Talk:Scriptural reasoning/Archive 2

Proposal to Archive Entire Page
I have now posted requests for comment with three administrators. All three have declined to comment because the talk page is too long - see WP:TLDR. This is a severe obstacle to progress. I thus propose to archive the entire page. We will have to start any discussions from scratch, and without verbose contributions. I propose to do this on March 1st, if there are no objections. Thelongview (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Over-long contributions fog discussion and deter external involvement (whether admins or just fresh editors) - and risk being perceived as a tactic to do just that. Talk page guidelines: "good practice ... be concise". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thelongview (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Arguments on this Page
This talk page is long and complicated. The following paragraphs are brief summaries of what you will find in it. Thelongview (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments over Neutral point of View
Mahigton argued on 29 Nov 08 that some material violated the neutral point of view requirement. Mahigton proposed that opinions should be distinguished from facts. Scripturalreasoning responded that what Mahigton viewed as opinion was fact. Mahigton argued that any matter about which there is serious dispute counts as opinion for wikipedia purposes (see WP:ASF, part of WP:NPOV). Scripturalreasoning claimed that proposals to separate the description of facts from description of opinions within the article reflected a conflict of interest (see below). This claim gave rise to arguments relating to verifiability, original research, undue weight, self-published and questionable sources and conflict of interest (see below).


 * Thelongview (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC); amended by mahigton (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments over Verifiability
Thelongview argued on 3 Dec 08 that many parts of the article contained claims that were contested and unverifiable. Scripturalreasoning responded that some of these claims were true nonetheless. Thelongview noted that 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth'. Thelongview proposed the deletion of unverifiable material. Scripturalreasoning responded that the proposal reflected a conflict of interest (see below). Thelongview noted that WP:V took precedence over WP:COI. Thelongview deleted the material on 28 Jan 09.
 * Thelongview (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See issue raised under "No Original Research" hereunder -- --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments over No Original Research
Scripturalreasoning proposed on 18 Dec 08 to support certain claims by publishing private correspondence on his website, and thus to render those claims verifiable. Thelongview responded that this violated no original research, constituted self publication and was inappropriate. Scripturalreasoning argued that this response reflected a conflict of interest (see below). Thelongview replied that WP:OR took precedence over WP:COI.
 * Thelongview (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Scripturalreasoning requested Thelongview to stop making false statements such as "publishing private correspondence on his website". The correspondence is not private but publicly circulated by David Ford, and was not authored by user Scripturalreasoning but by David Ford, and the website in question is not owned by and does not belong to user Scripturalreasoning.


 * The matter has now been resolved, with advice from Wikipedia, and the relevant statements:
 * have been written and publicly circulated by David Ford, a well-published author
 * The fact of the statements, the content and wording, and the allegation that they are written by David Ford -- NONE OF THIS IS IN DISPUTE BY ANY PARTY --- NO PARTY ON EITHER SIDE disputes that fact that the statements referred to WERE INDEED WRITTEN BY DAVID FORD. This is firstly because the statements were publicly circulated and would not be possible for Ford to deny, and I'm sure he wouldn't.  This is secondly, because users Thelongview and mahigton are either employed by David Ford's organisation in one case, and in both cases close colleagues, personal friends, or former students of the latter.  They are writing books and papers with David Ford, they see David Ford on a collegial basis through Scriptural Reasoning, they know David Ford's telephone number, they go down the pub with David Ford, and I am therefore reasonably confident that any suggestion that they might deny the veracity of the statements as having been made by the person who is alleged to have made them would make them look very silly indeed (leaving aside issues of honesty).  User laysha101 has confirmed that s/he knows the above two users personally.
 * Given therefore that there is no dispute from EITHER PARTY about the veracity of the content of the reference and its attribution to David Ford, there is no issue against the use of the reference, which itself is in the public domain. Had there been a dispute by either party that the statements made were not truly made by the person to whom they are attributed, then this might have been a question for debate around the relative authority and accuracy of any publication (website, journal, etc) on which such statements were published.  HOWEVER ALL PARTIES IN THIS DISPUTE ACCEPT AND DO NOT DENY THAT THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO DAVID FORD ARE IN FACT HIS WORDS, so this is not applicable.
 * The intention behind Wikipedia regulations on "Self-publication" are not relevant in this instance. The Wikipedia regulations on "Verifiablity" are clearly intended to enable "true" material to be "verifiable" and "fact-checkable" -- and this reference clearly is both (you can even call the Cambridge Interfaith Programe with the number provided, and ask).  It is factually correct, it is in the public domain, and it has the means to confirm the facts - the wording of the statment and its attribution   [BTW, at the same time is known to a sufficient number of people within the tiny and highly incestuous Scriptural Reasoning community for it to be impossible to deny (if you don't know yourself, you can certainly ask a mate to confirm.]
 * Wikilawyering is relevant when a person either employed by or connected to an organisation as Thelongview and mahigton are, attempts to suppress critique of that organisation, by attempting to assert the letter of a Wiki policy while violating its principles -- in the case of "Verifiablity" this principle is clearly about truth being fact-checkable. Where Wikilawyering takes place in relation to someone who is employed by or connected to the organisation related to the issue of the reference (here the Society for Scriptrual Reasoning/Cambridge Inter-faith Programme) the issue is one of Conflict of Interest.


 * --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, one question and a few comments. Question: what is the "advice from Wikipedia"? I didn't think "Wikipedia" as such could give advice. Individual editors can give advice on specific issues; Wikipedia pages can give general quidelines/policies/rules. To what are you referring in this instance, and can we have a pointer to eg a relevant talkpage discussion? Have I missed something?
 * Verifiability. OK, let's go round this again, and let somebody correct me if I'm wrong. It is entirely irrelevant to the issue of verifiability whether I, Scripturalreasoning, Thelongview, Ukexpat or any other individual contributors to this page might be in a position to go to the pub with David Ford and ask him to confirm or deny certain claims. The issue is whether anyone at all wanting to edit or follow up this article is in a position to check its claims using publicly available and reliable sources. And that, I maintain, is not the case. All that can currently be established, I think, is that some person or persons unknown (since no-one appears to be publicly claiming responsibility in situ for the website www.cambridgeinterfaithprogramme.org) has claimed that David Ford wrote certain things. It's not enough for Wikipedia verifiability guidelines - however useful it may be for anyone engaged in detective work - to have a phone number to call (even if the publication of that number on that website had been agreed in advance with the people who pick up the phone, which I suspect is not the case here). It's certainly not enough to tell the general enquirer who reads this article tomorrow to begin research on scriptural reasoning that s/he has to go down the pub with David Ford in order to find out more. Nor, I would suggest, is it enough to say that correspondence has been "publicly circulated"; it hasn't been published, so it can't be used (by the hypothetical general enquirer) to verify anything. (Incidentally, I genuinely don't understand what "publicly circulated correspondence" means. Unpublished correspondence is unpublished correspondence. "Private" as used by Thelongview is possibly a red herring, since I rather doubt that even an unpublished conference paper, which is clearly not "private", would meet Wikipedia verfiability criteria).
 * I happen to be acquainted with at least one person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article. I know what she has for breakfast. If she has lots of friends who are Wikipedia editors, lots of Wikipedia editors know (or can find out by phoning her) what she has for breakfast. I suspect she may even have sent me, and others, emails that provide some evidence of what she has for breakfast. She might, for all I know, have mentioned it on some "public" occasion. What she has for breakfast is unlikely to be a matter of dispute. But none of that entitles me to put the information in her Wikipedia article, because it appears as yet in no reliable published source. (OK, there's also the small matter of relevance/due weight. But perhaps you see my point. Or perhaps not. Anyway I've tried. Correct me, as they say, or confirm me).
 * Laysha101 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Outside view: I just commented at Reliable sources/Noticeboard . As Laysha101 says, it's emphatically not sufficient that all parties here agree: sources must be externally demonstrable, and the option of verification by direct contact is never viewed as acceptable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely fine. While I (and apparently others) beg to disagree with this appraisal, given therefore that the principle you state that "it's emphatically not sufficient that all parties here agree" then this calls into question a substantial part of the article which in its current edit is poorly referenced in its description of the "Method of Scriptural Reasoning", or makes assertions of opinion about "notable forms of SR" from one group's viewpoint only -- and so your principle ought therefore to be applied rigorously and even-handedly in removal of all these elements right across the article.  --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If we go with that principle, and I for one am happy to start discussions on that basis, what exactly would you like removed? (NB the "others" to whom you refer is an editor who admits that s/he has "not look[ed] too closely").Laysha101 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. At last some forward movement. Essentially:
 * My fundamental objection, right from the outset has been that this article has become a promotional tool for marketing Scriptural Reasoning, suppressing problems in the activity, making exaggerated claims for the "pioneering innovation" of the practice, not a factual report of truth, real facts and events which happened (given the extent of verbiage on this page about promotion or referencing). This page contains ample claim that SR is a practice of thousands (hence, "majority", "minority" opinions).  This is not true - I am going to clarify from friends exactly how many thousands are in the "Scriptural Reasoning in University Group".  the SR Society is the largest in the UK and our membership list is a couple of hundred -- I suspect rather more people go to a non-league local soccer club on a Saturday than all the people in the UK who do Scriptural Reasoning put together -- and possibly not so different to everyone in the world who does SR regularly.  The suggestion that everyone who has ever passed through an AAR Conference presentation on Scriptural Reasoning is a "regular SSR member" is misleading.  SR is a tiny minority activity of some hundreds, and misleading exaggeration about its size and importance, together claims of "vast majority" views over "tiny minority" views, all of this is fiction.
 * The above is partly not a Wikipedia problem, but one of Scriptural Reasoning itself - in that some of the practitioners make assertions of "inventing" things, "pioneering" things and being a "powerful" and unique practice, and thereafter which "unique patented formula" is effectively and truly the sole franchise of the "founders" of the practice.
 * The question is quite simply, "What makes Scriptural Reasoning distinctive and different from all the Jewish-Christian-Muslim interdisciplinary text based study that has been going for years?"
 * Is it seriously being suggested that SR is something "pioneering" in the face of all the Jewish-Christian-Muslim Conference (JCM) 3-faiths text studies which has been going for years, the numerous permutations of the same text-based study:- Jewish-Christian (eg. Pontifical Council for Christian Unity), Jewish-Muslim text study (eg. again JCM Conference, al-Nisa Society), Christian-Muslim (eg. Archbishop of Canterbury's Building Bridges Seminar, PISAI Rome) Jewish-Christian-Muslim (eg. the Toronto Conference which gave rise to "With Reverence for the Word" - far superior to any SR book that's ever come out). The above are merely a handful off the top of my head - further research doubtless shows any number of other such inter-disciplinary-interfaith text reading practices --- the great majority of them just quietly going about their business locally without all the SR trumpeting and marketing and roadshows.
 * It particularly annoys colleagues of mine who have been involved in reading and teaching interfaith text study at JCM for years, or like me have been to the Vatican and PISAI text studies to hear exactly the kind of tone of voice we have in the Mahigton comment hereunder:

SRS is in the rather odd position. (i) It pursues this practice in a way that is, like all SR, directly and substantially indebted to that initial development (i.e., SRS does something called 'SR' only because Peter Ochs, David Ford, Basit Koshul and others did it first). (ii) It pursues SR in a way that does not in practice differ significantly from the other forms of SR that emerged from that development (i.e., SRS practice, I take it, conforms well to the description in the 'Method' and 'Key Features' sections of the article, and I presume (or hope) that SRS would stop using the SR name if ever their practice stopped looking like that).

It may therefore dismay his colleagues to realise that what we do (just last week for example) as Jews coming with their Rashi commentaries from centuries back, Muslims with their medieval tafsir from centuries, and Christians with their sola scriptura from centuries - reading together as non-text scholars, scientists of other learning, lay people alongside exegesis people, has absolutely no whiff of David Ford about it, and no reference to anything published in "The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning" or on the SSR website at all.
 * One vivid anecdote which just sums the whole thing up was at the British Library a couple of years back when with the angelic host of Scriptural Reasoning elders present, a Jewish lady asked exactly this question of the "pioneering" dimension of SR, given that her organisation had been doing such text study already. What makes "pioneering" SR different from every other kind of interfaith or interdiscplinary text study?  Well that had them stumped...
 * Turning to the Wikipedia article, there are assertions that SR is a practice in which "Jews, Christians, Muslims" meet in "small groups" of "various disciplines (text scholars, lay people, scholars of other disciplines)" to read the "Tanakh, Bible, Quran" in "respect for differences, and disagreements of belief, not attempting to blur those differences", and "in the process enabling them to deepen their self-understanding of their own tradition" and "building friendships across faith boundaries". Absolutely NOTHING about any of this is new, unique, pioneering or "invented" by anyone.
 * That is where a lot of my sense of the dishonesty, copyright theft, endless marketing and proprietorship associated with Scriptural Reasoning derives.
 * It is also why the deletion by users Thelongview and Mahigton of the historical precursors section and acknowledgement of pre-existing practices of inter-disciplinary dialectical text study, and other interfaith text conferences smacks of that same experience which my colleagues know -- and that's why I find this bogus claim to patent and then proprietorship in SR and on this article, so unacceptable and dishonest.
 * What is perhaps identifiably a Scriptural Reasoning identifier is 1) the name 2) the fact that the history by which intra-Jewish TR gradually incorporated David Ford and other Christians and Muslims joining the conversation can be called their particular spiritual journey, as individuals or a group. While the journey of every new convert to say the Christian faith is a unique and special one for him and can be called pioneering for him, the practice of inter-faith-interdisciplinary text reading which this particular group got to by their journey however remains entirely questionable as to its "novelty" and "invention".  And BTW, yes I have done SR with both David Ford and Peter Ochs, and so yes, I don't speak entirely without experience.  And yes, I have told David Ford exactly this to his face.

THEREFORE...
 * The starting sentence with the Wikipedia article should read, "Scriptural Reasoning is ONE TYPE OF INTER-FAITH INTERDISCIPLINARY READING OF SACRED TEXTS in small groups...
 * It falls WITHIN THE WIDER DESCRIPTIVE FAMILY OF RELATED PRACTICES such as A, B, C, including historical precursors X, Y, Z
 * The history of Scriptural Reasoning is that Peter Ochs, David Ford, TR...blah, blah...eventually decided to study sacred texts together and gave this activity the name "Scriptural Reasoning"
 * COMPARED TO OTHER PRACTICES OF INTERFAITH/INTERDISCIPLINARY TEXT STUDY, WHAT IS IDENTIFIABLY DIFFERENT ABOUT SCRIPTURAL REASONING is....Ref X, Ref Y, Ref Z.  (about the only thing I can think of is the "mishkan" thing, everything else curently listed under "Method" and "Key Features" is unremarkable).
 * And before we get into some big circular debate about "Verifiablity", "Referencing", etc. Stuff on Wikipedia or any book or paper does actually need to be "TRUE" and "HONEST" at some level as well, and a moral level (you claim to be Christian theologians).  If you are going to make claims that a "Key Feature" or "Unique Patented Formula" is invented and innovative as such, then the onus is one you to show that it is different from every other shampoo that's ever gone before.  This is where HONESTY and TRUTH on the one hand, and legalistic adherence to Wikipedia regulations on the other, are not the same thing -- and why some stuff on this talk page makes one so cross.

ON THE ISSUE OF HONESTY, SELF-PROMOTION... Given the sermons preached about not "promoting" the Scriptural Reasoning Society, "Wikipedia is not a list of links", etc, could someone confirm with all the duplicate links: I am not anal, and entirely relaxed for you to link to your SR group of three friends meeting in a kitchen - but I hope you understand where I'm coming from in expressing concern about double standards, given all you have preached.
 * With all the duplicate links all relating to pages off essentially the same Society for Scriptural Reasoning website or related to it...?
 * The Scriptural Reasoning Society has an annual conference as well, the JCM Conference in Germany where we meet to study our texts. Would it be fair had we chosen to add a duplicate link to that as you have done with the American Academy of Religions thing with all the same SSR people, including folk on this page?
 * Is the St Ethelburga's group still actually functional? A friend of mine who goes to it, said that it was now defunct, but I don't know first hand and may be wrong.  Also, would it be fair if the Scriptural Reasoning Society set up separate references in the article to each of our affiliated SR groups in Oxford, Westminster, Camden...is this fair?
 * Is the "Scriptural Reasoning in Education" thing still functional - it may have had about 3 sessions last year run by someone I know. Would it be fair if the Scriptural Reasoning Society listed out our "SR Training Sessions" as a separate entity too on the Wiki article?  You have also deleted the "Scriptures in Dialogue" which is a live and current project and organising a Scriptural Reasoning academic conference for the summer?  Do you think you applying the same standards with integrity?

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * More extended responses will have to wait until outside the working day, but I respectfully request that you remove the comment about what's required "on a moral level" and the comment about Christian theologians, for two reasons: (a) I have not claimed on this page to be a Christian theologian; (b) I'm at least mildly upset by the implied accusation of dishonesty and immorality, as I suspect anyone (Christian or not, theologian or not) would be. If we want forward movement, let's try assuming good faith, please. Laysha101 (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually one brief comment to start us off. This article is about scriptural reasoning. It's not about "interfaith textual study". Maybe we should have a long article about "interfaith textual study", with all the "historical precursors" in it, cross-linked to the (now quite) short article about scriptural reasoning and to anything else that's relevant. After all, we can have an argument about what Ochs et al invented, but they certainly invented the name - and the name is the title of this article. Scriptural reasoning (specifically) seems a reasonable thing to have a Wikipedia article about, and we shouldn't muddy the waters by talking within the scriptural reasoning article about a lot of things that don't call themselves scriptural reasoning. That's emphatically not a judgement on the importance of any of those things; it's a suggestion about what belongs in this particular article and what belongs somewhere else. Laysha101 (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The "you" here was in the plural (why can't the English language be more precise on this like every other language?) to the principal users who have commented, and not directed at you, nor was this post addressed personally to yourself (sorry for any misunderstanding on that).  I don't know who you are or whether you are a theologian or not, your faith, gender or anything about you (I do know who two other users are).  I scribed this note in haste.


 * The comment around honesty (again) is a comment about the honesty of Scriptural Reasoning leading practioners (oh, how easy it is to get into misunderstanding with online posts) - which if you re-read the post above, is my point.


 * In relation to what scriptural reasoning "is" and "is not" - that is a rather important question as to what this article is supposed to be, and what it isn't.


 * From long experience of people asking puzzled and confused, "Okay, so you get Christians, Jews and Muslims, text scholars, non-text scholars reading together. That's all been done before --- but what is Scriptural Reasoning?" and getting vague and unclear answers -- I think the honesty issue with Scriptural Reasoning is located exactly there.


 * While I accept that David Ford and Peter Ochs invented a name "Scriptural Reasoning", while I accept they came to that point through a personal journey for themselves and their group, from intra-Jewish interdisciplinary study, to one which brought them to the idea that Jews, Christians, Muslims, text scholars, scholars of other disciplines, might read together -- the practice that they "discovered" is pre-existing, done by countless others, and curerntly appears in the Wikipedia article to have few if any distinguishing features at all.


 * For someone coming to the the Wikipedia article and asking, "What is Scriptural Reasoning?" all that is provided is a description of interfaith-interdisciplinary text study -- simply called by another name.


 * There is no merit to having a Wikipedia article on say, "The Church of England" which simply gives a description of Christian beliefs about the Incarnation or Trinity shared by all other Christians. Such an article comes under the title "Christianity".  There is no merit to having an article on "Manchester United" which gives a description of the rules of football, twenty-two men and pitch and a ball, which rightly belongs under "Football".


 * There is no merit in having an article on how a few folk took something countless other people have been doing for years, bottled it, slapped a label "Scriptural Reasoning" on it, and then started marketing it as something they "invented". There obviously is something more which, in my ignorance I am missing here -- some remarkable, utterly new and distinctive thing that was invented, as it says, newly by the SSR founders, unlike what others have been doing before and setting it apart as distinctive, and that insight that you (pl.) have, is clearly something that needs to go at the core of the Wiki article to help ignorant people like me who come to the Wikipedia article wanting to understand what SR is.


 * What is worrying is that as Mahigton notes, it is perfectly possible for the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" to do interfaith interdisciplinary text study in a way entirely of our own creation and choosing (what we do is exactly what we have been doing at JCM for years), using our traditional commentaries and ways of reading, without any reference whatsoever to what David Ford or Peter Ochs have done -- and for others to still say what we do is "Scriptural Reasoning". This is because no one I have ever asked really knows what "Scriptural Reasoning" is, and importantly which of the varied types and methodologies of interfaith-interdisciplinary study are NOT Scriptural Reasoning.  At the moment, it appears from the article just about every interdisciplinary meeting of Jews, Christians and Muslims reading texts together is "Scriptural Reasoning".


 * "What's different about SR?" is a question which others have asked, and to which never seem get a straight answer. So if the Wikipedia article on SR deserves to exist at all, then it is to answer that question clearly and lucidly.  If the answer is simply "Scriptural Reasoning is a name that David Ford and Peter Ochs invented, and it is something they do, or own" then there doesn't deserve to be an article on it at all.


 * --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uniqueness


 * The article as it stands at present makes no claim that the practice is unique. User scripturalreasoning suggests reinforcing this by changing the starting sentence to read, "Scriptural Reasoning is one type of inter-faith interdisciplinary reading of sacred texts in small groups..."  I don't have any objection to that; it seems quite a sensible suggestion.  And, while any more detailed mapping of how SR relates to other such interfaith interdisciplinary text study would almost certainly constitute Original Research, a brief mention like this, with a footnote that points to some other examples, would seem to be fine.  What do others think?
 * The article does not describe SR as a 'pioneering innovation' - but there is a use of the word 'invented' in the sentence, 'Scriptural Reasoning was invented and developed by a group who now form the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning".' Now, that sentence seems to me to be an accurate reflection of the claims made in reliable public sources about SR, and I am not aware of any reliable public sources that say anything different, but if user scripturalreasoning would like to suggest different wording which can be referenced to reliable public sources, it would of course be good to consider it.
 * The current 'Method' and 'Key Features' sections of the article apply (and are intended to apply) just as easily to SRS as they do to any other instance of SR, and user scripturalreasoning has never, if I recall correctly, made any claim to the contrary. That material is an attempt - as repeatedly stated on this talk page - to provide a description that covers all SR (user scripturalreasoning's, mine, anyone else's).  (It may therefore be worth noting that there is only one point in all of that material which is substantiated by reference to the Society for Scriptural Reasoning's website, or any website associated with it.  The note in question has already by that point referred to three other sources, including a CUP book, and the SSR reference is used simply to provide evidence of the usage by that site of language about friendship: i.e., it is used as evidence of itself.  On the other hand, SRS materials are cited three times, including as the primary reference for various claims made in the article.  I've no problem with that: I inserted at least one of those references myself.)  Now, I agree that the 'Method' section could do with more detailed referencing - though I'm afraid I can't help remembering user scripturalreasoning's insistence that the attempt to find such detailed referencing was 'silly', and that s/he long resisted the idea that these sections should provide a neutral description applicable to all SR.  But I'm very happy that we should get back to the job of referencing, and make sure that the 'Methods' section gets more detailed backing.
 * There was discussion on this talk page about the deletion of the historical precursors section, in which user scripturalreasoning decided not to participate. Perhaps s/he would like to engage with the arguments made there: it has not yet been archived.  One word of caution: s/he might like to make sure that s/he has understood the Wikipedia policy on Original Research, which recent events suggest s/he has not fully internalised, before doing so.
 * Note that I did not make the claim that user scripturalreasoning only engages in textual study with members of other faiths because Peter Ochs et al did it first. On the one hand, I said that SRS does something called 'SR' only because Peter Ochs, David Ford, Basit Koshul and others did it first (as opposed to having independently and coincidentally plucked the name out of thin air).  On the other hand, I did say that SRS practice was directly and substantially indebted to that development.  I am happy to withdraw that claim if it should turn out to be mistaken - though I must admit to some genuine bewilderment: If there is no connection, no indebtedness, no genetic connection to SSR practice, I am not sure why user scriptualreasoning and others have adopted and insisted upon the name 'Scriptural Reasoning', which (since they had been involved in SSR activities, and since SRS was - as user scripturalreasoning has so insistently repeated - in part shaped by disagreements with prominent members of SSR over the direction in which SR should develop) they knew full well to be a term invented by, and very publicly associated with, that practice - and a term that is quite clearly going to remain publicly associated with that practice.
 * Finally, on this section, I do think user scripturalreasoning raises one very interesting point. On reflection, I think it  probably is the case that the article in its current form does not do enough to explain the distinctiveness of SR.  In order to do that, I think it would probably need to focus more on SR as an academic practice (where the distinctiveness is much clearer than at the civic level) - and therefore would need to delve a little deeper into the academic literature on SR.  Perhaps, as user Scripturalreasoning suggests, there could be a few extra sentences, maybe even a separate short section, referenced to the academic literature on Scriptural Reasoning?  What do others think?  (I must add that it's nice to have scripturalreasoning actively encouraging the citation in the article of materials which must - simply because of the nature of the academic materials available in the public domain - be largely produced by those from whom s/he so evidently wants to be publicly distanced.)


