Talk:Society of Biblical Literature

Edit revert
The "issue" is that: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/publishingwithsbl.aspx does not verify that "The SBL Handbook of Style ... is taken not just a generic style guidebook for academic writing but also includes a standardised list of abbreviations for specific primary sources, and recommendations on transliteration systems, such as ISO 259 for transliteration of Hebrew into English, and the SBL Book Review." -- this appears to be simply your own interpretation of this handbook -- and thus 'blatant WP:Synthesis.
 * 2) "From the beginning of his career, Bob has been actively involved in the guild of biblical scholars, ... With impressive consistency, his name appears on the SBL program year after year, most often as a specially invited participant. ..." does not support that "The SBL is often irrevently referred to as "the guild" by biblical scholars both inside and outside, given the dominance of the association in the field."
 * 3) Nor does "It produced an admirably rich collection of investigations on the history of interpretation, ranging from the lxx all the way down to the present Isaianic guild at the SBL, via the broad spectrums of scribal locations such as Qumran, " support this claim.

[Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]

(diff | hist). . Society of Biblical Literature‎; 04:38. . (-1,546) . . Hrafn (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 448805576 by In ictu oculi (talk)Rvt per talk -- cited sources DO NOT SUPPORT these claims!)
 * Hi, Then what do the ref sources mean? These are very vanilla facts about a very well known and notable body, what's the problem? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Discussion of an article belongs on article talk, especially when the referred-to-dif EXPLICITLY states "per talk"
 * 2) The first citation only 'means' that the handbook exists.
 * 3) The second citation means that the SBL was once referred to as "the guild of biblical scholars" -- in all apparent seriousness.
 * 4) The third citation means that there is, within the SBL, a group that was once referred to as "the present Isaianic guild at the SBL" -- again in apparent seriousness.
 * 5) There is no indication that the SBL is referred to simply as "the guild", let alone evidence that it is done "often", let alone that it is done irreverently.


 * Hi Hrafn
 * 1. Can we start by just checking something - Do you 'want other editors to firm up refs, or do you object to the content, or the existence of the article for other reasons?
 * 2. As far as the "The SBL Handbook of Style. It's useful to write something, what do you want to write?
 * Does it NOT include a standardised list of abbreviations for specific primary sources?
 * Does it NOT include recommendations on transliteration systems, such as ISO 259 for transliteration of Hebrew into English?
 * 3. If you know anything about this association you'll have heard it being ironically referred to as "the guild," yes? So what's the problem with noting the fact (which those two sources show) that the SBL is often referred to ironically as "the guild." I could produce 10 WP:RS for this, but as you've deleted 2 before I insert 10 perhaps you explain what your objection is?
 * Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What I want is quality content -- which means material which is (i) based upon WP:SECONDARY sources, and (ii) what these sources actually explicitly say.
 * 2) The handbook is a WP:PRIMARY source, so should not be mentioned at all unless discussed in a secondary source.
 * 3) That it is "not just a generic style guidebook" is your interpretation, and thus WP:Synthesis.
 * 4) "The threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth – whether readers can check that it has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Has the claim been published (in a reliable source) that "it [is] ironically referred to as 'the guild'"? No? Then it doesn't belong in the article.
 * Well I'd like quality content too, that's e.g. why I responded to your notability tag by adding in the Cutter 2004 ref with the foundation date 1880. So why did you delete it?
 * You haven't addressed the two questions above.
 * 1. So will you let me add a secondary source mentioning it? Or will you delete it. I'm not going to push to 2RR simply to add sources and then have you delete them. As for "not just a generic style guidebook," do you think it IS a generic style guidebook?
 * 2. As for the guild comment - I ask again, I provided 2 but can provide 10, how many WP RS do you require before you will not delete? Again I am reluctant to push to 2RR simply because you are deleting refs.
 * Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I quite simply didn't see Cutter among all the other changes in your edit. I have restored him (with a full citation).
 * 2) Whether I delete it or not will depend on whether the citation actually states what you say about the handbook.
 * 3) See below -- very rarely do they baldly call it "the guild". Rather the quotes given indicate that they view it as a guild -- which is hardly noteworthy for a scholarly society.
 * The claim that "quality" and being based on secondary sources are the same is false. On the other hand encyclopedic means that the thing is built on secondary sources.  These are neither the same nor mutually exclusive, they are just different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By "quality" I meant 'good encyclopaedic' content. Yes, I didn't nail down things like 'necessary' versus 'necessary and sufficient' -- but this is a Wikipedia talk conversation, not a formal logic tutorial, so I didn't think that a perfect level of exactitude was either necessary or helpful. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1880 ref also removed
Hrafn, I'm struggling to see why this was deleted after adding a tag requesting WP:RS
 * The Society of Biblical Literature was founded in 1880 ref Judaica reference sources: a selective, annotated bibliographic guide p102 Charles Cutter - 2004 "The Society of Biblical Literature was founded in 1880 "to advance the public understanding of.."" ref

