Talk:Paul the Apostle/Archive 6

Comment on the use of Saul/Paul
Having grown up in evangelical church I know that it is a common misconception that Saul changed his named to Paul after his experience on the Road to Damascus. The 1910 Catholic encyclopedia states that use to the name Paul in the Greek speaking world may have been because Saul in Greek has a ludicrous meaning. A Blog I read on the subject stated that the word Saul in Greek means “the loose wobbly walk of a prostitute”. I would like to add a comment about the use of the names Saul/Paul, but I would prefer to use a stronger reference. Does anyone have a stronger reference?--Riferimento 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very good reason for not reading blogs. I understand that King David of Old Testament fame was also called Saul but did not have occasion to smite anyone for calling him by it - and the Septuagint is happy with the name too[User:Roger Arguile|Roger Arguile]] 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In Hebrew, the name Saul means; "asked for", "called one", "desired one".

In Greek, the name Paul means; "small one", "least one" "little one".

When you consider Paul's transformation, specifically his change of heart, this name change makes perfect sense.

Source? Any number of well accepted, scholarly, Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek Lexicons.

If you're interested in a deeper study of God's word; you may want to consider investing in a basic personal Bible study library. "As for God, His way is perfect; The word of the LORD is proven; He is a shield to all who trust in Him." Psalm 18:30 (NKJV) WikiMasterCreator 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a blog, and it states that “It was natural that in inaugurating his apostolate among the Gentiles Paul should have adopted his Roman name, especially as the name Saul had a ludicrous meaning in Greek.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm. I also want to clarify my question, I was trying to find a reference and definition for what the Catholic Encyclopedia calls the “ludicrous meaning in Greek”. What Saul means in Hebrew and what Paul means in Greek any fool can look-up, and I am a bit insulted that one editor considers me both Biblically illiterate and incapable of opening up a dictionary. It is a fact that the writer or writers of Acts used both the name Saul and Paul and after his experience on the Road to Damascus,and never stated any reason for the name change. Also, as I understand it Paul, never referred to himself in his epistles using his Hebrew name. Since all the epistles were written in Greek it would make sense to use a name which read by a Greek reader did not have a ludicrous meaning. It is also a fact that there is no evidence that Paul stopped using his Hebrew name i.e. Saul did not change his name to Paul, but in fact used both names depending on what company he was keeping or addressing.--Riferimento 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No offence intended, I was honestly just trying to help. I see you have some person issues; if you'd like, I will not respond to your posts anymore. WikiMasterCreator 04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason why this man used the Greek, 'Παύλοs', instead of his given name, 'Sαύλοs', tou Taρsos, is because his given name was so terrifying to his now brethren. Virtue Lord Purple 75.195.2.74 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"greatly rejoiced"
The use of direct quotations in the now frequently reverted section but without quotation marks not only results in archaic English but emphasises the point made to G Cleveland that we really do need to raise our game and provice interpretation. If WC is right then all that needs to be done is to set out Acts in extenso. It may be necessary to repeat the fact that merely because an event has but a single ancient source does not mean that one has to ploddingly say so; nor does it mean that it can be quoted (which suggested the superiority of one translation) without reference to the difficulties which it raises by comparison with other soruces relating to the dramatis personae. I really fear that there are armed tracked vehicles on the greensward, unecessarily. Roger Arguile 16:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Revised WikiMasterCreator 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Guerrilla warfare
Roger Arguile, it appears as though you are engaged in a kind of one man Guerrilla war against fellow contributors to this project, as a kind of self appointed sentinel.

Please refrain form, "unexplained", incremental changes over time, and ("undo") reverting more widely accepted, and Wikipedia compliant contributions by other participants. You have repeatedly reverted the Arrest and Death section without prior discussion, explanation, or justification, only to be reverted back by other contributors, including myself. This activity is becoming disruptive to the progress of this project. Please review the Three-revert rule.