 * Developments section


 * That leaves the 'Developments' section as the remaining bone of contention. I am glad that user scripturalreasoning has now decided to engage in detailed and, on the whole, constructive discussion of its contents (even if s/he still can't quite manage to do so without the insults and accusations that we have come, wearily, to expect).
 * As it currently stands, the 'Developments' section is the only part of the page where varieties of contemporary SR practice are discussed. No group or activity gets more than a brief mention; SRS's mention is slightly more substantial than most - and I have repeatedly said that I think its mention could appropriately be a bit longer.  User scripturalreasoning has not yet made any constructive proposals (or engaged with the constructive proposals of others) about how that could be done, but I presume we can find an acceptable way forward here.  Nevertheless, the story of the supposed suppression of SRS in this section would thus appear to be, shall we say, rather difficult to substantiate.
 * Nobody has claimed that SRU has thousands of members. Nobody has claimed that everybody who passes through the relevant AAR session is a regular SR member, nor made an argument which tacitly relies upon that claim.  If user scripturalreasoning thinks I was tacitly making that claim, s/he has misunderstood me.  SR has been a subject of sustained, serious academic discussion in the US, particularly at AAR; hundreds have had some experience (however brief) of participating in it; certainly hundreds and possibly thousands have had some involvement in discussion of it.  I'm not sure that anything very much rests on this claim, though - the current form of the article assumes no more than that the AAR Group is notable enough for a brief mention, and that SRS is similarly notable.
 * In general, I don't see any reason why anything which is distinctive, and publicly/verifiably using the name SR to describe its activity, shouldn't be mentioned. So, yes, if the JCM conference associate themselves with the term 'SR', I'd be entirely happy for it to be mentioned; and yes, I don't see any reason why the list couldn't include the SR training sessions user scripturalreasoning mentions, if there's some public source for the article to point where readers could find out more.
 * On the other hand, the 'Just TXT' initiative (which I think Thelongview introduced?) needs a reference, or needs to go. This has been on my 'to-do' list, but because searching online for 'Just txt' brings up a zillion irrelevant pages about SMS messaging, making it quite hard to find out whether it does have an online presence, it's not something I've got round to.
 * The same applies to the question of whether every affiliated group should be listed: I presume the questions are (1) are they are doing something distinctive? and (2) whether we can point to public sources that describe them. We don't simply want a 'directory', but it is appropriate to illustrate the variety of directions in which SR practice has, verifiably, developed.  So, quite appropriately, we don't currently list SR in my own university, for instance, or in various US universities, because they fail to be distinctive and verifiable.  Does that sound like a fair set of criteria?
 * I'm sorry about the deletion of 'Scriptures in Dialogue' - I hadn't realised that, in the flurry of recent editing, I or someone else had deleted reference to an activity that publicly associates itself with the name 'scriptural reasoning'; I'm very happy for that to be reinstated. I wish user scripturalreasoning had drawn it to my attention before now.
 * On the other hand, I'm afraid I don't know about the continued existence of SRE and St Ethelburga's. Both are only indirectly connected to the SR groups that I know first hand.  Anything not current should, indeed, go (unless it is in some way historically notable, I guess), but I wait to hear from other editors about these particular developments.
 * Lastly, on this front, and as a minor point of record, it's worth noting that the AAR Group management are not simply the same people as SRU/SRT, despite a level of overlap.


 * --mahigton (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry: the above post overlapped with the most recent exchange between users scripturalreasoning and Laysha101 - so it does not take into account or respond to any clarifications offered in that exchange, or to the change in tone it represents.


 * One minor additional point, however: would it be okay to move all the material posted to this subsection from 13 Feb onwards down to the foot of the page? I'm finding myself increasingly confused about where the active arguments are on this page.  We'd need to leave behind some brief comment to conclude the summary of the OR debate, of course.  Any suggestions?  Something like 'Further discussion of OR ensued, until, after intervention by user gordonofcartoon, the matter was dropped'?


 * --mahigton (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One final addition for now:
 * Honesty
 * I've now had a chance to catch up on the most recent exchange. User scripturalreasoning: please distinguish between someone propounding views that you believe to be mistaken, and somebody being dishonest.  I, for instance, truly and honestly believe SR to be a distinctive practice, as I know various prominent practitioners of SR do.  We may turn out to be confused or mistaken about that (just as you may turn out to be confused or mistaken in claiming that it is not distinctive).  You or we may even turn out to have had access to materials that ought to have convinced us that we were confused or mistaken, or to have heard arguments from others which should have convinced us.  But to say that either you or we are being 'dishonest' is to make a wholly different kind of claim.  You are remarkably free in throwing around accusations of immoral behaviour on the part of those with whom you disagree, even though it is an unneccessary distraction from the content of the case you are trying to make.  Could you, as an experiment, see if you can get through your next few posts without being insulting, or making accusations about the moral stance of those who disagree with you?  It would make this discussion so much easier.  --mahigton (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments over Undue Weight
Sakina08 argued on 2 Dec 08 that material devoted to issues in the UK had been given undue weight, as it had low relevance to SR overall. This was also argued by Laysha101, The Maulana, Lavdavka, Mahigton, and Chaisr.

Scripturalreasoning responded that material posted by him on issues in the UK is relevant to all SR, wherever practised. Scripturalreasoning argued that there is no obstacle to including material reflecting local issues.

The material in question was removed by Thelongview on 28 Jan 09. Thelongview suggested on 31 Jan 09 that there could be a 'developments' section to describe local variants of SR.
 * Thelongview (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments over Self-Published and Questionable Sources
Thelongview argued on 18 Dec 08 that material on self-published webpages used to reference claims in the article contravened no original research and use of self-published sources. Thelongview proposed the deletion of the claims and the references. Scripturalreasoning responded that this proposal reflected a conflict of interest (see below). Scripturalreasoning argued that one of the on-line journals cited in some references was a questionable source. Thelongview asked whether any contested claim in the article had been verified by reference to this journal. No such claim was identified
 * Thelongview (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC) amended by mahigton (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. "Self-published" material implies material personally published on "personal websites", "blogs", "forum postings". User Thelongview has deleted material published in The Guardian Newspaper as well as material published by "the Scriptural Reasoning Society" -- all of whose public content is vetted by the Board of Trustees as a registered charity. Thelongview and colleagues show no such scruples about publishing from the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning owned entirely by the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning". Double standards as usual. Correspondence which has also been published was not authored by me, but by David Ford, and publicly circulated by him. Ironically, and with the typical hypocrisy which has become customary here, the Scriptural Reasoning article does reference "self-authored" material by other users on this page. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've suggested a way forward on Scripturalreasoning's talk page. Thelongview (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've copied user scripturalreasoning's arguments below, so that we can discuss them in a new section on WP:SELFPUB and WP:QS sources. --mahigton (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Allegation of Conflict of Interest
Scripturalreasoning alleged on 13 Jan 09 that Thelongview, Mahigton and Laysha101 were associated with an organisation that had been the target of criticism in the main article, and had a conflict of interest in editing the article. Mahigton responded that the material in question was unverifiable and had been given undue weight. Scripturalreasoning responded that the material was true nonetheless. Scripturalreasoning responded that the claim about undue weight reflected a conflict of interest. Thelongview drew attention to WP:V (see above).
 * Thelongview (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[There was a separate section here: removed by mutual agreement of two parties]

Allegation of Vandalism
Scripturalreasoning alleged on 29 Jan 09 that Thelongview had vandalised the article. Thelongview drew attention to What is not vandalism and asked for the allegation to be withdrawn. The claim has not been withdrawn.
 * Thelongview (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive
Many items on this page have been resolved, and I have started to archive them here: /Archive 1. Feel free to move them back into the main text if you prefer. Thelongview (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[Minor Matters section archived. Thelongview (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)]

NPOV
I have once again removed the following text: Some approaches continue to give pre-eminence to the initial founders of Scriptural Reasoning and the precedents for SR practice generated by their writing. Others however, firmly reject any form of "fourth position" construct of authority outside the sacred laws and customs of the participating faiths alone, and insist that SR and its secondary literature remains at all times humbly subordinate to the autonomous authority and particularity of each faith, and the centuries-old practices of interreligious text study which long predate the term "Scriptural Reasoning". This material violates Wikpedia guidelines, which state that all material must be 'NPOV' - neutral point of view. The 'fourth position' way of describing the original SR group practice and understandings of SR is not accepted by those groups; it is therefore a matter of non-neutral opinion. Similarly, the phrases about being 'humbly subordinate' and so on are far from neutral descriptions (because they imply a clear negative judgment on original SR). If the author of this material wishes these points to be made within the article, they would (a) need to be clearly presented as a matter of opinion, (b) need to be accompanied by references to appropriate external sources in which that opinion is expressed and explained, and (c) accompanied by description of the dissension from that opinion of a large number of practitioners of SR. We would also (d) need some discussion on this page about whether the opinion expressed here (i.e., the criticism of the original SR communities) is widespread enough within SR to deserve inclusion on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles are, after all, not a context for the conduct of debate about their subject matter, even though they should include report of significant and widespread debates that take place elsewhere about that subject matter. --mahigton (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to NPOV Dispute Raised by user mahigton


 * The NPOV statement by mahigton is invalid. The points which he has attempted to remove are explicitly cited in the reference to the Oxford Ethic, the Scriptural Reasoning Community Ethic attached in reference directly to the points raised.  Article 3 of the "Community Ethic" states explicitly that:


 * Subordination and Subsidiarity: A cardinal and distinctive principle of the Scriptural Reasoning Society is our commitment to Scriptural Reasoning being a practice that is at all times derivative and subordinate to the participating faith traditions (in Abrahamic Scriptural Reasoning these being Judaism, Christianity and Islam). As a temporary tent of meeting, the practice of Scriptural Reasoning must at all times recognise its submissive and secondary status to the centuries-old autonomous faith traditions from which its participants derive, and must never attempt to establish “fourth position” structures or regulations which in any way might begin to form alternative sources of authority. Authority in Scriptural Reasoning therefore lies at all times primarily with the religious laws, churches and religious communities of the participant faiths alone. The practice of interfaith sacred text study pre-dates the term “Scriptural Reasoning” by many centuries, as do the traditional rules and customs of different faiths which are associated with it. Therefore Member Scriptural Reasoning Groups must at all times refer, defer and make all best efforts to respect the religious laws and customs of the participating faiths as the first and primary source of guidance for Scriptural Reasoning practice, and only thereafter look to secondary academic literature on Scriptural Reasoning as a subordinate source of guidance for Scriptural Reasoning practice.


 * For example: For many Jews and Muslims, religious authority in regard to the appropriate handling and reading of sacred texts is articulated through Jewish halachic law and Islamic shari‘ah law, while for many Christians the authorities of their churches provide the locus of religious teaching and authority. These sacred loci of authority should never be supplanted or even supplemented by any “fourth position” construct, such as a Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group.


 * For example: For Muslims, centuries-old Islamic shari‘ah rulings are clearly articulated in respect of practices of shared reading and interpretation of the Holy Quran and hadith together with members of other faiths, and the clear injunction is upheld that decisions regarding appropriate handling and treatment of Islamic sacred texts, their publication and ethical financing, are a matter for the Muslim community alone, and are never to be delegated to any Scriptural Reasoning group or Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group containing non-Muslims.


 * Arising from this reference:


 * 1) A fundamental and factual valid difference between the two variant approaches towards Scriptural Reasoning in relation to what mahigton terms the "original" SR (maybe an NPOV issue in itself), is that the evidence clearly demonstrates that this approach to SR associated with the (National) Society for Scriptural Reasoning/Journal of Scriptural Reasoning and its partners in the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and elsewhere, continues to give considerable weight to SR rules and methodologies generated by some of the personalities who were founding members of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning. A cursory glance at the most recent issue of the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning January 2008 entitled in such flavour "Essays in Honour of David Ford" as well as ample evidence elsewhere in the literature continues to testify to the considerable import attached to the views of certain key founder personalities of Scriptural Reasoning as forming precedents for orthopraxy.  By contrast, it is a matter of fact not opinion, that the Oxford Ethic expresses an significantly different viewpoint at variance with the above, namely that the primary soruce for Scriptural Reasoning praxis and its reference point at all times be the religious laws (such as Islamic sharia, Jewish halakah) and the Tradition of Christian churches and other faiths - and that any secondary material, such as that published in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning be at all times subordinate sources to the existing laws autonomously extant in different faith communities.  This difference of view between the two approaches to SR in this regard is a matter of fact and not opinion, and has been recorded and properly referenced and documented.


 * 2) Secondly, the "Fourth Position" construct here is clearly a fact of the "original" SR in the actual and real existence of a "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" which includes David Ford and Peter Ochs as founding elders of Scriptural Reasoning. This reality again represents a clear and factual point of difference from the principle cited in the Oxford Ethic that explicitly opposes any such authority or "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" as a "Fourth Position" structure - the Ethic insisting that the only permissible structures are those of the autonomous faith communities themselves.  Furthermore, the Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning was issued in July 2007 in the context of explicit opposition to the "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" which it explicitly references, and the suggestion at the time that this new body containing non-Muslim elders of Scriptural Reasoning would make decisions in relation to the ethical permissibility of the publication or handling of Islamic sacred texts - which Islamic shari'a has for centuries forbidden to any other than Muslim juridical authorities alone.  This difference of view between the two approaches to SR in this regard is again, a matter of fact and not opinion, and has been recorded and properly referenced and documented.


 * In relation to adding more detailed background of the context of these issues in the main article, there is no problem in principle to adding the material on the "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group", festschrifts in honour of founder personalites, and so forth. However, in order to avoid embarassment this has not been added here.


 * You will find in fact that while the Wikipedia article must accurately record the historical fact in SR of the disagreements which have led to the emergence of new schools of SR and are realities with documentary evidence in the public domain, this has in fact been done so (for the time being) with considerable discretion for the sake of the broader reputation of Scriptural Reasoning. The SR history contains serious disputes which are documented, pertaining to allegations around financial probity and management and impact on desecration of sacred texts -- none of which are (currently, for the time being) mentioned in the primary article for reason of discretion.


 * Any suggestion of unreferenced NPOV is therefore spurious.  --scripturalreasoning 03:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Scripturalreasoning misunderstands Mahigton's point. The existence of references for the material on "fourth position", etc, doesn't in itself qualify it as NPOV. It's still the case that this assessment of earlier SR groups is a matter of opinion and of debate (as the edit history of this page demonstrates), and needs to be presented as such - which is why I've suggested moving it to the Oxford School section, since the reference given is to the "Oxford Ethic
 * (Apologies first for not putting a note on my earlier edit - but I don't think that qualifies it as "vandalism"). -- Laysha101 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't think you've understood the nature of the criticism. The material you had added read not as description but as advocacy of the Oxford Group position. The choice of words, the lack of acknowledgment that the descriptions provided (e.g., the 'fourth position' description) are not accepted by original SR participants, all made the article lean strongly towards Oxford SR and against Original SR.  I hope we can find a way of describing the difference between the two which is more neutral.--mahigton (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to NPOV Dispute Raised by user mahigton (Supplement 1)


 * The references to "fourth position" constructs is a referent to an actual reality of a "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" of founding fathers which suggested oversight over certain SR matters, including handling and publication of sacred texts of other faiths - these have been referenced in the primary article. The concept of "fourth position" structures has been defined in terms of the existence of the "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" in the attached reference, though the fact disagreement between SR practitioners has been pointed out as being a point of clear divergence in SR theory and praxis between different approaches to SR.


 * The festschrift JSR issue contains some rather glowing and obsequious statements which clearly imply pre-eminence as has been stated, and there is no objection in principle to more detailed examples being referenced. In relation to authority being given to particular founding elders over others, both the existence of the SR Reference Group, and moreoever the Edit history and referencing confirms this.


 * There is some irony in the assertions of this NPOV dispute that has been raised, in that the Edit history clearly demonstrates the deletion or displacement downwards in the article of material representing alternative viewpoints, by persons associated with the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and SR Theory Group at Cambridge. The expurgation of the Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning from another Wikipedia article by one of the other users rather obviously associated with the CIP, clearly indicates the vested interest in the deletion or downgrading of material from Wikipedia articles representing alternative viewpoints.


 * --scripturalreasoning 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No: the claim that Original SR's practice can be described as a 'fourth position' is not a straightforward, neutral factual claim. It involves particular contestable understandings of the nature of religious authority, particular contestable understandings of the status of SR practice, particular contestable understandings of the kind of governance involved in Original SR, and so on.  By all means the article can include a description of this claim, as long as it also includes acknowledgment that it has been contested.  As it stood before this editing exchange started, that contestable description was presented as if it were an unbiased matter of fact.  That's what I (and, apparently, others) have been objecting to, and why we have been trying to edit the article. --mahigton (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One other point re. the 'displacement downwards' of alternative viewpoints that you mention. If it were the case that the material higher up the page clearly favoured Original SR, then the downwards movement would clearly not be a neutral matter.  However, I think that the higher material is actually accepted by both Original- and Oxford-leaning contributors, so the downwards displacement simply leaves a structure that starts with agreed material, and then moves on to as balanced a picture of the more controversial material as we can manage.--mahigton (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * JSR
 * Incidentally, I would also suggest that judgements about the significance of issues of the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (e.g. the recent collection in honour of David Ford) need to be based on more than a "cursory glance". It's possible that references to that JSR issue would be relevant to this article, but they'd need to be quite specific. Producing a festschrift for a scholar doesn't mean that you accord him any particular authority over an ongoing practice.


 * Laysha101 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another attempt


 * Clearly, there is controversy about SR. It seems sensible, therefore, to start the article with what all participants agree on - whatever their 'School'.  So, I've tried to make sure that the header and first section are uncontroversial.  I've then tried to put as fair a description (drawing on, I think, everything user scripturalreasoning has said) of the controversial matters in the later section of the article.  I hope that description now describes both sides (and the controversial nature of their claims) clealy.--mahigton (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)--mahigton (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * '''Response to NPOV Dispute Raised by user mahigton (Supplement 2)


 * mahigton writes, "Clearly there is controversy about SR". Good - we can work with this, and I see this as progress with the editing of this article.  We might one day even get there with a final mutually acceptable draft.


 * I am entirely happy for the fact of there being disagreement on both sides as to the nature of "fourth position" structures to be recorded in the article, and it would have absolutely been fine to express in the article that the Cambridge Interfaith Programme/its partners contests this allegation, as it does about other controversial matters. That there are matters which are disputed in SR is something to be recorded in this encyclopaedic entry as it is an inescapable fact of the practice of Scriptural Reasoning.


 * However, what mahigton Laysha101 did instead was cut out the relevant section entirely, or physically downgrade it to a lower part of the document. That is not fine, but instead smacks of what we have been facing so long in SR in the UK, of every kind of political censorship from certain folk the Cambridge Interfaith Programme-and-its-immediate-partners to suppress debate within Scriptural Reasoning -- making a hollow lie of "not consensus but friendship".


 * The deletion by Thelongview of the record of the Islamic SR fatwa on another Wikipedia article, immediately rang alarm bells of the experience we have had of certain non-Muslim Anglican Scriptural Reasoners in the UK attempting to suppress knowledge of or interfere with Islamic rulings for Muslims in relation to Scriptural Reasoning.


 * It is thus appropriate that this encyclopaedic entry records with integrity the facts of disputes around fundamental principles in Scriptural Reasoning theory and practice - and to do so in as balanced a way as we can. What you need to do now in the editing process is accept the fact that these debates are relevant to Scriptural Reasoning and not just to The Oxford School.  There is not a practice of "Real/One-True-Apostolic-and-Catholic Scriptural Reasoning" and "Oxford Heretical Scriptural Reasoning" - there is simply Scriptural Reasoning where at least 50% or more of the folk who come to meetings of members SR groups of the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") have also been involved or continue to be involved in some way with other SR groups in the UK.  We have very good friends in Cambridge who have privately expressed longstanding private concerns about some of the issues which have been debated, before they were ever raised by the "Oxford School", and significantly if you look on the Cambridge Interfaith Programme's http://www.scripturalreasoning.org/ website you will find texts now with Traditionist commentaries appearing to give increasing regard to autonomous traditions of reading within Islam, Judaism and Christianity, while the controversies around appropriate handling of Quranic texts raised in the fatwa find there way into SR guideline documents on that site, written after the fatwa.


 * Like it or not, these controveries around the way all Scriptural Reasoning is conceived and practiced, while particularly championed by some within the Scriptural Reasoning Society, continue to influence other Scriptural Reasoning groups, while concurrently the debate and disagreement within the SR world continues. This ability to promote better quality disagreement is marketed as what Scriptural Reasoning is supposed to be about.


 * 1. It is therefore not acceptable in the editing process of this article to pretend that the fact of these disagreements around matters of Scriptural Reasoning theory and praxis should be relegated and confined to a fenced section entitled "The Oxford Group - that other separate lot". The fact of there having been disagreement between different SR practioners (which we all are) around certain principles of SR theory and practice must be fairly and in a balanced way recorded in the first section on Aspects of SR theory and practice.


 * 2. In relation to the historical section, it is also not acceptable to pretend that there is a separate "Oxford Group" history -- there is only one history, the history of Scriptural Reasoning of which the events in the UK over the last few years, and the emergence of new Schools of SR form an integral part. For common sense reasons of chronology, the story begins with antecedents to practices of shared text study, continues to the founding of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning ("Princeton School"), and naturally the foundation of the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") come later on in the narrative.


 * 3. What needs firmly to be rejected is any suggestion that there is an "official" or "original" SR, versus the "other" SR. I wonder how Anglican theologians like yourselves would respond to a Wikipedia article, In the beginning was Original Christianity in Rome with direct and legitimate apostolic lineage from Jesus Christ and the Twelve, and then along came this schismatic "Wittenberg Christianity" which is not the real thing and which has no legitimate right to claim that it actually looks backward to the 1st Century faith of the the early Christians.  These are all contested matters and need to recorded as such.


 * The current drafting of the article is not satisfactory, and I am quite aware that I am in conversation with users who are directly connected with the SR Cambridge/CIP group and have vested political interests with them. However, the discussion on this Discussion page appears actually more positive and progressed in thinking than the Editing of the main article itself, in that mahigton states his wish to find a way forward agreeable to both sides, which statement is a view I share.


 * --scripturalreasoning 04:16, 01 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good
 * (NB - the following comment from Laysha101 was made whilst a typo in scripturalreasoning's comment immediately above (now corrected) left it saying that the then current version of the article was acceptable.--mahigton (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Thanks. This is all really positive. I suppose - you (scripturalreasoning) were quite reasonably offended when you thought you were being accused of being a heretical/fringe group of SR & that deliberate efforts were being made to silence debate; and I (not presuming to speak for anyone else here) was offended when I thought I was being accused of following the edicts of three High Priests rather than respecting the faith traditions & good process, and of using my very limited spare time to vandalise wikipedia articles in order to do other people down. (Happily, I'm not quite so offended at being accused of being an Anglican :-) ). But if we can recognise that both/all parties act in good faith and are really aiming at NPOV in this article, we can probably get somewhere.
 * Laysha101 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  Correction: Fatwa
 * A quick clarification and correction. There's a claim that user Thelongview (me) was responsible for the deletion of a section of the Fatwa article.  This is untrue.  I moved the section in question so that it appeared in between other fatawa issued around the same time - thus putting it in an appropriate chronological place.  The relevant part was not deleted.  This change was reversed, so - following normal wikipedia practice - I put an entry on Fatwa's talk page, suggesting that 'Some Contemporary Fatwa' should be arranged in chronological or reverse chronological order.  I'm sure other editors of that entry will have views on that - so far no views have been expressed (as of 1 December 2008). Thelongview (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion


 * Can I, then, suggest two different possibilities?


 * Possibility A: after the 'Aspects of the Practice of SR' section, an 'Origins, History... etc' section which had subsections: (1) Historical precursors; (2) Society for Scriptural Reasoning; (3) Emergence of controversy in the UK; (4)Oxford School?


 * Possibility B: after the 'Aspects of the Practice of SR' section, an 'Origins, History... etc' section which had subsections: (1) Historical precursors; (2) Society for Scriptural Reasoning; (3) Oxford School; then a new 'Controversies' subsection?


 * The main difficulty I foresee in heading in the B direction would be avoiding the article becoming the place where the controversy is conducted rather than reported.


 * --mahigton (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Miscellaneous responses
 * Hmm... what a difference a "not" makes (see Mahigton's clarification added to my earlier comment, above). Will leave the earlier comment there, in a hopeful spirit.


 * That apart: one point to be considered is whether this whole discussion as it stands is too UK-dominated to give a fair picture of SR worldwide. Not something those of us who have posted so far can do much about.


