for an "original YHWH in the Greek Bible". The reason I added the Greek text is to show that there are unique variants in this manuscript, and it is interesting that in one verse, the name YHWH is preceded by a definitive article "τον", and in another verse the LXX reads "ο θεος" but YHWH in P. Oxy. 5101, and this has been observed by some scholars referenced in the text that was erased in the edition war. I have never expressed my opinion regarding this issue, but I perceive opposition to an original YHWH in the LXX. Here's my two cents, and thank you in advance for your cooperation and valuable time.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the importance of "original YHWH in the Greek Bible". why is that so important to you ? Rsk6400 (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether it's important to me or not is irrelevant, since the encyclopedia is not my property; rather, I am only trying to present evidence.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP has certain rules, and I think the most important rules in this case are WP:DUE and WP:PSTS. Providing evidence for a certain hypothesis is not among the goals WP aims at. An article should give a fair representation of all aspects relevant to its subject, and they should be balanced according to mainstream science. So, those verses can be included which - according to reliable secondary sources - are the most important from the point of view of mainstream Biblical scholarship. I don't think it's fair that you are "trying to present evidence" without disclosing your reasons. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The deleted text is: "Text according to A. R. Meyer:

[και εψευσατο] η α[δικια ε]αυτη [πιστευω του ι]διν τα αγαθα [εν γη ζωντων υπο]μενοντων τον [יה]הו [ανδριζου και κρ]αταιουσθω η καρδια σ[ου] [και υπομεινο]ν τ[ον] יהוה

Psalms 64:2 (LXX), the MT reads אלהים and the LXX reads ο θεος but P. Oxy. 5101 reads YHWH.

[.]. [ ] εις το τελψαλμος τω Δαυειδ [ [σοι πρ]επει יהוה υμνος εν Σειων [ [και σοι] αποδοθησεται ευχη [ [εισακο]υσον προσευχης: προς σε π[ασα"

WP:DUE is about "viewpoints", and it ends with a paraphrase of Jimbo Wales; WP:PSTS is about primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I don't see how this is being violated by the Greek textual addition, why it's not being balanced, as if I were trying to impose an idea. That text does not push anything, and the reader is free to form his or her own opinion, seeing the textual variants in it that have been exposed in the reference by scholars. Please be so kind as to be more specific, and thank you in advance for your valuable time and help.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The Babel at your German user page and your use of the wrong expression for "edit war" indicate that your knowledge of English is limited. From your inserting of the two verses above I guess that you had problems understanding my post. So, I suppose that you didn't understand me because of your limited knowledge of English. Sorry, I can't help you here. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)