I have responded positively to your previous complaint regarding "greatly rejoiced", and will continue to fairly and honestly consider such complaints and concerns in the future. Please remember that this is a "community" project operating under the assumption of good faith, and is open to "all" contributors in good standing. WikiMasterCreator 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone summarize what the editing issue is here? I see the frequency of edits going on back and forth on this article, but I haven't spent enough time following things to know what exactly the dispute is about. Can someone enlighten me?--C.Logan 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In summary, it's not really just an editing issue, or even a new issue, as much as it is a fairly long, ongoing, and drawn out struggle of an individual to enforce a dictatorial type of editorial control over the content and POV of this article. WikiMasterCreator 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Roger's edits (the few I've had time to read) seem reasonable. He is not in violation of 3RR. The only people to revert his edits are WikiMasterCreator and some anonymous editors. I think WikiMasterCreator's accusations are unfounded. Peter Ballard 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing. Apart from WikiMasterCreator, the "other contributors" who have reverted Roger's edits are:
 * 23:07, 10 July 2007 75.14.213.77
 * 17:12, 8 July 2007 75.0.13.48
 * 19:17, 6 July 2007 75.0.5.6
 * 21:03, 4 July 2007 75.14.219.155
 * These are all from similar IPs, and I think are fairly obviously the same person. My question to WikiMasterCreator is this: are those edits by you? Peter Ballard 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, that summary didn't explain much. Surely there must be a content issue which fuels the dispute? It would seem easy to paint a certain picture, but as I'm familiar with Roger from my previous involvement here, I'm aware that he's made positive contribution and is not really anything like how you've described him here. That's not to say that he isn't in the wrong now; that is, I don't know, because I see a vague discussion which jumps back and forth without a clear picture as to what's going on.--C.Logan 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter Ballard; how dare you attack my personal integrity, or that of other editors on Wikipedia. You have accused me of outright fraud and deception! This is completely unacceptable! No personal attacks - Civility

To disagree is one thing, but to turn this situation into the equivalent of a bar room brawl, where every drunk in sight joins to get a jab or two in, is pathetic, and unethical.

I wasn't addressing you to begin with, and Roger is quite capable of speaking for himself. No need to get into a mob mentality over this. Your POV is not law here, nor does your POV trump Wikipedia policy!

I stand by observations and my statement, and I strongly suggest you refrain from any further personal attacks. Etiquette WikiMasterCreator 08:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So that's a "no"? It is not a crime to forget to log in. Given the choice between wondering and insinuating, or asking a direct question, I'll usually go for the latter. I'm a blunt person. Sorry if that offended you. Feel free to ask blunt questions of me.
 * Now on the subject of personal attacks: you started it, by accusing Roger Arguile of guerrilla warfare. And a week ago you accused an anonymous editor of vandalism, when all they had done was revert your edits. A POV disagreement is not vandalism. It seems to me that you need to learn Wikipedia culture a bit better. I do not think that Roger has violated 3RR. If he has, report him. If not, what is the problem?
 * You say "Roger is quite capable of speaking for himself". That is not the point. Editors are entitled (in fact should) express their opinions in disputes. I stand by my opinion that Roger's edits are reasonable and your accusations are unfounded. Peter Ballard 09:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to pile on but I agree with Peter, it does not seem to me civil to accuse Roger of vandalism, he is entitled to his opinions and I see no evidence of community consensus. In addition, I think it is a mistake to assume community consensus based solely on the edits of anonymous editors. I personally have a few problems with this article, the main problem being the article’s length, but have decided to wait until the article is stable and the present edit war between Roger and WikiMasterCreator is over. --Riferimento 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (After a night's sleep). WikiMasterCreator, I apologise for suggesting you were using an anonymous account. I think we should all stop attacks, and concentrate on debating the article itself. Peter Ballard 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter Ballard, your apology is humbly accepted. WikiMasterCreator 02:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, the problem is that User:Roger Arguile rejects the historical accuracy of Acts of the Apostles, and as a result he repeatedly deletes content from them cited in the article, such as Paul's final trip to Jerusalem and arrest and trip to Rome, which is only found in Acts. Now, there is nothing wrong with disputing the historical accuracy of Acts, many scholars do in fact do just that, however it is unbalanced to just throw out Acts. It seems to me that the NPOV approach would be to describe what Acts says about Paul's final trip and to include that not all scholars accept that as historically accurate and to cite alternatative views from Reliable sources, but it is not NPOV to just delete any mention of the accounts in Acts on the grounds that they are disputed, as Roger has consistently done. For example, here is a view from a highly credible source that Roger has consistently removed from the article:

The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article by F. Bechtel on Judaizers states:


 * "Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after [the Council of Jerusalem] circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1–3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)."