 * Re Mahigton's suggestions, especially B (which on balance I prefer): Maybe a matter of taste, but I find Wikipedia articles that try to describe controversies at length, "some argue..." "others argue...", hard to read and less than helpful. It's not what this particular medium is best at. Could we attempt a "controversies" subsection that had fairly short descriptions of areas of controversy (rather than substantive accounts) and then plenty of good external references?
 * Laysha101 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another round of disagreement
 * I am grateful for some of the constructive changes that user scripturalreasoning has made: the non-controversial aspects of the article are becoming richer and more informative thanks in part to his or her work. However, to echo his or her own words describing an earlier version: 'The current drafting of the article is not satisfactory'.  Specifically, it is not acceptable to have the description of the controversies over governance to the status of a third main point within the 'Aspects of the Practice of SR' section.  I have heard SR described in many different contexts in the UK and the US, and know of descriptions from elsewhere, and (as a simple matter of fact) the questions raised in that bullet point have not played and do not play a significant role in the vast majority of those descriptions and ensuing discussions.  It is, therefore, simply not acceptable - again, I echo scripturalreasoning's terminology - to pretend that those controversies are anything other than a localised matter, taken seriously by a minority of SR practitioners, and in a minority of contexts where SR is done.  scripturalreasoning may wish that they were taken seriously by a majority of SR practitioners - but wishing does not make it so, and the fact is that (rightly or wrongly) they are not yet.  It therefore creates a serious distortion in the basic description of SR if the article elevates this local debate (however passionate its participants may be about it, and however much the subject-matter of that debate - rather than the field of those who participate in it - might be SR as a whole) to the status of a major component of the description of all SR.  Unless someone can convince me that a majority of SR practitioners worldwide would at present recognise this third bullet point as an exposition of a topic that plays a significant role in their own experience and discussion of SR, I will demote it to its proper place: a subsection lower down on controversies in which a minority of SR practitioners have become involved. --mahigton (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I take it from the silence that this is an acceptable plan, then?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If this plan is part of a process whose goal is an encyclopedia article whose broad body reflects the fact that SR is an international practice where internal controversies are few, then I support this. But I'd like to hear some more views from others who have familiarity with scriptural reasoning in a variety of contexts.  The claim by mahigton that this supposed controversy is not significant in the wider picture of SR would be more persuasive if corroborated by practitioners of SR from a variety of contexts.  I don't think one or two voices can plausibly adjudicate the international or even national significance of something.  If a significant number of UK voices say that there is a big controversy, that's probably worth taking seriously; ditto for voices from around the world.  If just one voice says there is a big controversy, I'm inclined to be a bit sceptical (unless there are solid objective references to support that claim - see below). Thelongview (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As a scholar, practitioner and teacher of SR in the States, I can attest that the controversy is, in fact, non-existent in the US. Not only are practitioners unaware of the UK debates, it is not relevant as fatwas do not have the same weight in the US that they seem to have in the UK.  The idea of studying with non-Muslims with printed sacred texts has not raised serious objections from any major US Muslim organization.The maulana (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a practitioner of SR in the States (I was a member of the CTI group for three years). I was only marginally aware of this controversy which played no role whatsoever in any of the meetings I participated in. Frankly, I was surprised to see it as one of the central principles of SR. Ar2yeh (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me there is a consensus, then, that Mahigton's assessment is correct, and that corresponding edits are justified. I note that Mahigton has made those edits, and that they have been reversed, without comment or reasons, by user scripturalreasoning.  This does not follow Wikipedia good practice, and I would invite him either to assess Mahigton's edits on this page or to refrain from blanket reverts, please. Thelongview (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability
 Proposed method of discussion 

There are several passages which are unverifiable. This is particularly significant in the light of the disagreements expressed on this page. I suggest that NPOV concerns are best served by adopting an appropriate prose style combined with claims (especially contested ones) being substantiated with appropriate references. An appropriate reference is one that substantiates the claim being referenced. If the claim is 'Tony Blair met George Bush', the reference should substantiate that claim. If the claim is 'Tony Blair said "It's a nice day"', the reference should show that he did, indeed, say it. If the claim is 'What Tony Blair said was true', then the reference should substantiate that. NB the latter case is, rightly, hard to substantiate, and NPOV articles tend to avoid them. The following is a list of passages with requests for referencing, or suggestions for deletion where claims are unverifiable. This article currently does not sufficiently adopt Wikipedia good practice, where contested claims need to be verifiable. I have listed the passages, with remarks to aid anyone who might wish to repair the passage in question. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 Discussion by Paragraph 

The current header of the article goes like this:

"Scriptural Reasoning ('SR') is an evolving practice in which Christians, Jews, Muslims, and increasingly members of other faiths, meet (mostly in small groups) to study their sacred Scriptures together, and to explore the ways in which such study can help them understand and respond to particular contemporary issues. The early origins of SR lie in the traditional Jewish practice of hevrutah (also translit. chevruta Heb. ??????) dialectic text study. The practice and the term 'Scriptural Reasoning' was invented by the Jewish philosopher Peter Ochs. It describes an interfaith-interdisciplinary method of reading sacred texts along two axes - one between people of different faiths, and the other between text scholars and scholars of other sciences. Whilst the practice does call for, and help nurture, self-critical awareness and an openness to the questions, suggestions and challenges offered by others, the participants are expected to join in the conversation without abandoning deeply-rooted commitment to their own particular faith. A stated axiom of SR is to promote 'better quality disagreement' between participants. Different practices of shared interreligious study of sacred texts, and different 'Schools', have emerged under the broad umbrella of Scriptural Reasoning, and this experimental activity continues to develop in novel ways."

I suggest
 * 1) This could do with being much shorter.  Perhaps just:"Scriptural Reasoning ('SR') is an evolving practice in which Christians, Jews, Muslims, and increasingly members of other faiths, meet (mostly in small groups) to study their sacred Scriptures together, and to explore the ways in which such study can help them understand and respond to particular contemporary issues."
 * 2) The 'early origins' sentence should go down into the historical precursors section.
 * 3) The Peter Ochs sentence could go down into the account of the foundation of SR.
 * 4) The self-critical awareness sentence, and the ones that follow, could be merged into the description below of SR's central facets.

In each case of moved material, we would need to discuss 'separately' how to make the relevant section appropriately concise, the avoidance of repetition, the level of detail needed and so on. --mahigton (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally agree, but see my comment below re "Aspects of SR".212.69.58.59 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to say that I've undertaken the reorganisation proposed here (and in other recent comments of mine). I have tried not to lose any content (though I've eliminated some repetitions); I have tried in particular not to lose any material that we've been having disagreements about on this talk page.  I think the 'key features' section can probably be pruned a bit: it still feels repetitive and a bit long - we could do with a punchier summary.--mahigton (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Section 1

Now moved to Archive

Section 2

Now moved to Archive

Section 3

Now moved to archive.

Section 4

This portion moved to archive.

Section 5

This section moved to Archive.

Section 6

Moved to archive.

 7 

There are debates over understandings of the "particular" dimension of Scriptural Reasoning -- namely of it being a "temporary tent of meeting" between Jews, Christians, Muslims and others, the participants being members of ancient autonomous faith traditions each with their own well-established religious laws, rules and customs around shared text reading, as articulated in Islamic sharia, Jewish halakha. There are debates as to the relative importance of these "particular" or autonomous sources of authority within different faith communities relative to the the precedents and guidelines for SR practice generated by the teaching and writing of some of the founder personalities of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning".[4]

Two 'there are debates' claims. No references. Suggest deletion. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC).


 * I am not going to waste time commenting further on the suggestion that "there are no debates". scripturalreasoning


 * As to the first 'debate', every SR member I've ever encountered assumes that participants are and remain (in their various different ways) faithful members of their respective religious 'houses', each of which has a range of well-established practices for working with its sacred texts. Of course, precise ideas about what those practices are, and precise levels and understandings of individual faithfulness to them, differ as much in SR as they do in the 'houses' themselves - but I haven't heard anyone suggesting that SR inherently involves practitioners in any journey away from faithfulness to their house tradition.
 * So is there really a debate about this? It's an SR truism - and assumed in everything that has been said in the article so far.


 * On the second 'debate', I am not aware of any SR practitioner who has suggested that the faithfulness of SR practitioners to their respective house traditions should be superseded or qualified or overridden by 'the precepts and guidelines' of established SR practice, however generated. So: agreed - delete this. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim 'there are debates' is contested. In such cases inclusion should be decided by its verifiability.  The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia articles is verifiability, not truth.  The claim 'there are debates' is unverifiable, and one editor proposes to support the claim by reference to unpublished correspondence, which remains unverifiable and violates No original research.  I propose to delete this claim unless it is made verifiable, and would welcome any other comments from editors. Thelongview (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In my experience in and around SR (several years' worth) I have never been privy to the "authority debates." Ar2yeh (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

 8 

There is disagreement between different SR practitioners in relation to applying these relative emphases, some arguing that SR and its secondary literature, such as that published in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning, be at all times unequivocally subordinate to the autonomous authority and particularity of each faith's traditional rules governing interfaith study,[5] while others dispute these views as misunderstandings of the nature of SR, with some of the initial founder SR practioners discouraging the official seeking of traditional Islamic sharia or Jewish halakha sanction for the practice of SR.

The claim is 'there is disagreement'. The one reference would support a claim about subordination and subsidiarity; it does not support the claim that there is disagreement. No appropriate reference. Suggest deletion. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed - see my comment to the previous deletion proposal.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have reversed the censoring edit of the article and its supporting reference by Laysha101. Nonsense.  We have had considerable experience of attempts to oppose and stifle the existence of the fatwa, endless political games from the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and its partners, opposition in person (to our faces) from certain leading figures from the CIP to the very idea of obtaining traditional rulings in relation to SR, and the notion tendered that what is needed is SR "elders" to exercise "oversight" over the practice of SR.  Your hypocritical idea of circular referencing -- namely using the SSR's Journal of Scriptural Reasoning to support SSR positions, and censorship of other viewpoints not written up in that SSR Fanzine, has been repeated enough times.  Have tried to accommodate, but when I realise I am dealing with the brick wall of a hypocritical censorship political motivation, or folk who are in one or two cases on the Cambridge Interfaith Programme payroll, then that is the point where one stops listening or engaging further.  This whole diatribe has nothing to do with good quality academic referencing, nor representation of real events.  Rather it is about stifling the existence of debate that is politically embarassing.scripturalreasoning 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User scripturalreasoning: please note that personal attacks are a serious breach of Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks). --mahigton (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bought some ice-cream. Strange choice for December, but hey. Now what? Maybe have an attempt at getting back to the point, viz.: this is a wikipedia article, so we're aiming for verifiability. The deleted bit isn't verifiable (whether or not it's true). Laysha101 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Have examined the relevant reference, and I believe you may be referring to the clause, "Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense".  Well, I have not outed any of you by name or in person, though I have as a group and in general pointed out the conflict of interest issue arising in your (pl.) censoring editing of the material written or referenced by another editor (me), which is motivated by the fact that some of you (pl.) are likely to have an institutional conflict of interest to conceal, or censor such  material because is institutionally embarassing - and I have a reasonable confidence as to the relevant conflict of interest connection of one or more of you with the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, though I have not said whom.  Insofar therefore, as this is entirely relevant to the hypocritical discourse going on here where you (pl.) are engaging in conflict of interest-motivated censoring editing of the writing of another Wiki editor, and under the pretence of "referencing", promoting the requirement for a circular referencing system via the SSR's own Journal of Scriptural Reasoning, this is quite pertinent to bring to attention.  As to the verifiability of these assertions in this last paragraph, am happy to add an unpublished correspondence footnote and expansion of David Ford's comments and advice against seeking faith authority sanction, if that will keep you happy (the record will show that I have attempted not to personalise this article by excessive reference to David Ford's statements, unless and until I have been forced by you to add the verifying footnotes).  Given that there is a line of communication to the CIP here, I am sure they will quite happily take legal action on anything which libellous, but when there is a written correspondence record and witnesses to events, there is no way they can.  scripturalreasoning 14:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The allegations of Conflict of Interest are baseless. Wikipedia good practice is for editors to attend carefully to  Neutral point of view and  Verifiability, especially if there is possible conflict of interest.  To claim that NPOV and Verifiability requirements are instances of conflict of interest is meaningless.  Either material is NPOV or it is not.  Either material is verifiable or it is not.  Removal of material that demonstrably fails to be NPOV, or removal of non-verifiable content, is not censorship.  It's common-sense Wikipedia practice, especially if it is accompanied by rationale on the talk page.  Unpublished correspondence is not verifiable, and in any case violates No original research requirements.  Personal attacks contravene No personal attacks, and unwarranted claims about Vandalism are not acceptable (I refer to some article history edit remarks).  Thelongview (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine. Am happy to publish online unpublished private correspondence and remarks by David Ford and others, and publish them up on the internet (however embarassing it may be to the Cambridge Interfaith Programme).  Thereafter happy to reference those published points in the main Wiki article (no different to referencing an academically mediocre and non-peer reviewed magazine like the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning).  Perhaps you can pick up the phone and ask if he and your other colleagues are happy with that. scripturalreasoning  18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User scripturalreasoning has claimed that I can 'collect [my] cheque from the CiP'. In other words he or she has either claimed that my edits and arguments here are motivated by financial gain, or that I am in some way being paid or rewarded for my edits.  These allegations are wholly without foundation.  I am not in any way paid by CIP; I am not a member of CIP.  These accusations constitute an attack on my personal integrity - and therefore a direct violation of Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks) - and I expect them to be withdrawn.  --mahigton (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't get my icecream (or anything else) from CIP either, and would like the accusation in scripturalreasoning's comment on my last edit to be withdrawn. I would further note that scripturalreasoning has accused me and various others of other breaches of professional as well as personal integrity - e.g. engaging in "censorship" not only on this page but elsewhere.Laysha101 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If any of the claims referenced to the online Journal of Scriptural Reasoning are disputed, they should be identified as 'disputed and unverifiable' claims on this talk page. None of those claims has, as yet, been disputed, and they have been up for some time.  Non-contentious claims do not require the same level of verifiability as disputed claims. Thelongview (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not going to waste further time on this -- or get drawn into the political game that is being played here. mahigton and Laysha101, I did not specify who among the various users on this page is or is not affiliated with the Cambridge Interfaith Programme -- read what I wrote in the discussion edit above.  So I certainly don't have to clarify that further, nor of course have I outed anybody as an individual.  I do have good grounds to believe that at least one or more of those who have been involved recently in hostile edits and censorship of the writing of another user (me) are associated with the Society for Scriptural Reasoning/SR Theory Group in Cambridge/have collegial connections to it, and have vested political interests in wishing to suppress viewpoints in this article which conflict with their political view and connections -- and so I maintain clearly that there is a Conflict of interest issue here, and the editing history demonstrates this. (I do also have reason to believe that one of the users on this page is indeed affiliated with the CIP - but I haven't specified)  The hostile editing of this article and removal of materialm written and referenced by me, by some other users on this article is not based on a desire for academic integrity, but is based on a circular referencing system focusing on the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning - which is an online publication controlled by the SSR, and not an independent academic journal with the usual standards of independent peer review.  This is hypocritical and a political ruse.  To systematically remove material written by another Wiki editor representing an alternative viewpoint, while not declaring a conflict of interest due to your connection with another body as the SSR/SR Cambridge Theory Group/collegial connections to these groups, is censorship and does lack integrity.  For the record, by contrast I have not removed critiques of the Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School) when they have been added to the article by other users -- because I have more integrity than to do that.  Finally, as for remarks about ice-cream money, for heaven's sake -- it's almost Christmas so do please have the wit to accept a figure of speech, and not be anally retentive.  However, as I know you already understand this full well, and that this is all about political manoevring and not common sense, I have removed the "offending" ice-cream remark from my edit above ((shakes head in disbelief)).  scripturalreasoning  20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * When retracting or substantially modifying text on the talk page please use strikethrough or placeholders, as recommended on Talk page guidelines Thelongview (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning is considered a disreputable source, this should be stated explicitly on this talk page. Those with responsibility for it (it's based in Virginia, USA) can answer for it.  If any claims supported by reference to this journal are disputed, those claims should be identified clearly on this talk page.  So far, none of the claims referenced to that journal has been disputed.  There seems little reason for anxiety about a source if the claims are considered sound.  It is the disputed claims that require a higher standard of verifiability - this is explicit Wikipedia policy for NPOV. Thelongview (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning is associated with the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, and in practice is not editorially independent from the influence of some of the leading persons in that organisation. This is a matter of fact, in practice. (I suppose an acid test would be to see how willingly the JSR publishes or rejects papers offering a critique of the some of things that have gone badly wrong to Scriptural Reasoning, that led to the emergence of newer schools)  For this reason, the idea that the JSR constitutes some kind of absolute impartial, independent and authoritative reference point for the whole practice of SR, and for the purposes of referencing this Wiki article is inaccurate.  Therefore, for the purposes of referencing the Wiki article, the JSR is no different from any other website on the internet, under ownership of various organisation or persons, and containing variably biased information about Scriptural Reasoning, Premiership football, heavy metal music, or anything else.  In addition to the above, and separate from the facts concerning the JSR editorial ownership, I also submit a personal viewpoint from my reading of some of the material on the JSR - some of it is of fine academic quality, other good but unoriginal and recycled, and some of it at about the level of a high school student writing a term paper on comparative religion - not the consistency of a good and independently peer reviewed academic journal.  But that is just my own personal viewpoint and doubtless others will find the JSR a stellar read. scripturalreasoning 00:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Which claims in the article referenced to JSR are contested? Thelongview (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded to this thread more fully in a new section at the bottom of the page. --mahigton (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Section 9

This section moved to Archive

Section 10

This portion moved to its own section below:

Talk:Scriptural Reasoning Thelongview (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 11 

There is disagreement between different SR practitioners in relation to applying these relative emphases, some arguing that SR and its secondary literature, such as that published in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning, be at all times unequivocally subordinate to the autonomous authority and particularity of each faith's traditional rules governing interfaith study,[5] while others dispute these views as misunderstandings of the nature of SR, with some of the initial founder SR practioners discouraging the official seeking of traditional Islamic sharia or Jewish halakha sanction for the practice of SR.

There is no reference for the claim that there is disagreement. For there to be disagreement there must be stated positions on both sides. I can see no evidence that there is a debate about the issue of subordination. There is also no reference for the claim about initial founder SR practitioners. I suggest this section be deleted. Thelongview (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not going to comment on every point here, because it is time wasting. If you are really proposing that some of the earlier founders did not discourage the idea that Scriptural Reasoning should not seek a "seal of approval" from traditional legal authorities, and they are actually supportive of such things as the issuing of the Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning, go and ask them scripturalreasoning


 * That's not enough.  We would need to be able to establish that these or other actions, statements or opinions were clearly grounded in a belief by the SR practitioners in question that the established practices and descriptions of SR had some kind of autonomous authority over against the particular faith traditions involved.  No SR practitioner known to me believes such a thing.  There is no debate of the form described in this paragraph.  I agree with the deletion proposal.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 12 

many participants come from both Orthodox and Progressive streams of Judaism, the Court of the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth, the London Beth Din maintains a cautious approach to Scriptural Reasoning, on grounds of the classical position in halakha that the practice of Jewish study of the New Testament with Christians remains problematic.

There is no reference for the claim that anyone is maintaining a cautious approach, nor that anyone has made claims about halakha and scriptural reasoning. I suggest this section be deleted, but would especially welcome views of editors familiar with Jewish approaches to scriptural reasoning. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 13 

While there appears to remain less halakhic difficulty in regard to Jewish text-based study with Muslims, the London Beth Din has nonetheless confined its advice to matters of the appropriate handling of Jewish sacred materials in SR in order to avoid desecration of the Holy Name[8] explicitly without implying sanction for Orthodox Jewish interreligous reading of the sacred texts of other religions.

There is no reference to the advice given by the London Beth Din. The lack of any sanction does not seem significant; if there were a sanction against it, that should go in (with a reference) to the article. I suggest this section be deleted. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 14 

The Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks makes the distinction between "side by side" interfaith dialogue for common social action over and against "face-to-face" forms of theological interreligious engagement such as Scriptural Reasoning, with the latter category of activity being viewed with greater reservation by Orthodox halakhic authorities.

There is no reference for Sacks' comments. There needs to be a reference, and the reference needs to be explicitly about scriptural reasoning. Without such a reference, I suggest this section be deleted. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The advice of members of the London Beth Din in relation to the handling of sacred texts in SR is referenced on the Scriptural Reasoning Society website, and that reference could in fact be expanded to say precisely that they do not wish to imply a sanction for SR in the process. The halakhic material around Jewish study fo the New Testament, could also be added duly. Jonathan Sacks statements about face-to-face and side-by-side are widely discussed, and the idea that Wikipedia articles be limited by what the Google search engine can come up with is silly.  In relation to explicit reference to "Scriptural Reasoning" are you proposing that SR is a practice sui generis that is not a practice of reading Hebrew and Arabic sacred texts?scripturalreasoning 03:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that there is discussion of this point further down the page.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 15 

some Islamic religious authorities have expressed a concern that disparities in political power and control of a Scriptural Reasoning group between the Christian, Jewish and Muslim participants can adversely affect the sensitive process of shared interpretation of sacred texts.

There is no reference for the claim that religious authorities have expressed a concern. The London fatwa has instructions for how to do scriptural reasoning: it is matter-of-fact in tone, and this needs to be reflected in this article. I suggest deletion of this section. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not going to waste further time with this one or the next section because I am getting bored now and cross scripturalreasoning


 * The statement as it stands does rather suggest that there are disparities in political power and control. Despite what I have said above about the language of 'control' not being very indigenous to SR practice, all forms of SR that I have ever encountered agree that no one of our traditions has the upper hand.  The fatwa could perhaps be used as one reference to back up some of the claims discussed above that talk about the mutuality of SR practice: it is one more source that advocates such mutuality.  It should not be used, as here, to suggest that there are forms of SR that do not advocate such mutuality.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 16 

Some historical precursors to the modern practice of Scriptural Reasoning may be found in the Late Medieval period in parts of Western Europe, notably in Muslim Spain and in medieval France and Italy. Text-based discussion and debate between Christians, Jews and Muslims formed a substantial part of the genre of interfaith polemics in the Middle Ages which gave rise to sefer nizzahon Jewish apologetic discourse and Islamic radd literature around Christian interpretations of the Bible. The Sirah Rasul Allah, the Prophetic Biography by Ibn Hisham, records the meeting and Biblical-Qur'anic discussions of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christian Delegation of Najran, while the Andalusian jurist and theologian Ibn Hazm sets out in his treatise Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa' wa al-Nihal sharia regulations in relation to Muslim participation in dialogue, study and debate with Christians and Jews.

The historical claim is entirely unreferenced. The implied claim that there is a connection between these practices and scriptural reasoning are entirely unreferenced - it currently reads purely as an opinion. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We might at least want to qualify 'precursors', even if we do find references to all this. Do we mean that there was conscious emulation of these medieval practices on the part of SR founders, or that there is substantial such emulation amongst SR practitioners today?  Do we simply mean that people have spotted accidental resemblances?  How strong are those resemblances?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Section 17

This section moved to archive.

 18 

With the growth of Scriptural Reasoning in the United States and transatlantic collaboration, under the auspices of the Cambridge Inter-faith ProgrammeDavid Ford introduced SR to Great Britain, where there were already pre-existing and long established practices of Jewish-Christian-Muslim scripture study such as those developed by British and German scholars at the annual Jewish-Christian-Muslim Conference[10], the Al-Nisa Society, Leo Baeck College and the Centre for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations in Birmingham.

In the course of the development of Scriptural Reasoning in the UK, discussion and disagreement began to emerge among SR practitioners as to the direction and governance of SR.

There is one reference to the British and German scholars - so this could maybe stay (although it is of minimal significance on its own). No other references: I suggest deletion. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed - either it should go, or should be slightly expanded so that it says something substantive about the relationship of SR to those practices - if, for instance, we can establish that they influenced it in any direct way. But perhaps there could simply be, in the list of resources at the  end, some links to similar-but-unrelated interfaith practices?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 19 

Some of these discussions and criticisms centred on the question of accepting "asymmetries of hospitality",[11] namely conceding that particular practical circumstances that may lead to one faith tradition acting as host and exercising a leadership role in a multi-faith SR group.

There is a footnote, but it contains no reference. If the claim is unsubstantiated, it should be removed. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to tell from the phrase cited quite what was being envisaged - and, in particular, impossible to tell what relationship it might have had to questions of leadership, or anything about the permanence or rationale of the asymmetries mentioned. That makes it impossible to discuss properly, to confirm or qualify or rebut.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 20 

Some SR practitioners argued that this development did not correspond to their understanding of the academic literature of Scriptural Reasoning to date, which they understood consistently to uphold principles of strict parity between the participating communities - while other SR practitioners disagreed with this reading, and contested that Society for Scriptural Reasoning has tended to assume that parity between the religious traditions involved can be maintained in informal ways.

'some...argue' is a form classified as 'weasel words' in Wikipedia articles. Also no references. Suggest deletion. Thelongview (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was responsible for some (though not all) of this paragraph - but, on reflection, I agree that it's rather flimsy. I would go ahead and delete.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 21 

In addition, discussion revolved around the alleged "instrumentalising" in the UK of the practice of SR interfaith study of sacred texts in particular, and some kinds of interfaith activity in general, with concern expressed that Scriptural Reasoning in the UK risked being "commodified" in order to attract sponsorship from UK government and Home Office-financed agendas in relation to the Muslim community, and the alleged closeness of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and its partners to such state-sponsored activity[12]. Members of the original Society for Scriptural Reasoning have not accepted that such instrumentalising or commodification has taken place, and argue that the allegations of the critics are a misreading of their practice.

The claims 'discussion revolved', 'concern was expressed', are unreferenced. The implied claim that there are governmental agendas is unreferenced (this is hard to reference; it would be better to claim that 'X said there are governmental agendas' and reference that). The one reference would support a claim about Tony Blair; it does not support a claim about the University of Cambridge. It also does not name the partners. There is no reference substantiating the claim about the members of the original SSR, nor their not accepting or arguing anything. Suggest deletion Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree. This is at too many removes from SR itself.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 22 

While members of "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" in the UK continues to evolve in ways shaped in part by the continued involvement of the founding participants, and their friends from all three traditions who had been involved in SR since its earliest years, these discussions and controversies around inclusivity, parity, governance and issues of Islamic sharia and Jewish halakha in the study of sacred scriptures, gave birth to new Scriptural Reasoning "schools" as some SR practitioners, including those involved in the pre-existing forms of Jewish-Christian-Muslim text study at the JCM Conference, founded the "The Scriptural Reasoning Society" or "Oxford School" tradition of Scriptural Reasoning.

Entirely unreferenced. Suggest deletion Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 23 

The Scriptural Reasoning Society, a registered charity, was founded as a network of local Scriptural Reasoning groups formed by a collaboration of academic institutions and diverse places of worship. The Scriptural Reasoning Society places greater emphasis in its written "Community Ethic" on SR as an egalitarian practice, with parity between the participants, and the principle that the religious laws and teachings of the participating faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam alone are the sole sources of authority in Scriptural Reasoning. The Oxford School also emphasises the role of "Scripture, Tradition and Reason" as equally important determinants of the textual scholarship and religious life of faith communities -- hence "Scriptural-Traditional-Reasoning" which respects traditional methods of reading of Scripture by Jews, Muslims and others using oral tradition and classical commentaries.

The reference supports the claim that there is a Scriptural Reasoning Society, and that it has a Community Ethic with certain characteristics. However, 'greater emphasis' is a comparative statement, and it is not clear what the other comparator is; there is certainly no reference to another comparator, and no supporting evidence for the comparison. Suggest it be substituted with claims that are substantiated by the existing footnote. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 24 

There is now a Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (formerly the National Society for Scriptural Reasoning) based in the USA and a scriptural reasoning network of active local groups based in Great Britain which together continue to produce a shared web-based resource of Scriptural Reasoning texts formatted in both original language and translation. In the UK, there is a web-based contact site managed by the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme in communication with its partners in the US and UK, and also local groups of friends who simply informally meet to study sacred scriptures as independent groups.

Suggest developments and resources need different sections. Developments is a narrative thing, with claims. Resources is a list of stuff. Suggest reworking. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the inaccurate claim that the site scripturalreasoning.org is managed by the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme. I believe it is owned and managed independently. Thelongview (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't we need some exact chapter and verse reference to some paper in the JSR to confirm this latest edit...((shakes head and sighs))? Also, the original claim was not entirely inaccurate - the site scripturalreasoning.org was in fact managed by the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme for a time, and I understand the domain name scripturalreasoning.org is still in the name of the IT guy for the Cambridge Divinity Faculty - though I am informed its management has since been passed on to a third party. scripturalreasoning 00:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Section 25

This section moved to /Archive1.

 26 

An important future progression in the development of Scriptural Reasoning is the inclusion of other faith communities and the study of Vedic and other scriptures outside the Jewish-Christian-Muslim family, which is being pioneered by various independent groups.

No references - suggest deletion Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 Response to NPOV Dispute Raised by user Thelongview 

Some of this may be helpful, in ensuring we obtain better referencing over time. A lot of it however, is frankly rather silly.

What is signficant is that Thelongview is himself exercising personal selectivity in these deletion suggestions, and the effect would be to make the article for any reader rather valueless. The comments also display a clear political agenda in regard to these deletions requests.

Much of the earlier general description has been on this article for a long time, prepared by earlier editors and other authors, and mahigton has added some good descriptive material as well. I have less comment to make about them, but the general descriptions of Scriptural Reasoning I find to be broadly a rather good and a synopsis of various material in the literature. Maybe additional referencing for particular points may be added from the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning over time, but to a new visitor who wants to have a sense of what SR is about, I think it is helpful.

Because of the nature of the practice of SR, a lot of these things evolve in the course of the activity itself, and while I did not write much of the upper half material now proposed for deletion, I agree the content to be helpful for a new visitor. What is being proposed is level of referencing something that is NOT the case with other Wikipedia.

Many points may well benefit from additional referencing, but when we are all busy with our work, being expected to find in "a few days" an online reference for the precise original statement by the Chief Rabbi about a particular phrase which is in the public domain, copied from the Chief Rav and cited in government documents and national conferences of religious leaders such as the one recently published by the Home Office under the name of aFace to Face and Side by Side Framework for Inter-faith Dialogue and Social Action, and known to large numbers of educated people, is demanding something that is emphatically not the case with the great majority of Wikipedia articles.


 * '' Agree that the face-to-face/side-by-side distinction is very easy to find references for (& probably doesn't even need references); but less clear that it's directly relevant enough to SR to come into a Wikipedia article - other than perhaps as a footnote. If we went too far down this road, surely we'd have to reference everything any Jewish, Christian or Muslim leader, in any country in which SR is practised, had said about interfaith relations in general.
 * Laysha101 (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

'' Other written statements, such as David Ford's WRITTEN statement about "asymmetries of hospitality" which were made in publicly circulated correspondence by him among a large group of SR people would normally cited in academic papers as "private correspondence" or "unpublished correspondence". I am happy to add the date or time of any written or electronic correspondence that is publicly circulated, though this is again getting to a level that is emphatically not the case with the great majority of Wikipedia articles or indeed academic writing.

In regard to other matters such as the "existence" of the Scriptural Reasoning Society as a charity or a collaboration of various instititions, this is more a comment on the ignorance or inability of the critics to verify otherwise. There is no more evidence for the "existence" of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, than the Scriptural Reasoning Society in the UK. Nonsense. I am also citing again for enlightenment another of your deletion proposals and my comment:

''The founding participants of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" include David F. Ford, Daniel W. Hardy, and Peter Ochs. Its origins lie in a related practice, "Textual Reasoning" ("TR"), which described Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics. Peter Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning. When he and Daniel Hardy met as members of Princeton's Center of Theological Inquiry, and included David Ford in their study together, the idea for a mode of reasoning across traditions was developed. Peter Ochs was involved in an Islamic study group, through one of his doctoral students, Basit Koshul. Gradually, the practice of reasoning in the light of texts from the three Abrahamic traditions became established.''

''All claims here are entirely unreferenced. I suggest deletion of this section. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)''

''I did not write this section (I think one of you did!), and the comments are factually accurate. Deletion proposal as absurd as the one executed in regard to the Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group.scripturalreasoning''

There was a broad notion of trying to draft an article which was reasonably balanced and gave expression to arguments on both sides of the debate, even-handedly. What is being proposed is not the presentation of different points of view on either side of the argument - but rather what we have been used to in the past - politically-motivated censorship of the existence of any such debate (under the pretext here of "referencing"). That I am not going to tolerate, and is tiresomely likely to lead to an editing war again.

I hope we can disregard this "blip" and get back on track again, as I thought things were moving in a positive and common sense direction.

I have added other comments in the body of the statement by Thelongview. --scripturalreasoning 13:34, 03 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. The really laughable part of this whole thing is that if you look at some of the academic papers cited for the article, and indeed a lot of the review material published in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning and elsewhere, is that the referencing is rather sparse, and contain vast tracts of entirely unreferenced descriptions of Scriptural Reasoning events, history and practice.


 * User Thelongview has set up a process which is ridiculously over the top - and, yes, rather silly in places - but which, actually, might just work. I take it that his concern for referencing is not based on a (mis-)interpretation of normal Wikipedia standards, but is rather a response to the debates on this talk page: an attempt to make sure that the article gets cleaned of misrepresentations on both sides.  Because there is no agreement on what in the article ‘’is’’ a misrepresentation, he has marked everything that (as he sees it) has not been demonstrated to be a directly-supportable factual claim (whether it is controversial or uncontroversial, whether it favours the Oxford Group or SSR).  Let’s use that process, however over the top it may be, to hammer out what we do agree on and what still divides us, and to dig into the issues that do still divide us in order to separate the genuinely controversial issues from the misrepresentations. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was making the following point. It is not enough for there to be a claim and then a reference.  The reference must support the claim in the article, and not some other claim.  I am astonished that the claim 'there is disagreement' is supported by a reference to only one side of the supposed disagreement, for two reasons.  (1) the claim is vague: just how significant or widespread is this disagreement?  If the claim is that it is widespread, that needs a reference - not least because I believe the vast majority of scriptural reasoners would not recognise the validity of this claim; (2) there needs to be a reference that shows that the supposed 'other side' acknowledges there is disagreement, and has entered into it.  If the claim is 'I think there is a disagreement, but the other side refuses to acknowledge that it exists', that is a different matter entirely.  As to where the onus or burden of proof falls here, I suggest it's a matter of what the majority of people think is prima facie the more plausible claim, based on their experience of scriptural reasoning as a practice.  I was also making the point that it is not acceptable to have a fact plus an interpretation of the fact, with a reference that supports only the fact and not the interpretation.  For example, there is a London fatwa that anyone can read.  The link to that fatwa supports the claim, 'there is a fatwa and it says x'.  It does not support the claim 'some Islamic religious authorities have expressed a concern'.  There is no expression of concern in the fatwa; just some quite straightforward advice.  I'd like to see less opinion and more fact on this kind of thing. Thelongview (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group 

The establishment of a "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" of referential oversight comprising some SSR founder members, led to a debate over whether or not such structural developments in Scriptural Reasoning constituted a "Fourth Position" (i.e. structures beyond the positions of the three participating faith communities), with contested viewpoints expressed on both sides of the conversation, and practitioners in the original Society for Scriptural Reasoning have not accepted that their practice can aptly be described as a "Fourth Position".

There is no reference supporting the claim that there is a 'Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group'. Unless this claim can be substantiated, I suggest it is removed. Google returns only one site in response to a search for 'Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group', and that is the 'Oxford Ethic' self-description page which repeats, but does not substantiate, the claim that there is such a group. Thelongview (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. --mahigton (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * deleted. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: this deletion was immediately reversed by scripturalreasoning

In specific regard first of all to the reference over the "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group", the fact that Thelongview can't find a reference on "Google" doesn't mean it doesn't exist! This is extraordinarily absurd. The members of the Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group includes David Ford and Peter Ochs founder members of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, and why don't you go and ask them? The existence of this group was a catalyst for signficant events including the issuing of the Fatwa and referencing in the Oxford Ethic The deletion is clearly politically motivated, and frankly nonsense. --scripturalreasoning


 * Trying to find a polite way to say this: Is scripturalreasoning suggesting that the SR Reference Group is a secret society? I can't see any other way of interpreting his/her position. After all, as far as I know, there is no mention of it in the writings of Ford or Ochs on the subject of SR. This is odd, if it really forms an important part of how they think SR ought to work. Laysha101 (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" was proposed first in Spring 2007 in meetings and written correspondence, as a structure of "oversight" comprising Scriptural Reasoning "elders", in the first instance David Ford and Peter Ochs (I believe someone else too). There is written correspondence in discussion of this proposal, and one of the SR Reference Group members thereafter has stated its existence in person in more than one meeting with various people -- ie. there are witnesses, and it is extremely unlikely that any of the SR Reference Group's eponymous members would deny that it exists/existed, so go and ask them. At the time of the proposal, part of the context and rationale for the bringing into existence of such a body was the idea of a group of founders to exercise "gentle oversight" in the precise words of one of its members over SR, including in relation to a serious controversy going on at the time and since, regarding the appropriate handling of sacred texts (including Quranic Arabic texts) in the original languages on a website and matters of their desecration (I am not going to elaborate further than this as this is a very bitter issue). The idea that a multifaith group containing non-Muslims might begin to make judgements as to what is or what is not appropriate in regard to the treatment of Quranic and hadith texts was something that led to shall we say, some unhappiness. The Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning restated the traditional position in Islamic law in regard to reservation of all such authority to the Muslim community alone. What status such SR Reference Group has as of today, how far the project went, whether the group continues to exist or has petered out, I have no idea - given that the fatwa and the Oxford Ethic have expressed particular views in opposition to the notion of such a project. The entry in the Wikipedia article, simply records the facts that these events took place -- They did. There are witnesses. People met and talked. There was stuff written back and forth about it (in writing). And so the Wiki entry simply records that this issue arose, and it was a catalyst for significant disagreements which have generated significant documents since. I think it is overdue that there was an article in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning detailing these and other debates from **both** points of view, but somehow I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon. --scripturalreasoning 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I am not in a position to argue about who said what to whom when. This whole thing passed me by (which, since I've been actively involved in SR since well before 2007, itself says something about the scope & impact of any Reference Group "project"). But the article as it stands gives (IMHO) the impression that the reference group exists now, and it now appears that nobody's claiming that (your claim, if I read you right, is that an attempt was made to set it up & at least one person has in the past claimed to be part of it; you specifically deny up-to-date knowledge). From your account it also appears that the reference-group issue arose within a larger "serious controversy". In that case I suggest that the article should refer to the larger controversy that's ongoing, and not to the reference group that, as far as anyone knows, isn't. PS I am typing onehanded & it's hard for me to move text blocks - could someone please move this section of the discussion to a separate heading? thanks. Laysha101 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Thelongview (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that this contested claim still appears in the article, now in a footnote. Contested, unverifiable claims are no more acceptable in footnotes than in the main body of text.  I suggest it be deleted, but would welcome the views of other editors, please. Thelongview (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue Weight
I think the article is too biased toward UK issues. I am a practicing Muslim in the US who have participated in various SR events for the past six years and we do not have such issues here like the ones in the UK. It is not fair for the article to talk so much about intra-UK debates, they should be cut down substantially. Otherwise, it gives the wrong impression that the whole SR activity is divided along UK lines. There are many SR activities going on in different parts of the US and we have no such issues at all! Please keep local issues more local.Sakina08 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to echo a point made earlier by Laysha101. I suggest the following.  The first section (however structured) should *describe* Scriptural Reasoning, in a way that applies to any practice, in any place. Thelongview (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that Scriptural Reasoning is an expanding practice taking place in various parts of the world. There is no objection to adding additional material on events in the US and elsewhere to reflect this. However, the fact that some important debates have taken place must be recorded. The fact that they happen to have taken place in the UK is not merely a "local" issue as they raise questions and have generated material which are suggested to be applicable to SR practice anywhere in the world -- whether or not you agree with these suggestions -- hence the debate (eg. Islamic juridical documents discussing the conduct of SR, Rules of Scriptual Reasoning by Peter Ochs, Oxford Ethic by the SR Society, etc). The fact that there are guidelines for Scriptural Reasoning generated by folk in the US does not imply that these are merely "local" in impact either. This Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a Public Relations promo to promote Scriptural Reasoning, that we all love each other and the sun shines all day, and you really should come to our meetings. Like other Wiki articles, it is a dynamic and not always flattering description of particular facts or phenomena, with disagreements contained on both sides. Just take a look at other contentious religious articles in Wikipedia scripturalreasoning 13:06, 03 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I made some suggestions about this local/non-local discussion above - see the comment headed 'Another Round of Disagreement', at the end of the first long section of this talk page (the multiply-indented one, just before Thelongview's long deletion proposal selection).--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Sakina08 that this is a local issue. This is not because it's a significant issue for SR as a whole, but because I'm not convinced it is even a 'UK' issue (I'm in the UK).  If there are (were?) some intra-UK debates, how widespread are/were they?  It's hard to tell from the references (see above).  There are dozens of SR groups around the world.  If each group were to claim that their discussions were 'very important' or 'highly significant' this would become a bizarre article.  For the experiences of one group to merit discussion in an encyclopedia article, (a) it would have to be a tremendously important group and (b) others, not in that group, would have to acknowledge its importance too.  A group, and a fortiori one of its members, should not presume to determine its own significance.  If an editor contributing to this article was involved in a particular group, and wants its importance recognised, he/she might consider asking for someone independent to comment.  If something is important, there will surely be plenty of people to say so.  Thelongview (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion of adding referencing where such referencing is available is unobjectionable, and additions have been made by me, by mahigton and others, and clearly enrichen and add pointers to the article for further research. However, the circular suggestion that referencing via the SSR Fanzine The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning somehow constitutes unbiased academic referencing is rather silly. Unlike a properly peer-reviewed academic journal, do you really think articles on SR developments submitted to the JSR by the SRS Oxford School, or academic articles from its members (or in fact anyone who has fallen out of favour with the SSR "Elders") are ever going to get past the the Control of some of the SSR leading figures? If certain users are seriously suggesting this as neutral "academic referencing" then it warrants some unpacking. scripturalreasoning 23:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Request removal of personal comment about me in the final sentence above. (Please use placeholders, rather than simply delete text). Thelongview (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Phrase struck out as suggested --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars of the history of the Oxford school, so I do not dispute the validity of what is written in this article. However, the bulk of what is written here with regard to the historical justification for its existence seems to me to be irrelevant and uninteresting to SR as a practice for audiences outside the UK. I think its existence and emphasis on the "tradition" warrants mention, but certainly not with the detail provided. The maulana (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To echo some of the earlier comments, this article does seem far too skewed towards UK-based issues. To begin with, I question the relevance of including the opinions of the Chief Rabbi of England and the London Beth Din on the practice of SR. Although Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is a well respected man and highly regarded in Orthodox circles, his position on any matter is hardly authoritative for world-wide Jewry, and his statement would not affect the practice of more progressive Jews, even inside England, one way or another. If one wants to speak to traditional Jewish approaches to interfaith scripture study, one need look no further than the Talmud to find them. (See for example BT Sanhedrin 59a, Hagigah 13a, or Avodah Zara 26a).

Furthermore, I have been doing SR for several years now in Toronto, Canada, and the issues around governance and parity which led to the development of the Oxford school do not remotely reflect our experiences here. In fact, prior to reading this entry, I was not even aware of the existence of the Oxford school! The article prompted me to speak to some colleague here who are also veterans of the practice with connections to other SR groups in both the US and Britian, and they had not heard of it either. This seems to be a description of a small, UK-based, break-away group (how many members are there???) that has been given a disproportionate amount of airtime on a page which is purporting to describe a world-wide phenomenon. I agree with the comments above, that perhaps its existence is noteworthy and that the questions it raises about the nature of authority are worth some consideration, but perhaps a short sentence pertaining to "emerging approaches" in the Resources and New Developments in SR section and a link to the group's Community Ethic document would suffice.Lavdavka (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. A perusal of the article will demonstrate that the actual description of the "Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School)" occupies a single paragraph of a few lines at the bottom of the section which carries its name. The bulk of the material in the section under that heading which carries the title "Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School)" is an account not of the latter organisation, but rather directly an account of the circumstances and events in which the behaviour of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme which hosts the SR Theory Group and all the other Society for Scriptural Reasoning structures, with which you and your colleagues will be aware, is drawn out. This critique of how SR has gone disastrously wrong is important, because it relates to the behaviour of Scriptural Reasoning structures (in this case as it happens in the UK) vis a vis faith communities -- and must be a salutary tale for SR groups everywhere, for the future - and so that same mistakes are not repeated. If it is the case that SR in the United States and Canada and elsewhere has not been involved in money-grabbing, instrumentalising and commodification of the sacred practice of Jews, Christians and Muslims reading their sacred texts together, then wonderful that these behaviours have never been extant there. However, this Wikipedia article is not here to provide a marketing platform for how great SR is, but rather to represent things that have happened, even if they are politically embarassing to some of those who have very successfully suppressed and whitewashed out the story. scripturalreasoning 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Phrases such as 'SR has gone disastrously wrong'; 'must be a salutary tale'; 'so that the same mistakes are not repeated' are inappropriate in an encyclopedia article.  As it happens, I share the concern that SR should learn from mistakes; I'm just not sure that a blow-by-blow account belongs in this article.  Sounds more like investigative journalism (with lots of 'original research' - another Wikipedia no-no). I am not sure how relevant CIP is to an article on Scriptural Reasoning: most of the SR activity in the UK (even that loosely associated with the SSR) is independent of CIP.  I'd be happy to see all references to CIP disappear from this article, actually, not just the critical ones.  CIP plays a very minor role in scriptural reasoning, and scriptural reasoning plays a very minor role in CIP.  But others, internationally, would be able to comment on that more neutrally.  Incidentally, I personally had nothing to do with the events in London interpreted above, and do not know the details. Thelongview (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the section on the History and Origins of SR, the Oxford school is the most prominent item of discussion, occupying several paragraphs. If indeed this is a splinter group with a criticism particular to the UK (I had not heard of it prior to reading this SR page and the criticisms do not apply to the US, not to speak of other contexts), then I would recommend either shortening the entry to include only their addition of the commentary tradition to the practice of SR or perhaps mention this different approach in the New Developments section.  I think the discussion about what texts are brought to the table is an important one, but the political situation in the UK simply does not belong in a discussion about the practice of SR any more than the reaction to SR in South Africa, or America for that matter.  The justification for not including such political discussions is found in the post above - the detailed mention of the Oxford group in this article is clearly meant to be a salutary tale, which appears to me to be in direct conflict with an NPOV.  I strongly recommend shortening it significantly to include only the textual sources used in that approach, and perhaps moving it to New Developments. The maulana


 * I agree with The maulana above. I note that Mahigton has indeed made changes along these lines, but that they have been reverted - without comment - by user scripturalreasoning.  Given that there is some consensus emerging, it is against Wikipedia good practice for a single editor reverse changes in this way.  Unless there are reasonings offered, on this page, for the reverts, I propose to restore the text to the (in my view improved) version put up by Mahigton, which conforms to the views of The maulana and Lavdavka - and thus follows the consensus. Thelongview (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the 'Disagreements' section because it refers solely to a local issue in one country, and - within that - to one small group. The section is not factually false, but the material is (a) not verifiable and (b) not significant enough from an international perspective. This has been extensively discussed above, and there is consensus (with one dissenting voice) that the article should be shortened and reflect primarily the practice of scriptural reasoning as it happens all over the world. Thelongview (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the 'Contribution of Traditional Faith Authorities to SR' section because it relates solely to matters in the UK. There is consensus above (with one dissenting voice) that the article should primarily describe scriptural reasoning in its international forms. The material is not factually false, but it would belong (if at all) in a section relating to local developments. Thelongview (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material relating solely to the UK from the 'Origins' section, in line with discussions on this page. The material is not factually false, but seems irrelevant, given that it refers primarily to other practices that are not scriptural reasoning. Thelongview (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that user Thelongview went far enough in deleting UK-biased material.


 * Why, for instance, does the article still at present devote space to describing the movement of SR to Great Britain? The UK is only one of the countries in which SR is carried out.  Surely the article should either have a somewhat longer description listing the various countries to which SR has spread (including the UK, of course), or there should be some more generic statement about spread and diversification (perhaps with a footnote pointing to some examples).  I therefore propose that the whole paragraph about the UK be deleted - but perhaps that all contributing editors at some point soon do some more serious work on the 'Resources and New Developments' section, so that it starts to provide a better list of the variety of forms of SR around the world.  What do others think? --mahigton (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. See below Thelongview (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going ahead with the negative part of this. For the positive, see the section below on Resources and Developments. --mahigton (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight revisited
I have argued below, in the Questionable Sources section of our discussion, that in pure Verifiability terms, it would be possible for the article to include a claim of the form 'The trustees of Interfaith Alliance UK have expressed disagreements x, y, and z with SSR - disagreements which were instrumental in their establishment of SRS as an SR netowrk not affiliated to SSR.' (I'm not suggesting that as actual wording, of course.)

I'm pretty sure - see my more detailed argument below in the Questionable Sources section - that we can't have a description of these accusations that takes the form of a narrative of how they came about - a description of events, contents of letters, and so on. We don't have what Wikipedia will allow us to regard as reliable sources for such description. (We can, I argued, use the SSR website as a source for describing what the group directly responsible for that website say, not as a source for backing up claims - even if true claims - about what other people have said, or about events that have happened.) So I think we are simply talking about a description of the fact that an identifiable group verifiably holds a particular set of opinions.

Now, given that


 * 1) on the one hand the substance of these accusations has not so far been a matter of discussion in published literature about SR, nor have they been aired and discussed in many contexts in which SR is done in the UK, nor (as far as I am aware) in any contexts outside the UK, nor is it clear how many even in the wider membership of SRS are directly aware of the accusations, but that


 * 1) on the other it does now seem to be clear that there is an identifiable group who hold these opinions, and that the fact that they do so played a role in the evolution of SR in the UK

I can see a case for including a sentence in the 'Developments' section, when SRS is introduced, saying something of the kind I have suggested - though I can't really see a case for much more than a sentence.

However, I'm not sure how sustainable even this case is. And that's because (1) I can't see any way that the article, if it did include a statement of the accusations, could include any discussion of them, or any response from SSR: I am not aware of any published sources in which there is such a response, and we can't compose it for the article on Original Research grounds. We would simply get the bare statement of accusations. (2) And yet it seems clear that - even if I now accept that the accusatory opinions are held by a significant minority, that minority is still clearly a minority. So I personally would want the minority nature of the opinion to be clearly stated: I'd want any statement of the fact that this group makes these accusations to be accompanied by something like the point I make above - a statement that the substance of these accusations has not so far been a matter of discussion in published literature about SR, nor have the accusations been aired and discussed in many contexts in which SR is done in the UK, nor (as far as I am aware) in any contexts outside the UK, nor is it clear how many even in the wider membership of SRS are directly aware of the accusations.

And once we've started doing that, it seems to me that the issue starts to occupy a disproportionate and unjustifiable quantity of space in the article.