Roger has claimed that this quote should be replaced with a quote from the more recent New Catholic Encyclopedia, however this is a red herring as the NCE is an abridged version and does not have an article on Judaizers. Roger's primary motivation is that he rejects the accuracy of Acts and he rejects that Paul in any sense observed the Mosaic Law, which is what portrays. It is pov pushing to just delete any mention of this from the article, Roger's pov should be included in the article, with references of course, but it should not exclude the other equally relevant povs, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, which argues for the historical accuracy of Acts. Of course this is a sensitive topic, because Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants have different views of Paul, but there is no reason that this article should only represent one particular view, such as the Protestant view that Roger is pushing. If you're interested in the background of this dispute, see Old_Testament, which I think does a good job of representing the different views. 75.0.15.227 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Riferimento comes in swinging! A left, a right, and then a few more jabs, but look! The champ shows no signs of weakening, the attacks appear to have had no effect on him! This is amazing folks, stay tuned, we'll be right back after a short word from our sponsors. WikiMasterCreator 02:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiMasterCreator,Wikipedia is not a nice place, and I am not a new editor, but experience has shown me that when editors continually resort to personal attacks it is not long until they are banned. Please note that I have never reverted any of your edits, focus on the article insulting me is a waste of your time.--Riferimento 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"I hate to pile on but..." Riferimento.

In my experience, editors who resort to "piling on" will receive an appropriate response, although my response in this case was obviously "tongue in check", and was meant to be humorous, it was accurate and made a valid point. WikiMasterCreator 04:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Open Letter
I have deliberately been as quiet and graceful as possible in dealing with Roger Arguile in all of this, but enough was enough, so I posted the section, "Guerrilla warfare", in the hope that Roger would step up and do the right thing, but unfortunately, for whatever reason, that has not happened.

Some have poked and prodded me for more details, and up until now I have been reluctant, and held back as much as possible, in the hopes to allow Roger an opportunity to do the right thing without any further exposure.

Roger has either not been around for the past few days, or he is choosing not to engage in this discussion, and if the later is the case, his silence is deafening.

In the meantime, members of this community are confused over what all is really involved in this, and angry exchanges are taking place, which is causing "strife and division" within the community itself; all as a result of one person's quest for dictatorial control over an article.

Roger has repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy, and his actions have brought harm, not just to me, but to the community as a whole. Therefore I really have no choice but to publicly expose what I had hoped I would not have had to.

In spite of what he's been doing, I have compassion for Roger, and I take no pleasure in having to confront him, and thus bring his deeds to light for all to see. If I knew of a way to discus this with him privately, I surely would have, not only for his sake, but for everyone else's sake as well.

Roger has been battling to disallow other editor's "good faith" contributions that he feels do not fit his own personal POV, not only in this article, but other articles as well. He apparently considers this activity to be some form of article "policing", and has appointed himself as the chief of police.

Having been outnumbered and overpowered by others in this quest, it appears that he has resorted to "sneaky", deceptive, Guerrilla warfare type tactics, stealthily reverting edits away, and replacing them with his own POV preferred version repeatedly. This activity may have flown under some peoples radar, but not mine. He has a history of this type of activity on other Wikipedia projects as well, and has been reprimanded for such. This behavior is totally unacceptable, and it's high time that it ends.

His craft on display:

Revert 1: Asserting and enforcing his own personal POV. 10:09, 4 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) m (62,630 bytes) (revert: POV I fear.)

Revert 2: Under the deceptive guise of "collateral damage". 20:57, 4 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (61,425 bytes) (If you really want to cause that kind of collateral damage,)

Revert 3: Another deceptive revert. 16:38, 6 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (61,425 bytes) (So we can agree not to place to much reliance on the 1910 CE; and to restore to refs. under Alternative views, I trust.)

Revert 4: Reusing the guise of "collateral damage" as in "Revert 2". Adding insult to injury we also have his comment, "I shall attempt to retain new edits!!". 20:10, 7 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (61,425 bytes) (Blanket reversions cause collateral damage- I shall attempt to retain new edits!!)

Revert 5 (two stages): Using "shortening" as a "smoke screen". 16:42, 8 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (62,042 bytes) (?Arrest and death - shorter., but in need of scholarly comment)

16:47, 8 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (60,748 bytes) (?Arrest and death - further shortening)

Revert 6: Ambiguous history entry. 16:22, 10 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (60,619 bytes) (This is no better.)

Dear Roger, you have violated numerous Wikipedia policies, caused injury to others, including myself, and with this you have brought "strife and division" to this community. Please do the right thing here, be honest, own up to what you've been doing, and apologise to the community. I'm encouraged that if you do the right thing, all will be forgiven, and we can all be healed and move ahead with this project.