My own position therefore remains at present that I can't see a way in which to represent this debate appropriately and in a balanced, NPOV way in the article without giving it disproportionate attention. I'd far rather see a phrase added to the mention of SRS in the 'developments' section, which did a little more to highlight the non-affiliation of SRS to SSR, and then provided a note pointing people to the SRS website if they want to find out more.

Of course, that would only be an appropriate NPOV solution if we were all happy that the article as it stands at the moment describes SR in a way that (in what it includes) is applicable to all SR - including SRS, even if it does not include substantial description of the specific differentiating features of SRS or of any of the other forms and variants of SR that are mentioned. I think that's already true, though, isn't it?

--mahigton (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting one. I'm not sure I share all Mahigton's worries. I am inclined to think that we can have the one-sentence description suggested without violating Wikipedia rules. I'd argue that it should refer to (the fact of, not the details of) specific historical incidents that prompted the disagreements & the establishment of SRS, because that would make it clear that the claims about what SSR policy in general is (ie the claims that Ford's letters should be interpreted as evidence of certain general characteristics of SSR) have not been verifiably accepted by SSR. Obviously because of No Original Research we can't refer to the "primary sources" (Ford's letters) as evidence, so the reference would have to be to the interpretation given to those letters on the Scriptural Reasoning Society front page. I think the identifiable group making the claims is "Interfaith Alliance UK" not "the trustees of IAU"; for purposes like these, the trustees are the charity. A footnote should certainly say that there's been no public response to or discussion of the SRS claims. Laysha101 (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
User scripturalreasoning has persistently claimed that several of those who have disagreed with him or her on this talk page are engaged in politically-motivated censorship. (See earlier discussions on this talk page for numerous examples.) He or she has attempted to justify those claims by drawing attention to a particular disagreement in which he or she was involved. It seems that some longstanding practitioners of Scriptural Reasoning, including members from what appears to be the user’s own religious tradition, disagreed with user scripturalreasoning about the conditions under which Scriptural Reasoning should be undertaken by members of that religious tradition.

That this disagreement took place has not, I believe, been denied by anyone. However, user scripturalreasoning has used this talk page, and the article itself, to advance a particular interpretation of that disagreement. He or she has interpreted this disagreement to mean that the prominent members in question, founder practitioners of Scriptural Reasoning, have set themselves up as an authority over against the authority of user scripturalreasoning's religious tradition, and that the network of which they are members has implicitly or explicitly accepted such a downgrading of the authority of religious tradition.

Whatever the facts of the original disagreement, this interpretation of it's implications is clearly a matter of opinion. And it is a contentious opinion. I, for instance, do not find user scripturalreasoning's interpretation of the disagreement in which he or she was involved plausible. To state my own opinion (acknowledging, of course, that it is simply an opinion), I see the original disagreement much more simply as one in which certain longstanding practitioners of Scriptural Reasoning, including members from what appears to be user scripturalreasoning's own religious tradition, taking advice from other members of that same tradition, disagreed with a specific proposal from user scripturalreasoning - nothing more.

The editorial conflict that faces us on this talk page therefore involves two sides. On one side, we have several editors who regard as unacceptable the attempt by an individual editor to use this article and talk page to promote a particular opinion – a particular interpretation of the nature of the practice and principles of the original Scriptural Reasoning network – particularly as they believe this opinion to be no more than the personal opinion of that one editor.

If these editors are right, then the Neutral point of view policy, in the section on Undue Weight,  states the appropriate outcome: 'Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.'

Of course, if it should instead turn out that the opinions expressed by user scripturalreasoning are verifiably held by a significant minority (rather than a single individual), then the same policy points the way forward: (1) any statement of that minority opinion in the article would needs to be explicitly (and verifiably) presented as the report of an opinion of an identifiable group, and (2) such reports would need to be given a weight appropriate to the prominence of that minority. (The policy states, after all, that '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.' Elsewhere the same policy states that 'In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity.')

On the other side of this editorial conflict, of course, we have the individual editor, user scripturalreasoning, who regards as unacceptable censorship any attempt by other editors to move in the direction described. To demonstrate that the editorial policy described in the previous paragraph counts as unacceptable censorship, all that user scripturalreasoning needs to do is present evidence to show that his or her opinions about the practice and principles of the original network of Scriptural Reasoning are verifiably the opinions of more than one person, or more than the opinions of a 'tiny minority'. (And standard Wikipedia practice suggests that where contentious claims are involved, verifiability by 'reliable sources' is indeed central – and that, I take it, is the point of the call for a higher level of referencing than is normal for uncontentious Wikipedia content, a call which user scripturalreasoning has repeatedly called hypocritical on this talk page.)

Of course, even if it should turn out that user scripturalreasoning's views are verifiably representative of more than a tiny minority of those who comment on Scriptural Reasoning, they will still need to be presented clearly and verifiably in the article as the opinions of identifiable persons or an idenitifiable group.

It is worth noting that no evidence presented so far suggests that the opinions expressed by user scripturalreasoning (and I mean, of course, his or her opinions specifically about the existing practice and principles of Scriptural Reasoning as conducted by its founders and the network associated with them) are shared by anyone else. Indeed, quite the opposite seems to be the case: we have heard from some Scriptural Reasoning practitioners who find his or her descriptions of it to be unrecognisable as portrayals of the practice in which they are and have been involved. We have also seen references that suggest that the members of that network remain publicly committed to the principles that user scripturalreasoning claims they have abandoned.

It seems clear, therefore, that the burden of proof now rests firmly with user scripturalreasoning.

--mahigton (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's helpful to have a clear statement about Wikipedia guidelines and the need to follow them. This usefully makes a distinction between the level of support needed for uncontested claims, and the level of support required for contested claims.  If mahigton is saying "contested claims need to be verifiable, or they should not appear in the article", I agree.  This is an appeal to standard Wikipedia good practice and should be acceptable to all editors, whatever their views.  The first sentence in Verifiability is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".  It's important this discussion is kept civil, so - lest this seem a battle of wills between scripturalreasoning and mahigton - it would be good if other editors might comment on whether mahigton has correctly interpreted Wikipedia guidelines, and whether he/she has fairly represented the material on this talk page. Thelongview (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the above. And without extending this discussion into a subjective meander about what does or does not constitute a "minority view", the views expressed and referenced in relation to the Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School) and its approach to SR are enshrined officially in its founding documents as a Registered Charity, the Oxford Ethic and also in juridical documents such as the Fatwa issued by other authorities -- and arose historically as a critique of certain events in which were involved practitioners of the SSR.  The Scriptural Reasoning Society is the largest network of Scriptural Reasoning groups in the United Kingdom with a membership substantially in excess of the SR Theory Group at Cambridge - to which latter, I suspect some other users on this page have direct or collegial connection.  By virtue of their membership of the Scriptural Reasoning Society and signing up to the Oxford Ethic, which they must, our member SR groups explicitly hold the views referenced in the latter document.  What is so absurd about the idea of summoning the Neutral point of view undue-weight-to-tiny-minority (the example given was the question of the billions who believe in the spheroid earth versus the handful who still hold a flat earth belief -- say 0.001% of the population), is the pretence being tendered here that Scriptural Reasoning is an activity in which thousands upon thousands of people participate.  It is not, and I have good reason to believe that more than one of the protagonist users on this page are actually members of one small clique (the JSR lists for example the membership of the SR Theory Group at an approximate number at around 35  -- really rather less than the Scriptural Reasoning Society membership) which is now proceeding to set itself up as a "vast majority" over a proportionately "miniscule minority" percentage-wise - viz. spheroid vs flat earth proponents.  So I'm not going to waste time arguing this silly position.


 * On the matter of verifiability, I do have some sympathy. And where there are viewpoints that are expressed they have been referenced wherever possible, but even the protagonist users themselves have accepted that this is not possible in every case.  In some instances, where very significant events have taken place, but have not been published, there are nonetheless written records of what has gone on.  I am in the process of considering whether to publish these, but have said repeatedly that I have exercised a certain restraint in doing so in order to avoid personalising these matters too greatly -- as they could be potentially embarassing for some leading figures in the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and elsewhere.  Therefore, I have already dropped a line in the discussion note above, to ask any other person to clarify if the CIP have no objection to these materials being posted publicly on the internet -- from where they can be directly referenced in the Wiki article.  Once I hear back a no objection note from any of you who have a line of communication via the CIP, then the points which have been given as "unpublished correspondence" will in due course be visible online for all to see and consider "verifiable".  I also repeat that the SSR editorial control of the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning means that it is not an exhaustive resource of everything that has happened or is "significant" in Scriptural Reasoning, and the absence of a reference in this publication does not mean that something didn't happen or isn't significant.  I don't intend to get into more meandering debates than this. scripturalreasoning 17:04, 19 December 2008


 * Thank you for restating your case - but I think you have misunderstood what I was asking for. Reference to the Oxford Ethic or to the Fatwa does nothing to provide the demonstration for which I have asked you, and which I believe the Wikipedia policies demand.  I am asking you for some verifiable demonstration that people other than you hold that the descriptions you have propagated of the principles and practice of the founders of SR and the networks associated with them are fair and accurate descriptions.  Neither the Oxford Ethic not the Fatwa contain such descriptions.  They contain directives for how SR should be done, and indications of pitfalls to avoid - not accusations about any specific persons or groups whose practice or principles are supposedly different.  The fact of someone signing up to them therefore cannot be taken to imply that person's acceptance of the burden of those accusations.  Yet it is those descriptions that are at issue - and I do not think it absurd to hold that an encyclopedia article on a worldwide practice - in which, you are right, many, many people are involved - should give any place to those descriptions if they are indeed the opinion of only one person.  If you are able to demonstrate, in some verifiable way, that those descriptions are held to be accurate by a significant minority, then I will of course support the inclusion in the article of a section which describes those views, alongside responses by those who think that those descriptions are a thoroughgoing misrepresentation - to the extent, of course, that such a debate can be represented neutrally, verifiably, and not given undue weight.


 * As user Thelongview suggested, it would be good to hear from other editors about whether they think that what I am asking for is reasonable in Wikipedia terms, and whether I am fairly representing the nature of the disagreement. --mahigton (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We may be going round in circles here, and it is Friday night. I refer you to what has been written above 1) if what is sought is a verifiable reference that a founding Elder of the SSR did indeed make statements about "asymmetric" hospitality, as referred to in the Wiki article - there is written correspondence (with a named person, a date and a time), which can be published once I receive the go-ahead from one of you in a note on this message board that the Cambridge Interfaith Programme has no objection to such private correspondence being published (it has to be one of you users since I do not have a personal line of communication to their door, whereas I have good reason to believe that at least one of you does).  2) If what is sought is a verifiable reference to the point about a founding Elder of SSR discouraging the seeking of traditional juridical rulings in relation to Scriptural Reasoning, a reference can likewise be published about the SSR Elder's statement to that effect, again subject to one of you posting on this board a note saying that the CIP have no objection to such material being posted up online. 3) If what is sought is a verifiable note in reference to the point made about the proposed Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group, then there is are written records and correspondence of this proposal and meetings which were had and conversations were had on particular dates, and these can be published, subject again to one of you being in touch with the CIP and stating that there is no objection from them to such private correspondence being published online...you get the idea...  The Oxford Ethic and Fatwa were as a matter of historical fact written in the direct context of these disagreements, and in many respects as a direct response to them, and there is reference to the existence of this debate in those documents -- eg. reference to the SR Reference Group proposal.  If though what is being demanded by you now is for the whole gruesome blow-by-blow account, then what will be needed is to go public on certain matters which I have already said that for reasons of tact, and to avoid further unhappiness in this bitter dispute, I have tried to handle sensitively.  That is why I will only put all this stuff up online after I am notified on this message board of the consent of the other party -- hence one of you needs to pick up the phone to the CIP, and then post a "nihil obstat" to such private correspondence being published.


 * As to the extent and majority-minority issues -- I think enough has been said as to whether SR is some worldwide phenomenon of thousands (which of course, it is not), or whether a significant proportion of the users who have posted here actually come from the same tiny little SR Theory Group of a couple of dozen people. Furthermore, turning round your argument of onus of proof to you, my having one or two personal friends who are actually members of the SR Theory Group and who have in private expressed sympathy with the critique about the direction and management of SR, such as has more publicly been championed through the SR Society/Oxford School, I think the onus would perhaps lie on you, mahigton to demonstrate that there is such a solid consensus on the other side, as you seem to claim.


 * I repeat that unlike other users on this page who have removed material I have written up which might be politically embarassing to say the SSR, I have not deleted critiques written up in the article by other users against the position of the SR Society/Oxford School, but have rather faithfully maintained these critical comments -- and so the article does in fact state that some of the SR Society's representations/Ethic, etc are disagreed with by others and rejected by others.


 * On your final paragraph, I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether a straw poll of folk like me or you who have nothing better to do on a Friday night than log into Wikipedia is somehow a representative democratic vote -- especially when it is rather obvious that after a very long period of quiescence and inactivity on this Wiki article for months, all of a sudden the word seems to have been put around the SSR network in a matter of days -- and so marshalled troops rallied to a cause are hardly a representative democracy for the entirety of SR. Have a good weekend. scripturalreasoning 23:58, 19 December 2008


 * I hope we won't use the Wikipedia talk page to discuss, anonymously, the possible publication of material other than on Wikipedia. I very much hope Scripturalreasoning wouldn't treat an anonymous Wikipedia user's comment as an official statement from CIP - even if any other user were prepared to make such a statement in this context, which I doubt. And I hope that if s/he wants to get in touch with CIP, or with any individual associated with CIP, s/he will use the publicly available contact details for the project or the individuals concerned. I am in no position to have a view either way on the publication of any of the material discussed (this whole thing passed me by while I was busy - er - doing Scriptural Reasoning), but I'm pretty sure we can't and shouldn't sort it out here.Laysha101 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to user Mahigton's request on 19 December. I would concur that your request is appropriate. User Scripturalreasoning appears not to cite sources for the sake of advancing scholarship on this topic in Wikipedia and appears not to have substantiated broad claims about various principles associated with SR. There is no evidence so far that this user's claims of that kind are corroborated by anyone else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaisr (talk • contribs) 05:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Back after a break. To user scripturalreasoning's point (1) above: I'm not aware that anyone here has denied that some SR practitioners allow that there can sometimes be temporary 'asymmetries'.  We just had a long debate, for instance, about the location of SR groups which was precisely about whether all SR insisted on strict parity of physical/geographical hosting between the traditions, or whether groups that for pragmatic reasons allowed temporary asymmetries could also count as SR.


 * On points (2) and (3), what is disputed is user scripturalreasoning's individual interpretation of a specific argument in which he or she became involved. I have not disputed that the argument took place - nor, I believe, has anyone else - but I have disputed the interpretation and significance accorded to it.  To state my own opinion one last time: If one, fairly new Muslim friend came to me and suggested something about the conditions upon which SR could be done by Muslims in general, I would of course talk to other trusted Muslim SR friends about it, and follow their advice.  So if the new Muslim friend had come to me with a suggestion about how SR could be properly authorised for Muslims, and my other trusted Muslim SR friends disagreed with that suggestion, I would of course take their advice.  As a non-Muslim, who cannot claim any authority to decide these Muslim issues for myself, I would not properly be able to do anything else.  And it would make no difference what phrase I used to describe my consultation of my trusted Muslim friends - whether I called it a 'Reference Group' or anything else.


 * Now, I don't imagine I will convince user scripturalreasoning of my interpretation of this dispute; user scripturalreasoning has certainly not convinced me of his/her interpretation. And, clearly, further reference to the existence of the original dispute between user scripturalreasoning and certain longstanding SR practitioners does not get us any further forward.  My original proposal still stands, therefore (and I was not asking for any kind of democratic vote on whether my interpretation or user scripturalreasoning's of the matters of substance was the correct one, but for some advice from other editors on whether I have accurately identified the nature of the editorial debate, and the options available to us).


 * Let me restate:


 * (1) If the descriptions of the principles and practice of the founders of SR and of the SR networks associated with them that user scripturalreasoning has used the article to propagate are simply his or her own individual interpretation, then according to the Neutral point of view policy, in the section on Undue Weight, they do not belong on this page.  That's not a matter of censorship of something 'embarrassing', but of not allowing an encyclopedia article to be used to push one person's individual agenda.  That should be equally true of any editor, of course: none of us should be allowed to use the article to push purely individual agendas.
 * (2) If it should instead turn out that the opinions expressed by user scripturalreasoning are verifiably held by a significant minority, then (1) any statement of that minority opinion in the article would needs to be explicitly (and verifiably) presented as the report of an opinion of an identifiable group, and (2) such reports would need to be given a weight appropriate to the prominence of that minority. Again, this goes for any minority opinion, from any group.
 * (3) Of course, there is also a third option, which I didn't identify above. If it turns out to be possible to identify verifiable statements by the founders of SR, or other verifiable statements that are clearly taken seriously by members of the SR groups associated with them, that we can agree support the descriptions of SSR practice offered by user scripturalreasoning, then those descriptions could now be offered as a verifiable account of SSR, perhaps in a section of the article devoted to varieties of SR, and perhaps in contrast to 'Oxford' SR.  (I didn't mention option (3) above because I am confident that there are no such statements - indeed, that with the debatable exception of the particular argument on whose significance we do not agree, and which is not presently in the public domain, every publicly available description of SR from its founders and from the groups associated with them stands against user scripturalreasoning's opinion.  For the sake of completeness and fairness, however, I mention it here.)


 * I'm not suggesting that we try to resolve all this right here. Rather, in the various numbered sections above (and any other specific disputes that come up), I propose the following:
 * (A) That where the description in question is uncontroversial, we only ask for a fairly low level of referencing, and allow the material to stand.
 * (B) That where the description includes material that one or other of us regards as a matter of disputable opinion, we try to identify which of the three options above we need to follow: Option (3), allowing the description to stand as a now-verifiable description, not as a matter of opinion; option (2), allowing the description to stand as the verifiable report of a disputed opinion of an identifiable minority; or option (1), removing the description altogether.


 * Finally, I would like to combine this with a restatement of an earlier proposal about the structure of the article. I think it should probably go:
 * (i) Description of SR that is meant to do justice to all known varieties without prejudice.
 * (ii) Descriptions of significant varieties of SR practice. If, for instance, there should turn out, under option (B)(3) as just described, that there were significant differences between SSR and Oxford SR, they would go here.
 * (iii) Reports of disputed opinions - i.e., material identified under (B)(2).


 * The question here is not whether my opinion about the nature of SSR is right. It is whether I have identified an appropriate set of ground rules - 1 to 3, A and B, (i) to (iii).


 * --mahigton (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest in Removal of Critique Material from Wikipedia Article - scripturalreasoning, mahigton, Thelongview, Laysha101 (and others)

The Wikipedia article on Scriptural Reasoning contains material which reflects disagreements which have taken place in SR - in particular criticisms/critiques which have been made:


 * Of leading members associated with the Society for Scriptural Reasoning in the UK / the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme / the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group which has met under the auspices of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme - in relation to their conduct and directions which they or their organisations have taken with Scriptural Reasoning practice - these being part of the event history of SR


 * Counter-critiques which are made by persons associated with or collegially connected to these latter structures and personalities, against their critics from the Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School)

It is contrary to Wikipedia policy to "out" by name and identifiably, an editor or contributor to Wikipedia. However, without personalising it is entirely relevant and wholly material to the editing of this Wikipedia article to point out conflicts of interest where particular editors have removed material from the Wikipedia article, where such material raises criticisms of organisations, personalities or institutions with which those editors are connected - as being a relevant conflict of interest.

Therefore, user scripturalreasoning wishes to declare their association with the Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School) and that they have therefore avoided editorial removal/down-editing of material which is critical of this latter organisation and its positions, with which the user is connected. On the contrary, the editing history will show that I have actually of my own initiative added counter-critique of the Scriptural Reasoning Society.

I further have strong reason to believe that user mahigton, user Thelongview, and user Laysha101 have a relevant editorial conflict of interest in relation to any (past or future) editorial removal/down-editing by them of material from the Wikipedia article which raises criticism of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning / the Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group at Cambridge, or one or more lead persons of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme, some of whose statements or directions in SR have been critiqued in the article.

I have strong reason to believe that all three users may be, or have in the past been, connected to the same Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group which has met under the auspices of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme, OR have, or have in the past had, collegial connections to, OR have, or have in the past had personal academic connections to, one or more lead persons of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme.

For the record, it is therefore material to the editing of this Wikipedia article to record that any past or future editorial removal/down-editing by any of the users scripturalreasoning, mahigton, Thelongview, Laysha101 (and others) of material in the Wikipedia article, which contains critiques of institutions or personalities with which they are connected or have been collegially associated - as being a relevant editorial conflict of interest.

It may also be editorially relevant to the Wikipedia article where a user belonging to one faith tradition (from among Christianity, Islam or Judaism for example) removes material relating to the contribution by another faith tradition to Scriptural Reasoning or its governance --- for example, if say a Christian theologian Wiki editor were to remove/down-edit material relating to an Islamic juridical fatwa on Muslim participation in Scriptural Reasoning.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to acknowledge that I have been involved in the Scriptural Reasoning Theory group and its successor the Scriptural Reasoning in the University group. I am happy to acknowledge that I therefore know many of the people involved in the foundation and propagation of Scriptural Reasoning.  I am happy to acknowledge that I draw on first-hand knowledge when I edit these pages - whilst trying to back up what I say from publicly available sources.


 * I have also explained above, as clearly as I can, my motivations in pursuing the editorial line I have taken: I believe that the article as it stands gives undue weight to one individual's misinterpretation of the principles and practice of SR groups that I know well, based on that individual's personal misinterpretation of a debate in which he or she was involved. Where the article at present says, several times, 'There are debates ...', I think the truth is that it should say 'One person thinks ...'.


 * Now, of course, this opinion of mine is just that - my opinion - and therefore it might of course be biased, mistaken, dishonest or hypocritical (though of course I don't believe that it is any of those things). I have acknowledged that repeatedly.  So, as I have said repeatedly, we have a difference of opinion between editors here on this talk page, and that is why I have made proposals about how we can resolve that dispute, whether for or against me.


 * User scripturalreasoning has not, so far, engaged seriously with those proposals, whether to argue against them and suggest alternatives, to qualify them, to accept them - or to explain how, in any way, those proposals show evidence of a conflict of interests.


 * Nor has user scripturalreasoning explained why he or she thinks that the edits I made a few days ago, which he or she reverted, constituted a problem. As I explained above, I do not see how putting the matters on which we disagree into a section clearly headed 'Disagreements' - making the fact of disagreement more visible than before - can possible be construed as 'editorial removal/down-editing' - and therefore fail to see the relevance of the whole statement posted above by user scripturalreasoning.


 * --mahigton (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I realise I do owe an apology. In the edit I did over the weekend, I did not work through the disagreements section - simply gathered together the controversial material, gave it a section of its own, and noted that it was under discussion.  I had mis-remembered, though: I assumed that the disagreements material included reference to the fatwa.  Hence I did not realise that my move of the later section on traditional authorities had resulted in moving the first mention of the fatwa to the bottom of the article.  That move obviously can be interpreted as 'down-editing' the fatwa, and can rightly be criticised.  It was, however, a mistake, and I apologise for it.--mahigton (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I said above that I was disinclined to engage in further time-consuming debates on this page, whether with user mahigton or accomplices, as I don't think it gets us very far and just creates frustration (eg. he states he "fail[s] to see the relevance of the whole statement posted above by user scripturalreasoning"), I really should stick to that commitment and not engage further on this talk page where discussion is circular, no matter how many extra references you add, or factual history you try to explain.


 * However, it is important to put on the record that statements by him or others such as "Where the article at present says, several times, "There are debates ...', I think the truth is that it should say 'One person thinks ..." is as convenient a lie and absurd a lie as "the Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group never existed and is a fiction". This latter lie relating to the SR Reference Group was of course refuted by my reluctantly publishing in the main article some sensitive correspondence material under some pressure on this talk page.


 * I don't intend to feel so pressured to do so again in relation to publishing the Scriptural Reasoning Society's internal minutes of group discussions of the SR Society membership in session where the community critiqued the behaviour of some leading SR practitioners in relation to us and to SR practice generally, or group resolutions passed and records of other group discussions which gave rise to drafting of the Community Ethic and our formal adoption of this as an SR community - in an explicit group critique of some of the history of events.


 * On the contary, as previously stated somewhere in the mess of posts on this page, since I have personal friends who are part of the SR Theory Group/University Group, who have privately expressed support for the critiques publicly championed by the SR Society, the onus continues to lie upon user mahigton to demonstrate that his positions are in fact unanimously the views of all his peers.


 * In regards to recent editorial changes and reverts, there are any number of ways to skin a cat, and the article can be written in an endless permutation of headings, rearranged text blocks, and ongoing fiddling until Judgement Day. However, given the controversy this is unhelpful, and it is important that there is no "quarantined-off" Disagreements section but rather that the article reflects the fact of disagreement being a fundamental characteristic of Scriptural Reasoning theory and practice, and which permeates Scriptural Reasoning history.


 * I have restored the original structure being the structure to my mind with is "least unsatisfactory", and restored the edit back to the last edit by user Laysha101 on 12 January 2008     --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well - calling a statement that begins "I think..." a lie (as above, w.r.t. "I think [the article] should say...") is a big claim (do you have privy access to the thoughts of an anonymous Wikipedia editor)? That's why Wikipedia has the "assume good faith" rule. I think (and that's no lie, though of course I might be mistaken) that an apology would be in order.Laysha101 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As you state, we are anonymous editors and no comment is made here in relation to any individual's personal character -- so none intended. The word "lie" is set in apposition to the cited statement "truth" as in "There are debates ...', I think the truth is that it should say 'One person thinks ..."  This issue has been tiresomely rehearsed on this talk page over and over.  It is false and untrue and a falsehood that the critique against the actions of certain lead SR "elders" and organisations in relation to their monarchical style of managing SR, their subordinating parity between faiths to the "temporary asymmetrical" control of one or two particular SR groups over a period now of some years by a single denomination, their importation into the sensitive practice of Muslims reading their sacred texts with Christians and Jews of money from the UK Prime Minister's Strategy Unit/Home Office/DCLG and all the political agendas accompanying it -- that all this is merely the critique of a single individual, or a couple of individuals.  Any who have said so from the SSR/CIP camp (whoever they may be) are merely pretending a political ruse to detract from having to account for the facts of why such "asymmetries" and why the "king's shilling" have been introduced into the sacred practice of Scriptural Reasoning in the first place. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be mistaken - but I am not lying (and don't try to wriggle out of the fact that you have accused me and, by implication, others, of lying), nor am I engaging in political ruses. I simply do not believe - and none of the evidence you have presented has convinced me otherwise - that the SR founder members have exercise a monarchical style of managing, that the acceptance of the particular 'asymmetries' you're referring to represents an abandonment of the principle of parity, that the involvement of CiP in a government-sponsored conference means that the 'King's Shilling' has been accepted in a way that distorts the practice of SR in any way - and so on.  You may be incredulous about this, but it is simply that case that I believe each of those to be a misinterpretation; in fact, I believe that they are quite serious misinterpretations.  And I simply do not find any of the evidence presented here or in the article itself remotely 'politically embarrassing': none of the stuff about 'asymmetries', none of the stuff about 'elders', none of the stuff about the briefly-proposed existence of a 'Reference Group' (a proposal I admit I had not heard of - just as Laysha101 clearly hadn't heard about it - until you raised it, and which, given that I have been involved in SRT/SRU pretty consistently, I can only assume has only had brief notional existence and did not - or has not yet - come to real practical fruition; we may have been mistaken in believing it had no existence, but we were not lying).  And I'm afraid it is, again, simply the case that I have, so far, only ever come across one person who holds those opinions - although I have repeatedly said that I'm willing to change my mind on that if it should turn out to be the case that there's a more substantial group who have accepted these opinions.  This disagreement between us, however, would be a lot less painful if you refrained from making insulting accusations.--mahigton (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of perhaps 140 scholars associated with various projects in scriptural reasoning and none of them subscribes to what one editor calls the "Oxford" school. The Wikipedia entry on Scriptural Reasoning is inaccurately reflective of the kinds of work carried on under the name "scriptural reasoning," because the entry gives disproportionate attention to an approach ("Oxford") that may has at most a very few adherents. It is of course not inappropriate to mention this approach, if even one person pursues it, but it is inaccurate to give it the relative attention it gets in this entry and also in this editorial discussion. It therefore seems inappropriate, as well, to allow this entry to be deflected into so many issues of interest to this one approach ("Oxford"),rather than moving on now to attend to work currently being carried on by identifiable people at 15 different centers internationally and with dozens of essays written out of these. When will this entry in Wikipedia turn to the latter, primary work? Chaisr (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)   chaisr 15:48 19 January 2009


 * I share Chaisr's assessment immediately above. The material relating to the 'Oxford School' - which is nowhere referenced in any publication or website other than those produced or maintained by user scripturalreasoning (by his own admission) - is grossly inflated in relation to Scriptural Reasoning's international activities.  Edits which proceed along the lines suggested have been reverted without comment by user scripturalreasoning.  I note, in addition, that that on the talk page for user scripturalreasoning a previous attempt to mount an independent article called 'The Scriptural Reasoning Society' was removed, at the request of Wikipedia staff, because it was uninformative and self-promoting (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scripturalreasoning&oldid=211251485).  I think that the current Scriptural Reasoning article is being used as another attempt at such self-promotion, and that it should be resisted in the same way as the first attempt.  There are not 'different schools' of Scriptural Reasoning.  There is simply Scriptural Reasoning which takes many forms.  I strongly suggest that this article should reflect this fact.  Currently it is being badly distorted by one editor, who is using the article for self-promotion and who is reverting others' edits without comment.  This activity is currently frustrating the efforts of several editors, from various different countries, to shape an excellent encyclopedia article with verifiable content.  This is most disappointing. Thelongview (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section on the 'Oxford School' because (a) it reflects a local issue whose details are not verifiable and (b) seems to violate Wikipedia guidelines by using an encyclopedia article to promote the interests of a single person. The material is not factually false, but has received extensive criticism on this discussion page. (see immediately above, and 'UK Bias' section on this page). Thelongview (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User scripturalreasoning: please explain yourself
Can you tell me what you objected to about my most recent series of edits? I don't think I deleted any material that has been found controversial on this talk page. There were various elements to that reorganisation.

(1) I simplified the introduction. That was a fairly recent proposal, but you didn't object (and I did check before I carried out the proposal that you had done work on the page since my posting of it - so presumed you had seen the proposal and decided not to object). I didn't delete anything, simply moved it - and none of what I moved from the introduction was controversial. As it stands, the text in the introduction is clearly too cumbersome: that's the place for a simple description of what SR is, not for the current jumble of points about everything from historical precursors, descriptions more appropriate to TR than to SR, references to Peter Ochs, and whatever else.

(2) After a clearer introduction, I tried to make sure the next section contained all the consensus material describing features of all SR. That was a proposal that I had made here more than once, in most detail on 5 January. At no point have you objected to that specific proposal, as far as I can see. So what's wrong? Was there anything in that section that you thought misrepresented SR? Was there anything not in that section that you think we can all agree on as a key feature of all SR? What were your specific objections? Or do you object to the very idea of starting with a section of consensus-based description meant to apply to all SR - and, if so, why? (You will have noted, of course, that I did place the claim that there was no one official form of SR, and that it existed in diverse forms and continued to evolve, very prominently within this section - so it isn't that having this section on shared SR ideas implies that there are no variations in how SR is practiced and understood.)

(3) The history section (which also tells about the emergence of variety in SR) was reorganised, yes - but as I left it a sizeable chunk of it was given over to a neutral description of the emergence of the Oxford School, and I don't think I'd done anything to downplay the significance of Oxford School SR, or to compare it unfavourably to other forms. Was there anything specific you objected to in that section? I didn't think I'd left it suggesting any uniform consensus or lack of variety or anything like that. Had I misrepresented anything? Had I got the balance wrong?

(4) Of course, I'm guessing that your problem was with the controversy section - which I left clearly marked as work in progress, rather than suggesting I'd left it in a viable form as it stood. I don't think I'd deleted anything here - simply gathered it together. It contained all the material you've put in the article about disagreements on authority, about asymmetries of hospitality and so on - explicitly in a section devoted to disagreements. What was wrong with doing that? Again, I first proposed doing this on 2 Dec, and again on 5 Dec - you had not objected to it at any point. I didn't carry out any of the more controversial proposed substantive alterations to that material that I know you have objected to - it was simply putting it together in a section explicitly devoted to controversial material. Why revert it now? Was there something in that section that you thought was actually a key feature of all SR, a feature on which we are all agreed, and so something that should go in the 'Key features' section? Did you think that the reorganisation of this material had somehow ended up misrepresenting your position? You can't, I presume, think that the structure I had introduced did anything to hide the material about which we have been disagreeing on this talk page: anyone who got as far as the contents list (which was closer to the top than before) would have seen immediately that there was a section of controversial material: it was actually rather easier to locate it all than before. So what's wrong?

(5) The only moves not discussed above were the placing of the historical parallels section and the attitudes of traditional authorities sections at the end. To be honest, that's simply because once I had done the reorganising that had been discussed, I didn't know what else to do with them. Neither section is key to describing what SR is in itself - one is interesting but clearly secondary background material, the other about ways in which the SR described in the first three sections has been received and responded to. It seemed logical to put them at the end. Do you object? I was assuming that was an uncontroversial move - but perhaps you see it differently.

Of course, in reorganising like this, and trying to smooth the joins in the reorganised text and cut out repetitions that it had introduced, I did do some deleting and some rewording. But I did try hard not to delete or weaken anything that I knew to be controversial, even where I disagreed with it. Did I delete anything I shouldn't have done? Did I make alterations in wording that you disliked?

Please explain what your problems are, rather than reverting edits without discussion. --mahigton (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Having jumped through hoops like a circus dog, and very reluctantly under pressure from you/others published sensitive confirmatory correspondence as written proof of the proposed Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group, etc (when for reasons of tact I had been wanting to avoid this), I think I am somewhat disinclined to engage extensively with this talk page in future beyond this, or jump through any more hoops.  Take care and good wishes --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I and other editors then take it that you're happy for editing to proceed on the lines described by Mahigton and trailed for several weeks on this talk page?Laysha101 (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Laysha101. On talk pages, silence is normally taken for assent, according to Wikipedia guidelines.  I note with some concern, therefore, that Mahigton's recent edits (which much improve the article, and conform to NPOV, in my view) have been reverted, without comment, by user scripturalreasoning.  I do not think this serves Wikipedia's aims well, and represents a serious setback for those, like me, who are (a) trying to help an evolving consensus and (b) trying to reflect it in the body of the article.  I would urge all editors to comment on this page when making changes, or reverting others' changes: this is normal Wikipedia good practice. Thelongview (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose to archive this section if there are no objections. Thelongview (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bold Edit
I have made several big cuts in the material. These edits attempt to reflect the emerging consensus on this talk page that the article should be briefer, more focused, and accurately describe SR as it is practised in a variety of countries and forms. There is one (and only one) dissenting voice in the discussion, who has said repeatedly that such a consensus is an attempt to censor debate. That is not my intention - and the issues have been thoroughly rehearsed on this page, and can be read by anyone interested in them. The article as it now stands accurately and fairly describes SR as it is practised in the USA, Russia, South Africa and the UK. There are now dozens of SR groups internationally, producing significant bodies of reflection on their practice; there are also variants of SR that do not carry the name. I have removed all material that seems self-promoting, or that is not verifiable, in line with the extensive discussions on this page. It could be argued that an abbreviated form of some of the material deleted could go in a separate section on 'local developments' at the end. I'd be happy to look at that, if others think it worthwhile. Thelongview (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I infer from the remarks below that describing local developments is desirable. My most recent edit attempts to include this, mindful of Sakina08's argument about undue weight and Mahigton's reminder that Wikipedia is not a directory. Thelongview (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of Politically-Motivated Censorship and Vandalism by User Thelongview
I refer again to the above note under the heading relating to Conflict of Interest in the Removal of Material by users including User Thelongview. This latter I strongly suspect to be associated with the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and also possibly a Consultant for the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme (though I have not stated this with certainty and am not "outing" anyone identifiably). I record User Thelongview's undeclared Conflict of Interest in User Thelongview's removal of material critical of organisations and personalities with whom he is connected. These politically-motivated cuts have been reversed.--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My changes were all in line with the growing consensus (with one dissenting voice) outlined on this talk page. It was also intended to reflect the international emphasis of scriptural reasoning.  The changes all follow Wikipedia guidelines (as rehearsed in the discussion on this page) in removing material that is unverifiable.  I will willingly leave untouched any material that is demonstrably in line with most editors' consensus and which is demonstrably verifiable.  I am puzzled by the allegation that there is a conflict of interest.  If any other editor thinks this is an issue, and a moderator thinks it appropriate, I would be happy to declare my academic affiliations.  As my edits reflect not my sole views, but those of nearly every other editor who has contributed to the talk page, this seems irrelevant. Thelongview (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the light of the above comments, I have reverted the changes recently made by Scripturalreasoning pending clarification as to which, if any, parts of the material deleted by Thelongview are demonstrably verifiable by Wikipedia standards.Laysha101 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I repeat that further to the paragraph above under the heading relating to "Conflict of Interest in Removal of Material" user Thelongview: I don't think I have any further cause to engage with this, other than to tediously revert these censoring edits, as and when they arise.--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Has concealed the fact of his organisational affiliations to organisations and personalities which are critiqued in my edits of the Wikipedia article -- and which material he has removed in his Wikipedia edits, without declaring this relevant conflict of interest.
 * It is further untrue, dishonest, false and a lie for any person to pretend that the Scriptural Reasoning Society is a virtual construct of a single individual, and to remove reference to it from the Wikipedia article as user Thelongview has done in his edits -- this is so absurd as to be beneath warranting a response.
 * In relation to the false statement about "growing consensus" it has been rehearsed at length on this page that a number of the editors including Thelongview, Laysha101, mahigton are all likely to be associated with one and the same tiny "SR University/SR Theory" group of around 35 people (according to the SR Society's website). This is considerably less than the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" membership.  Moreover, the sudden interest of multiple "new users" in this Wikipedia article since November 2008 seems to coincide with circular correspondence sent around the time to the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" grouping.  I suspect that in regard to the three users mentioned above -- ALL are likely know each other from the same SRU group, ALL are likely to be UK Christian theologians, ALL are likely to be connected collegially in some way to the Director of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme as colleague or former colleague, or former academic supervisor.  This so called "consensus" is therefore nothing more than a rallying of troops from a particular party - and the history demonstrates the pattern of it.
 * While Users mahigton and Laysha101 might have some cause to not be aware of some of the events which have gone on in all detail, as I suspect userThelongview may be more closely connected to the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme and its Director, his now knowingly removing material critical of organisations with which I suspect he is likely to be associated - and which from his comments on this page he himself accepts is factually correct statements - makes this politically-motivated censorship even more contemptible.


 * (No - I was not involved in, and had/have nothing to do with, what user Scripturalreasoning calls 'the events which have gone on'. I ask for these claims about me to be removed, please. Thelongview (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Nobody has claimed that the Scriptural Reasoning Society is simply a single individual. Nobody has claimed that user scripturalreasoning was not involved in an argument with a founder member of SR.  Rather, the claim has been that the characterisations user scripturalreasoning has promoted on this page of the attitudes and practice of SR founders and the SR groups associated with them are either (a) the opinions of one person, or of a tiny minority, and therefore not appropriate material for an encyclopedia page on SR, or (b) the views of a significant minority of those who practice or comment on SR, whose opinions should therefore be presented on the page appropriately - without undue prominence, and verifiably as the opinions of specific individuals or a specific group.  I have repeatedly asked user scripturalreasoning for verifiable evidence to help us choose between those two options.  Further, I and others have claimed that there is no verifiable evidence of public debate about these matters, and that therefore to claim that debate about these matters is one of the 'key aspects of the theory and practice of SR' is misleading.  We have, so far, heard evidence from various individuals, from different faith traditions and different countries, that the opinions of user scripturalreasoning are not shared by the practitioners of and commentators of SR known to them, and that debate about them is not widespread; we have as yet seen no evidence (beyond the unverifiable claim that some people have agreed with user scripturalreasoning in private) that they are a widespread criticism of SR.  User scripturalreasoning has repeatedly refused to engage with these specific questions, or even to explain why he or she thinks they are the wrong questions.  Instead, he or she has resorted consistently to personal attack and accusation - without explaining why his/her repeated accusations of 'conflict of interest' are at all relevant to the specific claims that have been made against him/her or to his or her inability or unwillingness to provide evidence rebutting those claims.--mahigton (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the allegations just made by user scripturalreasoning, it may be helpful to rehearse what Wikipedia is not.
 * It is not a vehicle for self-promotion. User scripturalreasoning has already been asked to speedily delete an article on the Scriptural Reasoning Society and it appears this article is being used to smuggle that article in by the back door.  This is not acceptable.
 * It is not a medium for publishing original research. User scripturalreasoning has repeatedly, on this page, referred to his own materials, private correspondence, his own websites and so forth.  Such investigative journalism is contrary to Wikipedia good practice.
 * It is not a soapbox. I refer to nearly every post by user scripturalreasoning.
 * Conflict of Interest allegations should not be used in order to gain the upper hand in disputes. This is an explicit Wikipedia guideline which also prohibits using COI allegations to harrass other editors.  Wikipedia guidelines give sound advice on how to handle COI: ensure that articles conform to NPOV with claims that are verifiable.  To complain that, when other editors insist on these requirements, this is an example of politically motivated censorship (a baseless but repeated claim on this page) is circular and against Wikipedia good practice.  The guidelines are there for good reason: to handle disagreements of precisely this kind.  As a gesture of good faith, and to show that I am not trying to promote, distort or clean up any references to an organisation by whom I am allegedly employed, I will in my next edit remove all references in the article to the institution by which I am allegedly employed.  I did not introduce them into the article, incidentally, I still don't think this question is relevant, and I am not conceding any truth to these speculations.
 * If it is suggested that all other editors on this discussion page are somehow all from the UK and are in cahoots, this can quickly be determined by looking at editors' IP addresses. I do not know all the editors who have contributed, and am unable to judge the truth of this allegation.  Such allegation is suspiciously convenient as it removes any need to gauge the consensus on this talk page, or indeed to pay any attention whatsoever to any of the discussion here.  However I remain committed to Wikipedia's guidelines, especially those relating to COI, which suggest that matters be rehearsed fully on the talk page before being reflected in edits on the main page.  I judge that matters relating to NPOV, verifiability and no original research have been adequately ventillated, and that it is appropriate for these to translate into edits which make this article an encyclopedia article, and not any one of those things described in What_Wikipedia_is_not.  I repeat that any relevant claim that is demonstrably NPOV and (in the case of disputed claims or interpretations) verifiable, deserves to be included in this article.  My deletions (a) reflect discussion on this page and (b) reflect Wikipedia good practice.  To say that the discussion is bogus and rigged, and that calling for adherence to Wikipedia guidelines is censorship, rather calls into question the whole point of, well, the entire talk page including those same allegations.  It makes no sense to me. Thelongview (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we have reached a stage of this edit dispute where user scripturalreasoning's main response is repeatedly to revert changes made by other editors, only to have those reverts undone, it is worth pointing out both the 'three revert rule' - no more than three reverts per 24 hrs per user - and, regarding the undoing of scripturalreasoning's reverts by different editors, to note the guidance on the WP:3RR page gives at WP:3RR: 'Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action'.--mahigton (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I formally request Scripturalreasoning to withdraw the allegation of vandalism, and refer him to the guidelines on what is not vandalism. Thelongview (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeat this request. User Scripturalreasoning has posted to this page since the request was made, and has failed to withdraw the allegation.  It is just a matter of removing the 'and vandalism' from the section title.  I ask for this to be done in a timely manner, please. Thelongview (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[There was an entire discussion here, which has been archived.]

Should there be a 'historical precursors' section?
I ask this question because I wonder what a 'precursor' is, in this article. Is it:
 * (a) a prior practice which happens to resemble SR
 * (b) a prior practice which SR consciously revived
 * (c) a prior practice with which SR has demonstrable historical continuities?

Some questions might test out which of these (or some other) is reflected in the article.
 * (1) Does any text-based inter-religious activity constitute a precursor?
 * (2) Does any text-based inter-religious activity between some combination of Jews/Christians/Muslims constitute a precursor?
 * (3) Are some geographical locations of such activities more significant than others? (e.g. is Europe more important than India or North America?)

And some facts may be of interest in investigating this question:
 * (i) SR actually grew out of an intra-Jewish activity called Textual Reasoning (TR)
 * (ii) TR was American, and had no historical continuities with medieval inter-faith activities in Europe.
 * (iii) Some models of intra-Christian ecumenical activity are prior to and resemble SR

I suggest that SR's historical precursors are American, more than European; modern more than medieval; and intra-religious more than inter-religious. If this is persuasive, should there be a 'historical precursors' section which is European rather than American, medieval rather than modern and inter-religious rather than intra-religious? I don't think so. But I'm curious to know the views of others. Thelongview (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the whole, I'm inclined to agree that the precursor section should go. There are, however, two strands that need separate consideration.


 * In the first place, there is the origin of SR in TR (your point (i)). Now, as I understand it - there was an element of conscious revival or emulation of earlier Jewish textual practices by TR practitioners, which would mean that there was a dash of your point (b) in the genetic makeup of SR as well. (And given that the models so emulated in TR were not primarily American, I agree with your point (ii) only because it specifies European medieval interfaith activities; without that word 'interfaith' it would not be true).  I think, however, there might be two reasons for this not to be appropriate on this page:


 * (A) It is perhaps too remote a connection for a simple Wikipedia article on SR: it would belong on a page on TR if anywhere.


 * (B) Most discussions of SR I know have tried, for obvious reasons, not to let it be too much determined by reflection on roots it might have had in one of the three religious traditions; there seems to me to have been a deliberate downplaying in SR of the explicit connection that was made in TR.


 * In the second place, there is the comparison of SR with other possible historical analogues. I think those do clearly fall under (a) in your first triad.  The identification of such resemblance has at times been an interesting - and possibly productive - element of academic reflection upon the nature of SR.  If this article were to include a survey of academic reflection on the nature of SR, the identification of this kind of precursor would surely have a place (and answers to the three questions in your middle triad would be provided by an analysis of what academic writers on SR had in fact found to be interesting historical parallels to draw.  I take it, however, that a simple Wikipedia article is not the place for such a survey - so support deletion.


 * --mahigton (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going ahead with this. --mahigton (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose to archive this section if there are no objections. Thelongview (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Separate 'Developments' and 'Resources' Sections
This is partly a response to mahigton's suggestion in the 'UK Bias' section above. (That section was largely critical rather than constructive, so I've started a new section along more constructive lines.)

I suggest a 'developments' section, to include variants including those which do not use the SR name (like Faith and Citizenship, Tools for Trialogue, Just TXT and any others that are being developed) and those which do use the SR name but distinguish themselves, for whatever reason, from the international SR movement (like the Scriptural Reasoning Society, and any others there may be).

While I suggest separating the idea of 'resources' from 'developments', I'm in two minds about an actual 'resources' section. On the one hand: useful. On the other hand: is it appropriate to an encyclopedia article? As an alternative, perhaps the external links could be briefly annotated. Thelongview (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At very least the WP:DIRECTORY and WP:NOTLINK policies would urge caution - a Wikipedia article is not a web-directory of useful online resources - but WP:NOTLINK does say 'There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia', and WP:EL (the External Links policy) says 'Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.' WP:ELYES has a list of 'What should be linked' --mahigton (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As there are no other responses, I take it that my proposal is acceptable. Next edit will reflect this, and Mahigton's advice. Thelongview (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will archive this section in a few days if there are no objections. Thelongview (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Could someone add some dates to the 'Origins' section, please? I've not got the relevant info to hand at present. --mahigton (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith
Questions of good faith have been raised on this page. I believe Scripturalreasoning does not understand why I have made certain deletions in the main article, other than as expressions of a conflict of interest - a claim I believe to be baseless. I am happy to explain my actions.

In June 2007, user Scripturalreasoning added a link to the article Qur'an. This link was to 'scripturalreasoning.org.uk', a website for whose content he has admitted he is responsible. Scripturalreasoning was requested by Dreaded Walrus to remove the link with the following reason:


 * Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Dreaded Walrus t c 03:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In the same month, Scripturalreasoning created a new article, 'Scriptural Reasoning Society'. I refer to his own comments above about his relation to this group. Scripturalreasoning was requested by Dreaded Walrus to speedily delete the article for the following reason:


 * A tag has been placed on The Scriptural Reasoning Society, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.


 * If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add hangon on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

All this would seem innocent enough, were it not for an event a year before. In August 2006, Interfaithalliance edited the existing article Interfaith Alliance, adding links and a substantial long new section called 'Interfaith Alliance UK'. This latter section was about an organisation unaffiliated, and unconnected with, the organisation the main article was about. He also included external links to The Scriptural Reasoning Society. This new section was significantly longer than the original entry, despite being wholly irrelevant. Progressivepatriot, assuming good faith, suggested that this unrelated material belonged in its own article, which he duly created. This new article Interfaith Alliance UK still exists. Despite this attempt to separate the two organisations, Interfaithalliance returned to the original article and included a new irrelevant section about (presumably his) UK organisation.

An existing article on a reputable organisation was used to promote something independent and unconnected, by an editor who adopted as his username the title of the original organisation. The same pattern can be seen here in the article on scriptural reasoning: new edits, relating to the Scriptural Reasoning Society, with material which dwarfed the material on the older, well-established Society for Scriptural Reasoning, by a user who takes the name of the organisation... 'Scripturalreasoning'. There is one difference, however. When Scripturalreasoning attempted to create a separate article on The Scriptural Reasoning Society it was marked for speedy deletion by Dreaded Walrus. So this time, having no other platform, Scripturalreasoning persisted with including references to his independent organisation in this article. No sysop would notice the connection I am making here, of course, because two different usernames were being used. Why would anyone assume these two usernames were the same person? There was at least one reason.

On 8 January 2008, Interfaithalliance edited the article Fatwa, including material relating to The Scriptural Reasoning Society with an external link, once again, to that same organisation. The material in question was given pride of place in the section 'Some Contemporary Fatwa'. I edited that article, putting the material in the relevant chronological position. This edit was reverted by Scripturalreasoning, who referred to my edit on that page as 'vandalism', and on this page as 'expurgation'. I thus wondered if two usernames were being used by the same editor.