Assume good faith

Etiquette

Please do not bite the newcomers

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Will you do the right thing? WikiMasterCreator 08:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to be more specific. Tell us what he deleted, what he inserted, and why it is POV. Peter Ballard 11:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC) In other words: I do not care about the dispute between you and Roger. But if you want to post - in full - the different versions (i.e. what you put in and what he reverts, or vice versa), then explain why you think your version is more appropriate than his, then perhaps I and others can offer a wording that is suitable. Peter Ballard 11:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter, as far as this issue is directly related to me personally, I have been very specific, and provided a detailed list of the most pertinent information and history for you, please review the logs and compare the versions to see them for yourself.

While a review of the history logs and comparing versions should make this clear, I suppose the only other thing I can add is that it is the "Arrest and Death" section where these tactics have been used against me. Feel free to dig deeper and wider yourself for additional information as you deem necessary. WikiMasterCreator 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I do not comment on the above. My efforts have been to elevate parts of this very long article from the level of paraphrase and make it more scholarly. I have written all that I want to about the 1910 CE. I am surprised that it is still supported. My view of Acts is less simple than that which is attributed to me. There are problems with it. If it were plain from Galatians that St. Paul was happy that Gentiles should not be circumcised but that Jewish Christians should be, no doubt the article could easily say that. That St. Paul's view seems to be different is the problem. In any case, paraphrase is not what an encyclopedia does. As for doing the right thing, that is, I fear, what I have been attempting to do.Roger Arguile 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgiveness requires honesty, and recognition and admittance of wrongdoing. Your choice to "duck" the issue, and obfuscate rather than answer for your actions is unacceptable.


 * As for your supposed effort to "elevate parts of this very long article from the level of paraphrase and make it more scholarly", it has resulted in the gutting out of essential information, caused the section to lose it's readability, and has essentially done nothing else other than bend this section back into your own POV, and is in reality nothing more than OR.


 * I see that you continue on in your violations as self appointed "editor-in-chief ", and your assumption of dictatorial control over this article.


 * You are obviously in violation of NPOV by your own statements, let alone your actions. You have yet again reverted, in flagrant violation of the Three-revert rule, which now makes at least seven reverts.


 * Revert 7: Another deceptive revert. 13:15, 12 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (60,697 bytes) (?Arrest and death - precis)


 * Revert 8: New tactic. 20:34, 12 July 2007 Roger Arguile (Talk | contribs) (60,697 bytes) (I know of no reason for preferring a pious long paraphrase to a short objective account by an anonymous editor.)


 * Your continued violations, and apparent inability to acknowledge your wrongdoing and engage in a cogent dialog, makes resolving these issues impossible to achieve in this arena. WikiMasterCreator 20:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiMasterCreator, you are wrong. Roger is not in violation of the WP:3RR. You obviously do not understand the WP:3RR. Read it please. Peter Ballard 23:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I hadn't compared the dates and times closely enough. I have removed that policy violation from the list. WikiMasterCreator 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Disputes and Concerns
Please can someone tell me why a lengthy pious paraphrase is deemed more satisfactory than a more objective brief account. This is why some like Grover Cleveland have commented on the lack of secondary sources. I also wonder why those who are anonymous do not declare themselves. The lack of serious reasoning prevents decent debate. Roger Arguile 20:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC) This appears to be the first contribution by the unnamed editor which is, of course, welcome though it has been known for people to use different machines and thus conceal their identity.


 * What's the excuse for deleting this sentence?:


 * is the only source for Paul's final visit to Jerusalem, where he was arrested and sent to Rome.


 * 75.15.205.207 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for its deletion. WikiMasterCreator 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi WikiMasterCreator. According to Verifiability any statement that is made in the article and not backed by citations to reliable sources is liable to be deleted, although in many cases it is better to ask an editor to provide a citation first, perhaps by using the Fact tag. A statement such as the one that was deleted here would need to be backed up by a citation to a secondary source.  Grover cleveland 23:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to state that I to have serious concerns about the length of the Acts paraphrase and some direct quotes, which when not read in historical context could and should be interpreted as anti-Semitic.--Riferimento 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please detail your concerns, be more specific. Antisemitism is a very serious issue. WikiMasterCreator 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jew is a word that describes an ethnic group, but in the paraphrase it is periodically used as the word for the opposition. When considering the historical context of when Acts was written it is understandable (not defendable) why the writer of Acts choose to use this ethnic word for opposition to Paul and Christianity without an additional descriptor. Since we are living in the 21st century, and we are paraphrasing, I believe we can choose better words for the opposition (in all cases a simple modifier to Jew would be all that is necessary.) I do not believe that this would be controversial since edits would all be minor, but I am hesitant to make the edits now when it is probable that the edits may be in advertently reverted over other issues.--Riferimento 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Riferimento, you are mistaken in this case. Hopefully I can assist you in your understanding, and in the process help to educate you a bit regarding this amazingly resilient and passionate people know as the Jews.