In May 2008, Scripturalreasoning added a link to the current article, again to The Scriptural Reasoning Society. Scripturalreasoning was requested by Herbythyme to remove the link, for the following reason:


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Herby talk thyme 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

On 4 October 2008, Scripturalreasoning edited the article on Qur'an desecration by including original research relating to an organisation whose reputation he wished to call into question, and including external links. These links were quite different in purpose from previous patterns of this user's editing, however. They linked to a website with the same name as the organsation, but not owned or maintained by the by it; the purpose of the linked phoney website was solely to defame the reputation of that organisation. The offending material was removed by Liskeardziz with a note that it contained 'factual distortions'. The phoney website is no longer functional.

In each case, major wikipedia articles on respectable subjects have been abused by Scripturalreasoning, and he has received the appropriate responses. My actions follow the same pattern, with the same reasons, as those of Dreaded Walrus, Herbythyme and Liskeardziz, who are well-established editors of multiple articles.

I have alleged on this page that Scripturalreasoning's use of Wikipedia as a soapbox, and to promote his own independent organisations, is unacceptable, and have deleted material accordingly. I will continue to do so.

Scripturalreasoning has said, on other pages, that he regards the WP:NPOV requirements as 'arcane', and claims not to have time to read the relevant policies. I am mildly surprised. The evidence on this page is that this user has an abundance of time. I suggest that if he had spent some of it reading WP policies, quite a lot of time would have been saved. A user who refuses to read wikipedia policies is a severe obstacle to sensible debate on talk pages.

Scripturalreasoning's record on other articles is unsteady, including possible use of multiple user accounts, with edits being done by one account, and reverts to changes of those edits being done by another account. His record on this article is likewise unsteady, and it is this that motivates my bold edits and reversions. (Both Interfaithalliance and Scripturalreasoning have edited this article, incidentally, although I personally do not think there was any attempt to deceive.)

I strongly urge all contributors to this page to assume good faith, not to second-guess other editors' motivations, and not to make allegations about political censorship. As can be seen here, the true motivations are often quite different from (and sometimes less pleasant to discover than) what one might have expected. Thelongview (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the statements made here I am not going to respond to because they do not relate to me. If there is any "allegation" being made here about anything, then I strongly urge User  Thelongview  to report to the relevant Wikipedia authorities.


 * As ever this is a matter of spin and sophistry. The facts are as follows:


 * I do not own and am not "responsible" as the IT person in charge of the website http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ This is registered in the name of and primarily managed and hosted by another colleague - I contribute certain SR study materials.  Those "responsible" for its content are the Trustees.  Please stop making false statements.  Thank you.


 * Yes, I did attach a link to Quran in relation to our shared activity of sacred text study, though the link should more appropriately have gone with Tafsir.


 * Yes, I did create a title Scriptural Reasoning Society as prompted by our Trustees. No text was added to the article title, and it simply lay empty and fallow with no content.  In the meantime, I had been editing the article Scriptural Reasoning  After some time of inactivity, when the note came through that the subject Scriptural Reasoning Society was not a notable article of itself, and the opportunity offered to respond, no response was made by me to any speedy deletion request and I simply allowed it to drop -- primarily because I agreed, The Scriptural Reasoning Society or for that matter The Society for Scriptural Reasoning was not at the time sufficiently publicly reported to be notable for an article of itself.  This may change in the future.  For the record, a deletion request was also proposed for Scriptural Reasoning at one point, as a not sufficiently notable activity.


 * I am not going to comment on the other user mentioned, other than to say clearly (once only) that they are not me. In relation to certain other of my colleagues, or friends of mine, whom I know well, who have in the past edited Wikipedia articles with their usernames and introduced me to Wikipedia as a resource -- what I will say is that as you correctly note there has been no recruitment by me of any of my existing colleagues to back up my editing in the article, the way there has been sudden arrival of some users all backing each other up.  If there is any doubt about this, then as I say I would strongly urge User Thelongview to file a Sockpuppetry report -- otherwise please do not repeat this allegation again.  I also add that my colleagues have now been made aware of the recent arrival of a group of new users to this page, all of whom are backing each other up in editing -- we have discussed how to respond and decided that we would not respond as you have done.  Since prior to this statement by user Thelongview, I unilaterally made certain personal goodwill decisions in relation to this issue, and so I would expect a reciprocal dropping of insinuations of username abuse, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry (unless you want to file something formally).  I likewise expect Mahigton, Laysha101 and yourself to exercise care in your pronouncements about "consensus" which are controversial to say the least.  Then we have no quarrel, and we can finally all move on.


 * I must though defend a false allegation made on this page. The Interfaith Alliance UK is the sponsoring charity of The Scriptural Reasoning Society and it is was founded explicitly as the UK chapter of the Interfaith Alliance in the United States, and founded on the same principles.  The latter which has local state chapters does not have provision in its Constitution for international chapters outside the US, and so the Interfaith Alliance UK was founded independently -- and is still in happy communication and meets with the main USA body.  What you seem to view as some kind of drama was simply the case that while initially referenced in The Interfaith Alliance the suggestion was made that the Interfaith Alliance UK deserved its own separate Wikipedia article as an independent article, and that was done.  In future you might want to bother to confirm facts first.


 * Since you know Simon Keyes and are a colleague of his, and I also am around 100% certain who user Liskeardziz is as a collaborator with the same organisation, you can tell him that the allegations of desecration stand entirely. Yet further evidence of politically motivated censorship by you, and suppression of actual events.  Given that I have shown CONSIDERABLE RESTRAINT in not directly referring to fraud events and desecration controversies in the context of the article Scriptural Reasoning I would strongly caution you to watch your comments in future -- as I DO believe that ideally such material should be made known in the article Scriptural Reasoning as a significant issue in Scriptural Reasoning.  So please respect this, and please DO NOT take my silence for granted.  Thank you.


 * The fundamental fact remains that:


 * User Thelongview is employed by and has political connections to organisations which have been critiqued on this article Scriptural Reasoning. He, in collaboration with persons he knows in real life have attempted to remove information about these criticisms of organisations to which he and his colleagues are connected or employed.  This is simply a fact.  In addition the very existence of other organisations, other points of view, other schools of Scriptural Reasoning has systematically been removed from the article.


 * A cursory comparison of the current edit of the article as opposed to recent earlier edits, clearly show the agenda User Thelongview and colleagues have in mind -- the current edit has no reference to Islamic or Jewish juridical guidance, no reference to differing schools and viewpoints in Scriptural Reasoning and ironically is exactly the kind of self-promotion of one point of view and one organisation (and decisions about what is "Notable forms of SR") which he has been trying to insinuate.


 * His actions are misleading and dishonest, and a glance at the progressive recent editing history of self-promotion and absolute disregard for Conflict of Interest and NPOV will indicate his and his colleagues dishonest agenda. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This response nicely illustrates a deep problem. My post does exactly what it says on the tin: assume good faith. This can be read as a reference to a fundamental principle for Wikipedia or as a plea. And of course it is both. Here is an encouraging extract from the policy page on good faith:


 * In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors.

And that's how I began. The problem identified was: 'questions of good faith have been raised'. It seemed to me appropriate to articulate my honest motives, and the rest of the post served that purpose. The form of my post is: these are things I noticed, these are concerns I developed, and these are the actions that followed. It is quite possible that I might have screwed up, been wrong, made poor inferences and worse - mistakes are normal, and common, on Wikipedia, because it is a process not a divine vision. But I articulated my motives, with the goal of providing a tangible and plausible alternative to the idea that my motivations are political censorship and other products of bad faith. By plausible I don't mean that any particular claim I made is plausible, but that my account of my motives is plausible.

Here is a model response:


 * 'I accept, on good faith, that these are your motivations. Your concerns are unfounded.  You have misinterpreted the things you noticed, and you made false inferences.  Interfaith Alliance UK is in fact a close collaborator with Interfaith Alliance, and not the wholly separate and irrelevant organisation you describe.  In any case, those were not my edits.  I have not engaged in sockpuppetry: Interfaithalliance and I are, and always have been, different editors.  I did, at certain points, add inappropriate external links to articles, but this was because I was not aware of policy details, nothing more.  I am not responsible for content on the scripturalreasoning.org.uk website, except insofar as I am the IT person in charge of it.  I thus reject the claim that I have abused Wikipedia, and strongly ask you to reconsider.'

I aim going to interpret the response along those lines, although my reply will have to wait. This is because the actual response rejects outright my claim to act in good faith. It attributes to me motivations of censorship, posts that are misleading, actions that are dishonest, and describes my post on good faith as itself a display of sophistry and spin. This is a textbook personal attack.

It seems to me that two pairs of categories are in use. Truth and Lies. Honesty and dishonesty. And to go with them there are corresponding types of people. Truth-tellers and liars, honest folk and dishonest folk. The accompanying logic goes: Thelongview has deleted true statements, therefore he is a liar and a censor. Thelongview has argued against honest statements, therefore he is dishonest. Thelongview has quoted, 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth': therefore he is a sophist.

But these are not the right categories for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia deals not in truth and lies, but in appropriate and inappropriate material. It deals not in honesty and dishonesty, but in well-supported and poorly-supported claims. This is not to say that it does not value truth and honesty; rather, it seeks a process for producing reliable content and resolving disputes.

I have deleted true statements because they were inappropriate material or poorly supported claims. That makes me neither a liar nor a censor. I have argued against honest statements because they were irrelevant to policy-informed debate. That makes me neither dishonest nor a sophist. These things make me a fairly typical and rather unremarkable Wikipedian.

In the face of these continued personal attacks and insistence upon my bad faith I am going to take a week off and edit other articles - it is most unpleasant to be treated in this way. Thelongview (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Scripturalreasoning, since you keep making the accusation here, I would urge you strongly to re-file your meatpuppetry accusation against me and against various other editors, so that it can be examined by somebody independent, and we can have an end put to its constant reiteration here. I am, as I said when the accusation was first filed, entirely happy for an administrator to look into the relationship between my editing activity and that of any other editor, and will cooperate fully with any such investigation.  --mahigton (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have put a note on the talkpage of Interfaithalliance inviting him/her to comment on the discussions here. I don't blame him/her if s/he doesn't want to get involved, but I think some alternative viewpoints might help to get us out of the binary pattern (two sides, two pairs of categories, etc) that's been identified at various points. Laysha101 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And now I've put a similar note on the talkpage of Interfaithallianceuk, who is probably rather better equipped to comment on this page.Laysha101 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources
Copied from above by --mahigton (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC) :

Nonsense. "Self-published" material implies material personally published on "personal websites", "blogs", "forum postings". User Thelongview has deleted material published in The Guardian Newspaper as well as material published by "the Scriptural Reasoning Society" -- all of whose public content is vetted by the Board of Trustees as a registered charity. Thelongview and colleagues show no such scruples about publishing from the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning owned entirely by the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning". Double standards as usual. Correspondence which has also been published was not authored by me, but by David Ford, and publicly circulated by him. Ironically, and with the typical hypocrisy which has become customary here, the Scriptural Reasoning article does reference "self-authored" material by other users on this page. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The summary on WP:RS (the Wikipedia policy on Reliable sources) says. "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" (emphasis in original).


 * Nobody has claimed that the Guardian Newspaper is a questionable or self-published source. The question about that reference is one of pertinence: the reference pointed to an article relating to problems someone had with a conference co-organised by an organisation (CiP) that is also involved in Scriptural Reasoning. The Guardian article does not mention or otherwise refer to Scriptural Reasoning. The article therefore does not directly support the claim it was being used to support in the article: a claim about Scriptural Reasoning - and it is in that regard, and that regard only, that it fails to be a reliable source for the claim made, in Wikipedia terms. (NB; it is also worth checking WP:SYN here: it helps clarify just how serious Wikipedia is about the need for sources to back up directly the claim made.)


 * User Thelongview and other contenders here are connected to organisations which have been critiqued in the above, including by the Guardian Newspaper. The article references the Cambridge Interfaith Programme as a principal sponsor of interfaith activity, of which Scriptural Reasoning is something the users Thelongview and colleagues positively claim David Ford introduced to the UK -- and themselves claim that David Ford is its lead exponent in the UK.  The article connects concerns raised in article about the direction the agenda in Scriptural Reasoning in the UK to concerns about the agenda of SR's sponsoring body to up that point, the Cambridge Interfaith Programme -- these concerns about government agendas linked by the CIP, are verified by public statements in the national media.  User Thelongview would like them not to be in the public domain, and has attempted to delete them, not out of concerns about referencing, but simply because it critiques organisations by to which he and his colleagues are politically connected. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article is not about user Thelongview. It is not about the Cambridge Interfaith Programme. It is about Scriptural Reasoning. Is the Guardian article directly about Scriptural Reasoning? No. Does it directly support the claim that Scriptural Reasoning has been commodified, or directly support the claim that any person has claimed that Scriptural Reasoning has been commodified? No. Therefore, if we follow Wikipedia policy, it doesn't belong. --mahigton (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning is cited as a source only once in the article. The claim it is cited to support is the claim that "not consensus but friendship" is a phrase used by SR practitioners. The website for the Scriptural Reasoning Society is cited for the same purpose in the same footnote. Both of those citations are supplied simply as supplementary evidence of usage, not as pointing to sources taken as authorities - they are used, in other words, as "sources of information about themselves", which is explicitly allowed by WP:SELFPUB, even if the source should be considered questionable or self-published. Note also that the main citation in the relevant note is to a book published by Cambridge University Press. If there should be any place in the article where the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning is actually presented as a reliable source for some point that is otherwise unsupported, it would be appropriate for us to discuss whether the Journal is indeed appropriate as such a source. As it stands, the question is irrelevant: there is no WP:QS case to answer.


 * As has repeatedly been articulated, I do not think there is any objection to the citation of the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning any more than any other website - since a website is all it is. There should be no illusion that the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning despite its name, is an independently peer-reviewed journal.  It is not.  It is a website owned by the Society for Scriptural Reasoning.  On those terms there are no objections to citation of the material.  What I objected to was double standards being applied by you, User Thelongview, in your claims about circular referencing. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no double standard. The article should follow Wikipedia policy.  When there is a dispute, reference to that policy is the way to resolve it.  I have explained above why the one reference to the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning does follow Wikipedia policy.  I have argued (though - as I hope I demonstrate below - am willing to listen to counter arguments) that the citations from other sources that I have objected to, and have deleted, do not follow Wikipedia policy.  Response to those arguments, in the context of Wikipedia policy, is what we need - not further accusations of bad faith.  --mahigton (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the only other example of a self-authored source is the note that says 'For an example of an SR discussion, see Mike Higton's detailed description of an SR group's conversation about a particular Qur'anic passage'. Note that this reference is not presented as a source backing up a claim made in the article; it is presented as an additional resource. However, should any user complain that that is an inappropriate resource to point to - that its content misrepresents the nature of Scriptural Reasoning, say, or that there are more reliable sources that would serve the same purpose, or that the content of the source specifically cited is biased towards one of SR's manifestations rather than another, the reference could be deleted - and I would not object.


 * There are no objections to the Higton reference. What I objected to was double standards being promoted by you, User Thelongview, as you raised the matter of "Self-authored" referencing.  I can confirm, that there is NO material that has been referenced anywhere in this article which has been authored in my name, and such documents as have been cited such as the Oxford Ethic are the product of a group decision by the SR Society to adopt it as a corporate document. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good - that helps. More below.  --mahigton (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that there are doubts about the sources that Scripturalreasoning wants to rely upon. For instance, the material on the Scriptural Reasoning Society website that directly addresses the controversial points on which we have not agreed - a description of 'explicit and official' accusations about the conduct of SR by the Society for Scriptural Reasoniong - was, as the Google cache demonstrates, placed there within the last week or two, during the course of the debate. Perhaps Scripturalreasoning can clarify the process by which that material came to be present on the page, and whether s/he is including it in his/her description of material 'vetted by the Board of Trustees as a registered charity'. Note that this is not a general comment about the Scriptural Reasoning Society website: that website is still cited elsewhere in the article. The question here is only about whether the specific material on that site that makes these accusations can be used as reliable source in the Wikipedia sense for a description of those accusations in the article. There are other questions (especially regarding due weight) that we would also need to address. See above.


 * Yes, of course. I can confirm that in response to the false allegations made by Thelongview, Mahigton and so forth, that the critique of the conduct of some (mainly one) of the founders of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, was merely my personal opinion and not a founding basis of the SR Society's history, I raised this matter with colleagues for this to be made sufficiently explicit -- we actually thought it already had been made explicit in our Oxford Ethic.  The Preamble of the Scriptural Reasoning Society now restates the already existing position of the SR Society.  The false suggestion by you of the SR Society's history and viewpoints articulated in its founding documents, all being somehow the viewpoint of one person, is conclusively refuted.  I further repeat as above:


 * I do not own and am not "responsible" as the IT person in charge of the website http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ This is registered in the name of, hosted and primarily managed by another colleague - I contribute certain SR study materials.  Those "responsible" for its content are the Trustees.  Please stop making false statements.  Thank you. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you for clarifying that: that does actually move the argument forward. It puts us in a position where we now have an identifiable group (the trustees of the charity), and an opinion stated by that group (i.e., a set of beliefs about the Society for Scriptural Reasoning).  And I think we can now say, in the light of Wikipedia policy that both those things are verifiable: we have a verifiably identified group (the trustees of Interfaith Alliance UK) who verifiably make a particular set of accusations about SSR.  (I think it is appropriate to claim 'verifiability' here because the website in question is undeniably the vehicle for the self-presentation of that group, so although we don't have what Wikipedia would call a 'reliable source' backing up those claims, the wesbite can be used as 'a source of information about itself', according to WP:SELFPUB).
 * We need to tread carefully, here. Reference to the website can only, I think, be used to verify a claim of the form, 'Identifiable group X said "Y"' (where X is the group for whom the website can be taken to be the mouthpiece).  It cannot be used to verify the claim "Y".  So, above, I argued that JSR could unproblematically be used to verify the claim 'Some SR practitioners associated with SSR say "not consensus but friendship"', but that deeper questions about the reliability of the source would arise if we had used it to verify the claim "SR is about not consensus but friendship".
 * So far, so good. In terms of WP:V specifically, I think I agree that the article could in principle contain a claim of the form 'This specific group state such and such an opinion'.  This leaves us, however, with questions about the impact of other aspects of our discussion - especially due weight: can I suggest that we take this part of our argument over to the section of the page already devoted to due weight?  --mahigton (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * David Ford's letter cannot be used as a reliable source for a significant claim in a Wikipedia article. It is used as a primary source for description of a particular debate. It is not just that, in general, 'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' (WP:SOURCES). Rather, note what Wikipedia explicitly says about primary sources: 'Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care' WP:PSTS. (Claims about the 'public circulation' of the letter are quite simply beside the point, and demonstrate ignorance of, or a misunderstanding of, Wikipedia policy on sources.) Furthermore, the claims that were made in the article on the basis of citation of the letter were Scripturalreasoning's interpretation of that primary source. Wikipedia says, 'Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation' (WP:PSTS).
 * "David Ford's letter cannot be used as a reliable source for a significant claim in a Wikipedia article." --- says who? Says someone connected politically to his organisations.  The statements made by David Ford have been publicly circulated by him.  They are his not my authorship.  They have been cited VERBATIM to David Ford with a date of that statement (not "interpreted"/"paraphrased"/"reinterpreted" by me or any other secondary source which is the aim of the Wikipedia guidelines).  If they are factually incorrect then the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme have full recourse to legal action.  You, user Thelongview KNOW these statements are factually correct as reported, so please stop playing games.  I repeat, these statements have been referenced to the author with a locating date and authority (there are ample libel laws in the UK) -- if they are NOT FACTUALLY TRUE, please have the integrity to say so.  Otherwise, please have the integrity to admit to your political basis for not wanting them to be known. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Says who? Says Wikipedia policy. I think you may have mistaken the nature of the arguments I was actually making, and responded to a slightly different set of arguments.  Please note the Wikipedia policies I cited: those really are the heart of the matter.
 * Let me try to say this as clearly as possible. Wikipedia is, if you read the core policies that are meant to govern editing: WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, clearly designed to be a website that summarises what can be known about a topic from what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources.  (And it is clearly Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources, not yours or mine, that matters here).  WP:V, one of those three core content policies of Wikipedia, explicitly states, 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth - that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.'
 * So, if the disagreement with SSR or individuals from it has not yet reached the point where it can be found in what Wikipedia policy would regard as reliable public sources, then it does not yet belong in a Wikipedia article. That doesn't mean it isn't true.  That doesn't mean it isn't important.  It just means it isn't yet encyclopedia-worthy.  Or do you think I have misinterpreted Wikipedia policy in saying this?
 * Let me try putting it in another way. In some other online context, I would be perfectly happy - at least, I would if I had some confidence that I was not going to be subjected to constant accusations of bad faith - to discuss the substance your accusations about the Society for Scriptural Reasoning; I would be perfectly happy to explain why I find nothing objectionable in an acceptance of certain kinds of 'asymmetries of hospitality', and think that full parity between the faiths in SR is not harmed by some such asymmetries.  I would be perfectly happy to discuss questions of the governance of SR, and to explain why I think that your 'fourth position' description of SSR is wholly mistaken.  But Wikipedia is not that context.  We can't hold the debate in the article itself (I'm sure you'd agree that would obviously and dramatically be a failure to abide by Wikipedia policy on WP:Original Research) - but at present there's simply no way that any description of the disagreement can then point people to reliable public sources where they can follow up the arguments on both sides and make their own considered judgment.
 * Let me be specific. I can't see any way in which the article, without indulging in  original research or failing in its  verifiability duty, can contain any kind of description that says 'There is such and such a disagreement about SR; here's a summary of the arguments on both sides, and pointers to the evidence that each side cites.'  There simply isn't the material out there in reliable sources to allow us to do that.
 * However, as I have already indicated above, that is not to say that silence on these matters is the only option for the article - because there might be other ways in which your position can be reflected. It seems to me, for the reasons discussed above, that the article could in principle state that certain accusations have verifiably been made by a verifiably identifiable group.  But in order to decide whether, where and how the article should do that, and how much space if any it should devote to doing so, we need to move this debate back to the section on undue weight.--mahigton (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I will not be around to respond to discussion here for a few days - until at least Thursday 12th. Work deadlines press, and I have spent much longer on the discussion here than I ought over the last few days. Don't worry, I will be back soon - and will be eager to join in with the discussion again. I hope that in some of what I posted last night, there are at least flickers of a more agreeable way forward. Maybe we can work on those flickers in a few days, once I'm back?

I note, by the way, that Thelongview has elected to take a week off from this page, for his/her own reasons. Given accusations made about the relationship between my editing activity and Thelongview's, I do feel constrained to say that my decision to take a break was reached entirely independently of Thelongview's (I decided once I finished posting after midnight last night, and was not aware of Thelongview's decision until getting back from a snowy walk with my children this morning - snow has prevented me from going to work today!). Please don't take this coincidence to imply anything about my stance towards his/her most recent posts: this is not a wildcat strike in support of or in protest against Thelongview's action!

Best wishes,

--mahigton (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Scriptural Reasoning Society Trustees
As I have already posted to one or two of you privately, I have now notified the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" Trustees of some of the stuff that has been going on with recent editing.