Please understand that the term Jew, or Jewish, is not exclusive to a particular ethnic group, but also belongs to those who are of the Jewish faith. This has been noted over several thousand years of history, and is as true today as ever. The term in this context is utilized to differentiate between Jews who have rejected Jesus as their Messiah and those who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah, who later came to be known as Christians. There are Ethiopian Jews, Arab Jews, and many other ethnic groups who have Jews as part of there national and religious identity. I personally find this to be both intriguing and beautiful, all at the same time!

What further complicates this issue is the fact that those who were Jews prior to their acceptance of Jesus as their Messiah, continued to consider themselves no less a Jew; this belief continues to this day among those who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah and were Jews previously, they are often refereed to as "Messianic Jews".

Being that this topic is religious in nature, the usage of the term Jews in this context is quite appropriate. To claim that the writer's use of the term "Jews" is "not defendable", and accuse him of being anti-semitic, and therefore disqualified from citation is ludicrous; furthermore, if he "is" propagating anti-semitism, then you had better remove every single entry that utilizes the term Jews in this context from all of Wikipedia, or better yet, label the book as anti-semitic and have it banned.

The term Jews is only a "dirty" word amongst the anti-semitic, which I am in no way implying that you are! I just see that you are simply lacking information in this area, and I am herein providing you with such.

In spite of this, I would be happy to dialog with you on this, and consider alternative wording that may be more descriptive while maintaining context and not detracting considerably from the textural flow of the section.

A few suggestions are; "Jews who have rejected Jesus as their Messiah", or "Jews who have not accepted Jesus as their Messiah". Unfortunately, either way it draws out the sentence structure beyond what would likely be deemed acceptable. More suggestions are obviously needed for consideration. Another idea would be to provide an in-text link to a definition of the word in context, thus clarifying it's meaning and helping to prevent an anti-semitic interpretation, if the concern is that serious.

Please take the time to read the articles I have linked to in this comment, they will deepen and broaden your understanding of this subject considerably.

I'm looking forward to working cooperatively with you on this project, and sincerely appreciate you bringing this topic up for discussion, rather than hastily hacking away at the article. WikiMasterCreator 00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is either a mean-spirited response, extreme arrogance, or possibly you live in a remote part of the world, where I live I have never met any adult who needed the explanation you gave. The parts that were true are grade school obvious, and parts that are false are probably the result isolation sprinkled institutionalized hate. One piece of advice if you ever meet someone of Jewish descent do not be so foolish as to use the phrase Messianic Jews because they will dismiss you as a fool. I tried not to respond to this post—but I found it to insulting not too. You obviously do not understand that how big the world is. Good-bye. --Riferimento 23:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken. WikiMasterCreator 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP editors
Anonymous IP editors I urge you to sign-in and create an account. I believe I speak for everyone in saying that your opinions are valued. I hope you realize that the contributions of legitimate anonymous editors are sometimes difficult to distinguish from a common vandal. --Riferimento 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As for as I am aware, there is absolutely no rule or policy in place on Wikipedia that compels one to register in order to be considered a legitimate and respected contributor. "All" editors deserve the benefit of Assume good faith and Presumption of innocence.


 * If you genuinely suspect that someone is "sock puppeting", than report such to Suspected sock puppets.


 * There is nothing "Anonymous" about IP address preferred editors., in reality they are all the more exposed and traceable by exposing their IP address to the public.


 * This continual "questioning" of the integrity of every so called "Anonymous IP editor" that doesn't happen to agree with one's particular POV, only serves to offend and cast a cloud of suspicion over the head of every IP address preferred editor. This behavior is causing mistrust and tension between editors, and is quite selfish in it's motivation. WikiMasterCreator 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not make the accusation of Sock-puppetry, because I do not care if they are sock-puppets. You are mistaking me for one of those childish Wiki-lawyers. My point is simply it is difficult to identify an anonymous editor. I do understand that I am not the enforcer of rules.--Riferimento 23:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Riferimento. In general there is no Wikipedia policy against edits by anonymous IPs.  The only exceptions would be semi-protected pages.  Grover cleveland 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)