There will be a Trustees meeting in a just over a week or so, and these will be discussed then, and an appropriate response made (decided by them, not me). I am letting you know the issues I have raised with them purely by way of background information, not to enter into a debate about whether what I have said to them is valid and what I ought to have said:

External Damage to Interpersonal and Inter-organisational Relations Off-Wikipedia

 * I have told the Trustees that I have repeatedly placed notices on this page to users Thelongview, Mahigton and Laysha101 and privately on talk pages, the fact that I was aiming honestly to state the fact of there being frank disagreements in the practice of Scriptural Reasoning as a matter of historical fact. The factual historicity of these events in Scriptural Reasoning is something which we, David Ford and many others know from personal knowledge and experience (whether or not we and they agree or disagree about the substance of the arguments themselves), and this has historically resulted in new "Schools" of Scriptural Reasoning.  It is important and right that these matters of history in Scriptural Reasoning about whose historical truth we all agree as having actually happened (despite disagreeing with each other on the arguments themselves), are recorded and I have tried to reference these as far as possible.
 * BUT at the same time, I have notified Thelongview, Mahigton, Laysha101 repeatedly that in the earlier edits I had aimed to keep this wording discrete and non-personalised (eg. "there have been disagreements...some SR practitioners say...other SR practitioners disagree") to avoid causing damage to relationships off-Wikipedia -- and to avoid opening a can of worms on some really bitter and nasty history. I have told the Trustees that in earliest edits I did not mention David Ford or anyone else by name, out of that motive for non-personalisation, and I did not and still have not raised one or two really inflammatory matters on this article -- such as controversies around financial fraud, and so on -- despite Thelongview now digging at it on another article.
 * I have told the Trustees that despite my repeated expressions to User Thelongview, Mahigton and Laysha101 that this was my motive of trying to balance on the one hand frankness and honesty and referencing on Wikipedia incorporating as much referencing as was diplomatic, with on the other hand some discretion and tact for its external impact --- some of you (especially one of you, more than any of the other two) has hounded me to the point where embarassing material which both I, and I suspect David Ford, would have preferred was not brought out, has now indeed come out. I have told the Trustees that this controversy is now spilling over on to other Wikipedia articles off the Wikipedia Scriptural Reasoning one -- eg. on issues of desecration -- despite my yet again offering friendly warning to the relevant user to be careful what you ask for in demanding ever more detailed and gruesome referencing, because if you demand horrible details on the article, you will get it, but this could have potentially damaging consequences for interpersonal and inter-organisational relationships off-Wikipedia.  (BTW, since my telling the Trustees this, I still notice, in relation to another article yet another note has now appeared from one of you asking for more detail on another really inflammatory issue, when I had already counselled him discretion)
 * I have told the Trustees that I am caused to believe that there must be some bad faith here, from the three of you. Mahigton has stated repeatedly that what he calls "light referencing" is required when the facts are not in dispute - as demonstrated in the SR Wiki article in relation to a number unreferenced statements about Scriptural Reasoning and its history which have been written up by you therein.  Mahigton's statement here is not exacting Wikipedia policy, but it is quite simply common sense.  However, the facts in relation to a whole range of things from "asymmetries of hospitalities" and endlessly onwards from there, are of course NOT in dispute either, because both Mahigton and Thelongview know David Ford extremely well, as former supervisor, academic collaborator, friend, both personally and professionally, and could simply pick up the phone to him to confirm certain facts (I have every reason to guess that they may already have) -- which are simply matters thereafter for "light referencing" -- that would enable tact and wisdom and diplomacy and not stirring things up in the real world.
 * I have therefore proposed to the Trustees that since my pleas for tact in this area have been disregarded, I think I should stop making them, and simply repond postively when Thelongview wants the explosive dirt on St Ethelburga's, or when Mahigton wants more detailed stuff and referencing on what David Ford may or may not have said or done. From now on, you will get whatever gruesome and personalised detail you ask for -- and it will go into the public domain on Wikipedia
 * I have however told the Trustees that I am getting fed up of doing this thing with one hand tied behind my back. Therefore, I have requested them now to consider at the Trustees meeting agreeing to drop a brief note, for information only, to the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and its Elders Peter Ochs and David Ford. This note will be to put on the record in writing that any future embarassing material (more correspondence from David Ford, stuff about St Ethelburga's financial fraud) which comes into the public domain on Wikipedia, is published in response to demands made from you, Thelongview, Mahigton, Laysha101 for ever more detail -- purportedly on the grounds that you want to be good Wikipedians -- and I am therefore obliging your demands.  Hence, any resulting external damage to personal and institutional relationships is not my fault, and the SSR should accept that as you are its members.  I think that is fair, and will thereafter give me the liberty to consider only the Wikipedia article and the detailed verifiability of its content, without any longer having a moral/conscientious "conflict of interest" to consider its external impact in the real world, --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just returned from a week's break, prompted by personal attacks in response to my call for editors to assume good faith. I had hoped this might lower the temperature of the discussion.  Instead, there are now threats added to attacks.  I am thus taking a further week for reflection and will decide on my return how best to respond. Thelongview (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Material about the Scriptural Reasoning Society and Interfaith Alliance

 * I have told the Trustees some of the stuff one or more of you have written and alleged about these organisations
 * In relation to the Scriptural Reasoning Society, where I am more involved, I have proposed that we start to communicate with the person behind User Thelongview (and possibly also David Ford), provided of course that Thelongview is agreeable to being contacted. If you are not, then please say, otherwise I will assume that is okay.
 * In relation to the Interfaith Alliance, this is being dealt with separately from me by some of the the other non-SR-involved Trustees directly -- and I will say that the non-SR involved part of the Board of Trustees are a bit miffed that the name of Interfaith Alliance has been dragged into this, and spilling over now onto the issue Interfaith Alliance articles, as stated in the post by Thelongview above. But anyway, this is the responsibility of other Trustees.

Anyhow, none of this has been formally agreed by the Board, so please do not make any assumptions about what will or should happen. But I thought I should let you know, as it is relevant to the editing of this Wikipedia article, and its impact on relationships between people in Scriptural Reasoning in the real world. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Thelongview, Mahigton
Prior to the Board of Trustees meeting, it would be helpful for informed discusion and decisions if you might kindly supply the following answers, as you think best. This will ensure that incorrect assumptions or misrepresentations about your views and position are not made, and that some progress can be made:


 * User Thelongview: Would it be correct to say, judging from your various statements and edits, that you define "Scriptural Reasoning" as a practice that is by definition something that is strictly the project of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning.  SR was after all invented, as you put it, by Peter Ochs, David Ford, and is developed in a specific context by a specific group together with collaborators and other groups which are in communication with that specific group?  More specifically, what I'm aiming to get at is, would it be correct to say that your personal view is that while the Scriptural Reasoning Society is a group that uses the name "Scriptural Reasoning", as you say, since you say the SRS is not in communication with David Ford and Peter Ochs Society for Scriptural Reasoning in an ideal world:  1) what we do is actually not strictly Scriptural Reasoning 2) Or it would be better if we didn't call it "Scriptural Reasoning" but something else, since the name really belongs to the activity of the SSR and those others who are its collaborators?  Is this fair?  If not, would be appreciated if you might clarify your views on this one.


 * User Thelongview and User Mahigton (each of you as individuals): You have talked about "Due Weight" in terms of the representation a group should be given on a Wikipedia article.  You have referred to the Scriptural Reasoning Society as a "minority view" which should proportionately have less space in words on the Wikipedia SR article.  You have a headed section on the SR Article called "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and deleted the previous headed section "Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School)".  In order to help discussions move forward on this, please would you advise:


 * a) In relation to the Society for Scriptural Reasoning - in absolute numbers of people who are members, how large would you say this is (in your personal view, I don't expect you to run a census)? Of course I don't expect an exact figure -- but are we talking about the 35 or so folk who are published as members of the SR Theory Group, or that group plus the number of people at the University of Virginia local group?  How many people would you identify and claim as members of your constituency, roughly - a few dozen, hundred, couple of hundred, thousands upon thousands?


 * b) Proportionately, what would you guess is the percentage ratio of the above number, relative to the rough number of people you hazard a guess are associated with the Scriptural Reasoning Society as folk who are on our books, come to meetings, etc -- roughly, are we 0.1% of the SSR number, 1%, 10%? Please indulge me and hazard a guess.


 * c) Therefore, taking the above into account, and explaining any additional considerations you would like to add, what relative proportion in the article -- for sake of argument let's say relative ratio in terms of number of words -- what should be the relative percentage of wordage on the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its groups or activities versus the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and its member groups and activities --- say 99.9 : 0.1 OR 99:1 OR 90:10 OR any other rough ratio/order of magnitude?  Thanks. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Thelongview, but I don't imagine anyone contests that SR is the name of a practice (i) that was initiated and developed by Peter Ochs, David Ford, Dan Hardy, Basit Koshul and others, and (ii) which, although it has then spread and developed in a variety of ways, is describable wherever it occurs in the terms they established - the terms that are reflected in this Wikipedia article's 'Method' and 'Key Features' sections.


 * SRS is in the rather odd position. (i) It pursues this practice in a way that is, like all SR, directly and substantially indebted to that initial development (i.e., SRS does something called 'SR' only because Peter Ochs, David Ford, Basit Koshul and others did it first). (ii) It pursues SR in a way that does not in practice differ significantly from the other forms of SR that emerged from that development (i.e., SRS practice, I take it, conforms well to the description in the 'Method' and 'Key Features' sections of the article, and I presume (or hope) that SRS would stop using the SR name if ever their practice stopped looking like that).  (iii) Unlike any other form of SR, however, it in some of its public statements explicitly distances itself from the existing interrelated networks of SR associated with SR's founders, even though by using the name SR it will continue unavoidably and inevitably to be associated with them.  That's a strange situation, but the article already clearly acknowledges it.


 * For due weight purposes, we need to distinguish two different aspects under which the controversial material can be considered. In the first place, there is the weight that should be given to a particular historical incident in the description of the evolution of SR.  There, it is appropriate to take into account how many people have been affected by the incidents in question, even if they have no knowledge about them or concern with them.  So, several sentences in the present form of the article are devoted to the process by which SR was first established: that's obviously appropriate, as all SR everywhere is directly and indisputably indebted to those processes.  Had they not happened, no-one would be doing SR.  Then the rest of the history of the development is described very briefly.  The formation of the Scriptural Reasoning Group at AAR, for instance - a Group whose activities typically involved some hundreds of people each year (I don't know how many; I would not be surprised if, by now, the number who have been involved over the years is in the 1000s) - gets 12 words: no more than a simple name-check.  The SRT/SRU group, which even though small in number has had by far the largest public impact in the academic world, gets about 16 words: another simple name-check.  SR at Princeton, which has been quite influential academically, is not named at all - because there don't seem to be publicly available sources to point to.  SR activities in Israel/Palestine don't appear, for similar reasons.  So the proposal that Laysha101 and I have made, that there be a clearer sentence devoted to SRS in this historical section (to expand slightly the current comment about its non-affiliation with SSR) would seem to be quite appropriate against that background.  That would, in length terms, give SRS rather more weight than any other single strand of contemporary SR - but given the peculiarities of the situation, I am prepared to accept that might be appropriate.


 * In terms of the actual content of that disagreement, though, we're talking about something that a handful of people got excited about and involved in, and which (at best) only a handful of people have continued to take an active interest in. We're talking about something which the vast majority of the hundreds or possibly thousands who are and have been involved in or interested in SR activities in the UK, the US, and elsewhere, know and care nothing about.   We're talking about something with has left no trace in reliable public sources, no traces that would enable the nature and course of that debate, or the issues involved, to be traced, weighed, and judged.  As I have said, that there was, as a matter of fact, a disagreement (and that it played a role in the founding of SRS) probably does deserve due mention in the section of the article that talks about Developments; that mention can, of course, appropriately give brief indication of what it was about - and, of course, it must point people to the sources where readers can find out a little more.  But using the article to give any kind of substantial, detailed account of that disagreement would obviously be disproportionate and inappropriate: it would, after all, be the only reliable public source that people could go to to find such a substantial, detailed account - and that is about the simplest definition of Original Research you could ask for.


 * Let me put it this way: Wikipedia policies are designed to ensure that Wikipedia remains a summary of the state of public knowledge: the state of public consensus, and the state of public disagreement, about a particular topic. And that word 'public' means that Wikipedia should never itself need to be the final port of call for someone investigating the topic in question; it should always be possible for an ordinary reader with access to the internet and to good libraries to follow references from the article and to find reliable public sources that say more fully all that the articles says about public consensus and of public disagreement.  Wikipedia is resolutely and explicitly a secondary source (which is why I, as an academic, can so strongly insist that my students never cite Wikipedia: they should always be able to find clearly reliable public sources for anything contained on Wikipedia).  And 'reliability' is not a measure of what editors happen to know about the accuracy of a given site - it's a measure of how much trust a random Wikipedia reader can appropriately put in a source.  So, for instance, for Wikipedia purposes, I would have to treat a peer-reviewed academic journal article as a reliable source even if it contained material that I knew to be untrue.  So if the reliable sources are not there, that's not an indication that the claims in question are untrue - it's not a question about truth at all.  It is simply an indication that the material in question cannot yet be presented as a summary of the state of reliably identified, fully public knowledge or opinion about a particular topic - and therefore that the material in question, however interesting and accurate it may happen to be, is not appropriate for Wikipedia.


 * --mahigton (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - Employment and Organizational Affiliations
An important guideline here is our guideline on conflict of interest. You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organisations in which you hold a vested interest. However, if you feel that there is material within the article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, please point this out on the article's talk page.

Editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must be extremely careful to follow our policies.

I draw the above guideline to the attention of all users (myself included), particularly in relation to vested interests of the users mahigton Thelongview, Laysha101 and others I have listed as being either employed by or associated with David Ford and the Society for Scriptural Reasoning or Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme --- in their editing and removal of material by other users concerning or critiquing these organizations. Contrary to the statements by some of you, from Wikipedia's point of view your employer or organisational connections and conflicts of vested interest are not "irrelevant".

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, I read this. I've been pretty careful to follow Wikipedia policies, although I'm happy to be informed if & how I've failed to do so. How about you?Laysha101 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. I am aware of that guideline, and have been trying to follow it all along.  WP:COI has quite specific guidance on conflicts like the one that has been taking place on this talk page.  The section on Defending Interests is the most direct guidance we have:
 * "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 Wikipedia'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."
 * Scripturalreasoning's basic case is, I take it, that I (and other editors) have been removing critical material, and that this is - in the words of this policy - 'not permitted'. The paragraph also, however, indicates the grounds on which the merits of that case can be judged: it has to do with the public nature of the controversy from which the critical material comes, the reliability of the sources, and due weight.  If the edits I have made can be defended on those grounds (and are consistent with other WP policies), then they are defensible edits; if the edits I have made cannot be defended on those grounds (or are not consistent with other WP policies), then they are not defensible edits.  In other words, to argue seriously about the nature of the sources, and to discuss due weight, is the proper way to respond to the fact that everyone who has done any substantial work on the article in recent months has 'interests' in the material, and therefore potential conflicts of interest.
 * One clear corollary of this is that serious engagement on these issues of WP policy is all that is needed to respond to the kind of COI accusation that has been made against me and against other editors. Continued repetition of that COI accusation, and personal attacks on the honesty and integrity of the editors who are being accused of COI, is a distracting, distressing and irrelevant tactic.--mahigton (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Scripturalreasoning has raised the conflict of interest issue at the COI noticeboard, WP:COIN, where all concerned might want to discuss it (but please try to keep it terse - this quasi-legal disputation is a PITA, and generally viewed as disruptive). As Mahigton says, COI policy is not a tactical weapon to undermine the credibility of opposing editors; its chief thrust is to ensure that those with a potential COI are editing within generally expected standards that are often breached when someone has a close interest (e.g WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, WP:SOAP, WP:AGF, WP:TE). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, user Gordonofcartoon, before any further preaching from you, and before any further conversation by me with you, please remove the statement which you have written on my personal talkpage, "And please stop this total arse about...", as foul words are not what I have used in writing to you, and they are not acceptable. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)SR, this is the third different place you've posted the exact same comment. If you really think GoC is being uncivil, raise a case in the proper venue. However, simply electing not to respond to his comments is not an option. I would counsel you to continue to respond to the discussion on this page and at the COI board. Dayewalker (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks user Dayewalker. I think the basic and simplest point on COI on this article, is that there are number of editors on it all connected to the practice of Scriptural Reasoning.  This is not of itself unhelpful, enabling editors to write from experience.  However, the article is being turned clearly into a promotional brochure for Scriptural Reasoning, not a reflection of:
 * Some modesty and factual integrity in stating that Scriptural Reasoning is nothing especially new, though the term "Scriptural Reasoning" describes the name which a particular group chose to give a practice of Interfaith Scriptural Reading which many others have done before -- though I await to see further editing which outlines SR's innovating and unique characteristics. This has been set within my own personal knowledge and experience of the way that Scriptural Reasoning is marketed heavily and exaggerated claims made about its being something entirely pioneering and powerful with a vast constituencey, with roadshows and public showcasing of the practice by some of its leaders.  This is in contrast to other near-identical practices of inter-disciplinary interfaith scripture reading which have been going on for years, but do not sell themselves so extensively.  This I hope can be understood as the reason for my (rightly or wrongly) being wary this Wikipedia article and its editing in that context -- as I see elements of that marketing here.
 * That there are some problems in the history of Scriptural Reasoning. There is a historical split which gave rise to a new group that is the largest in the UK, and this less than flattering part of the history of SR should not be whitewashed out in an "SR is wonderful" promotional brochure.
 * Contrary to the perception on this page, while I have declared clearly my involvement in the "Scriptural Reasoning Society", I am however, not a Trustee of this or any other organisation, and I do not even hold any official officership (Convener, Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, anything else), and so do not formally have any institutional COI by virtue of being an employee or officer of any Scriptural Reasoning organisation. Also, for the record, I have no "loyalty" at all for the Scriptural Reasoning Society as an institution/structure, despite my having contributed a lot of work to it.  My loyalty and commitment is to certain values of parity, equality, truth and non-exploitation in the practice of Scriptural Reasoning as a whole (whichever group does it).  The SRS can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned, if there is any hint of its Trustees and officers abandoning those ethical principles to which I am passionately committed.  I therefore freely declare a COI with my wanting the article to represent some of these ethical elements in the debates around Scriptural Reasoning Theory and Practice, but that's hardly a formal COI in the Wikipedia sense.  The fact that there are other editors who are employed exactly to support particular organisations and their promotion is entirely material to the editing of this article -- given the points made above and hereunder.
 * However, contrary to what has been suggested by some others, I for one am far less interested in promoting all the projects that the SRS have done, are doing, and have raised less of a concern about this than the ethical issues above. This is in stark contrast to recent edits by one other editor which seems to be doing just that -- after preaching to me about "promotional" editing.  I am relatively easy going about the number of links to Scriptural Reasoning Society projects ("oh, we must have a link to this exciting thing we're doing..."), as that isn't my point.  I also (mildly) resent (though am more amused than anything else about) the institutional promotion and claims to ownership of SR by the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, and swamping of mutliple links on the article to various local SSR projects, one or two of them redundant or non-referenced.  But I really don't care either way.  On the other hand however, to delete the contribution of faith communities on the other hand to ethical discourse on SR theory and conduct, such as discussion of Islamic fatwas on Scriptural Reasoning ethical practice is inexcusable
 * It is all very well for this matter of what constitutes a Verifiable Reference to be debated - and the way that these are applied inconsistently given the number of non-referenced elements in the current edit of the article. But the fundamental question of Wikipedia not being here to write promotional "Scriptural Reasoning is a jolly wonderful and good thing and the sun shines all day in SR land" article but rather to report historical truth -- none of this has been addressed.  All the Wikipedia regulations in the world are worthless if they are not able to prevent powerful vested interest lobbies from skewing articles on this (what I presumed was a) democratic resource, in order to advertise their glowing, spotless, jolly good and controversy-free products.  It makes a nonsense of all the other Wikipedia regulatory talk and legalism, given that it is possible to write a well-referenced and entirely factually skewed Wikipedia article.  This is where historical and factual truth and Wikilegalism are at odds, and make a nonsense of the spirit of Wikipedia aims to avoid product placement.


 * --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the perception on this page...
 * Could you address this part at WP:COIN where it was raised? There are, of course, other forms of affiliation than being a member or employee-in-the-strict-sense of an organisation): for instance, freelance professionals with a business relationship. But I'm far less interested in that than whether the overall edit pattern is a) neutral and b) constructive. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
After a thorough re-read, a thought about cleanup: I'm not keen on the "linkfarm" flavour of some of the body text. I can't recall where in WP:MOS this is, but I think it's the usual practice for in-text refs to stick to citations of sources actually used to write the article. General background links (i.e. websites for organisations/journals) go in the External links section. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've removed another unreferenced claim.  Are there many others prompting Refimprove? Thelongview (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The desperate promotional advertising nature of the previous edit, ("the international journal...the international editors...the international...") has been made more neutral and just a simple list, so no more advertising SR please, Thelongview. The categories are 1)academic SR 2)civic SR 3) projects derived from civic SR 4) a short list of some online developments -- this last either stays as it is -- short -- or is dropped entirely.


 * The opening line has put Scriptural Reasoning in its proper place as just one practice among many others of interfaith-interdisciplinary scriptural reading.


 * The descriptive sections are too promotional, and need shortening to just a brief description of some points describing aspects of SR which are 1)interdiscplinary-interfaith reading, the same stuff as everyone else does (ie. meeting in small groups, promoting respect for differences, not blurring differences) 2) what is different about SR? I can't write this as frankly I can't see very much that is unique about it, so I will leave that for mahigton or someone to research and tell us all.


 * --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there many others prompting Refimprove?Some of the links citing material http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ just go to the front page, with no indication where the citation lives (and of course aren't deep-linkable in the new Flash site). For example, I can't find anything called the Scriptural Reasoning Society Community Preamble (which appears to be a highfalutin description of "the front page of the website". Or "It is therefore sometimes said that the key to SR is 'not consensus but friendship' ... for other examples of its use see the Scriptural Reasoning Society website" - again, just a link to the front page.


 * That is why the citations are quoted verbatim in the footnotes, for transparency. The "Community Preamble" is an agreed wording which goes on other literature of the SRS, and not just front page of website.  There is other stuff on the website which is just...website...and not agreed or drafted wording, hence the name.  Either way whatever you call it, the citations are quoted in footnoting. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've tagged the History section for neutrality concerns. It comes across as soapboxing for the Scriptural Reasoning Society, and it'd be nice to see third-party confirmation of where it fits into the scheme of things (i.e. why its views should be given equal space in the section). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Soapboxing how? Actually, the reference to the claim "Scriptural Reasoning was invented and developed by a group which now form the Society for Scriptural Reasoning" is a concession to the statement made by user thelongview from the SSR - and the words "invented and developed" are his.  There is a defined membership-based group which disagrees with this view, and that has been cited, with verbatim citations off the source website of the group's view (I have added quotation marks and used "alleged" a couple of times so it is clear that this is a quote).  Okay:

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
 * 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)?
 * Given the preponderance in the referencing of Scriptural Reasoning of articles published by David Ford and immediate founder collaborator of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, what exactly is a "third party reference/confirmation"? While colleagues of mine are aware of what has been going on with the editing of this article, I have strongly discouraged them from joining the Wikipedia editing, as there are at least three folk who would jump down my throat over "Meatpuppetry" recruitment.  Consensus is fine, but when the three other editors on this page are all linked to the organisation being critiqued, it's kind of not likely that an impartial view is going to be forthcoming.
 * In an article on World Religions, given that we know that vastly more material on the Jewish faith (of 13.2 million people) has been published in peer-reviewed English-language journals, than Hinduism (of approximately a billion people) which does not command anything like the same academic English-language publishing, the fact that a tiny Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group which by definition has some prolific publishing writers like David Ford, does not make it an exclusive view that cuts out others.


 * --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re this edit - please find citations before adding stuff. "Citation needed" is not carte blanche to add unreferenced material. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The citations have been added --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows
This statement has just appeared on the Scriptural Reasoning Society website:, which makes claims about the affiliations and motives of some editors here. I've posted it as an update to WP:COIN.

As far as I'm concerned, content discussion is pointless until the user conduct issues are settled. It's an attack-by-proxy. Solicit external pressure on Wikipedia editors about article content can hardly be viewed as a neutral relationship to the topic, or an example of collegiate editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Before engaging in wild personal accusations of my "soliciting external pressure", you might want to get your facts straight first. Since I am not a Trustee, Chair, Secretary, etc of any organisation and make no decisions or statements on its behalf, and since the statement you reference makes no named mention of Wikipedia nor lists any usernames of any Wikipedian, all that exists is your own fantastic speculation about motives and personal connections.  In addition, since I happen to know that the Scriptural Reasoning Society has received at least one telephone contact from the officer of an external organisation precisely in relation to the Wikipedia article [naming it and discussing its recent editing and criticising it] and precisely attempting to "solicit external pressure" in regard to its editing -- you might want to be advised of that first before you say anything else.


 * Anyone is entitled to talk to their colleagues. I mean look at the mysterious way that within a matter of days after 27 November 2008, a load of editors suddenly arrived -- including the three users listed above who all know each other as colleagues in the real world -- plus various others from the Society for Scriptural Reasoning.  Soliciting pressure? --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Scripturalreasoning, you did say that you had notified the trustees. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi PhilKnight, the sequence of events was that some time before all of this, the Trustees were first alerted to what was going on with editing of the article Scriptural Reasoning because they had received a telephone call from a lead officer of a national interfaith organisation of which two of the organisations I have critiqued on the article Scriptural Reasoning or discussion page (the Cambridge Inter Faith Programme and St Ethelburga's -- all part of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning network) are affiliate members (I have strong reason to believe some of the other users on this article are associated with one or more of these latter organisations). The caller discussed and criticised the editing of the article and the editing of user Scripturalreasoning, and this then got to an IT chap for the SRS/IAUK who is a friend of mine and he was initially blamed as being user Scripturalreasoning but of course it was not him, and it is me, and of course I had discussed with my friend what has been going on here on a personal level so he knew about me.  Based on this external pressure that had been brought to bear, I got told off initially by the officers, for "causing external relationship damage" and I explained what was going on and told my side of the story (you can see what I told them from my post).  I have also -- as you can see from the record -- posted informally to the other users saying that this recent editing Scriptural Reasoning had started to spill out into the real world, and to back off and avoid stirring things up.  This was partly due to edits made by Thelongview on other articles on the Interfaith Alliance in relation to I didn't even know until I was told, and which I am not concerned or bothered.


 * So with absolute clarity, no I was not the first one who notified the Trustees about what was going on, it was a phone call from an officer of a national interfaith organisation of which the Cambridge Inter Faith Programme and St Ethelburga's are affiliated members (so you might want to ask the other users who associate with these organisations how that happened). That externally solicited pressure, is how the Trustees initially found out about the editorial dispute on Wikipedia.  I got told off, drawn into the conversation and so this was all discussed and they have since talked.


 * In terms of irregular external recruitment and pressure on the Wikipedia article, I think there are major questions as to the circumstances of arrival on or around 27 November 2008 of a significant number of new editors, in some cases entirely newly registered to Wikipedia, all associated with the same Society for Scriptural Reasoning organisation, and in the case of users Thelongview Laysha101 Mahigton who all know each other.


 * --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)