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to ressurect ancient history, could you at least provide a dif. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And why did you remove three of four of Wexford Alliance's June 2011 edits + refs? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the SBL-website/SBL-published refed material due to excessive self-description. I removed the Merrick material because (i) it made no mention of SBL & (ii) its relevance was dependent on the SBL-sourced material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoah
Hrafn, I'd already invited those who edited in the last 12 months to come to Talk. But I just saw what you did 4 Aug 2011 after John Pack Lambert's edit]. I'm all for stripping out excess flab on articles, and all for WP:RS, but anyone looking at the page history... In ictu oculi (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at the citations for the material removed: Rather than have an article like this, we might as well simply redirect to the SBL website and have done with it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/AnnualMeeting.aspx
 * 2) http://www.sbl-site.org/educational/biblicalfonts.aspx
 * 3) "publisher = Scholars Press" (i.e. the SBL)
 * 4) http://www.sbl-site.org/SSappendix.aspx#Appendix-I
 * 5) Journal of Biblical Literature -- their journal
 * 6) Robin Gallaher Branch -- an SBL member
 * 7) An announcement from the AAR that it was having a concurrent meeting with the SBL
 * 8) http://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/congresses_pastmeetings.aspx


 * Yes, well some of the were their own publications and website, where a bit of trimming or a tag would be appropriate, but some of this is meaningful information.
 * As far as edit history goes. This is where you deleted "founded 1880" it's not ancient history, it's today

(cur | prev) 04:38, 7 September 2011 Hrafn (talk | contribs) (1,808 bytes) (Undid revision 448805576 by In ictu oculi (talk)Rvt per talk -- cited sources DO NOT SUPPORT these claims!) (undo)
 * As far as the edit history en toto since Nov 2010, there's several I would agree with, but you may be erring on the side of delete first, rather than tag/discuss.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Please don't dump unformatted text into the talkpage -- it's simply a useless & unreadable mess.
 * 2) The article had in fact been tagged for excessive primary sourcing since November last year, with a comment here on talk -- no attempt had been made to correct it, nor any attempt to defend the sources -- so I took WP:SILENCE as consent, was WP:BOLD and removed them.
 * Hrafn,
 * Well that's as may be, but you didn't have my consent by silence yesterday or today to twice delete "founded 1880", nor the source related to SBL Handbook, or guild. Thanks for restoring the founded 1880 - though it was better in the original position. Would you know make a selection from the "guild" refs and add restore, in whatever form you like, that? Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a different issue -- reverting of newly-introduced material that involves WP:Synthesis of sources is standard practice. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sure I trust you not to be guilty of WP:synthesis, you can make whatever use you like of the 9 above sources to put whatever copy about "guild" and "SBL" into the article you wish. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Whoah" is right. So much useful history and current information has been removed since I saw this article last time. Please dont treat such a respected institution as if they are pathological liars. They are the publishers of reliable sources!! We can find better sources. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

SBL "guild" nickname WP RS
Probably copy should say something like "SBL is sometimes ironically identified with, or as part of, the "guild" of biblical scholars:" In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading the Bible in the global village: Cape Town Justin S. Ukpong - 2002 "I thus felt the urge to tabulate the various faces and stages of inculturation to educate the SBL guild (God forbid it)! Why? Shouldn't the SBL guild have traveled with inculturation hermeneutics, just as its members have agonized over ..."
 * Thus says the Lord: essays on the Former and Latter Prophets p4  Robert R. Wilson, John J. Ahn, Stephen L. Cook - 2009 "From the beginning of his career, Bob has been actively involved in the guild of biblical scholars, ... With impressive consistency, his name appears on the SBL program year after year, most often as a specially invited participant. ..."
 * The Desert Will Bloom: Poetic Visions in Isaiah p2 A. Joseph Everson, Hyun Chul Paul Kim - 2009 "It produced an admirably rich collection of investigations on the history of interpretation, ranging from the lxx all the way down to the present Isaianic guild at the SBL, via the broad spectrums of scribal locations such as Qumran, ..."
 * Foster Biblical Scholarship: Essays in Honor of Kent Harold Richards p15 Frank Ritchel Ames, Charles William Miller - 2010 "... in the scholarly dialogue and offering the findings of critical scholarship to those outside of the guild. ... Kent Harold Richards, “Leadership with New Vision,” SBL Society Report (2003): 3. The following statement was added in ..."
 * ibid p33 "The most significant change in the Society of Biblical Literature since the initial meeting of eighteen scholars in 1880 was the ... but this one was— perhaps because the members of the biblical guild take written texts so seriously. ..."
 * AAR/SBL annual meeting program 1996 "Through his teaching at the Pacific School of Religion and especially at Union Theological Seminary, his supervision of doctoral students, his scholarship and publications, his leadership in the guild, and his commitment to the Bible in ..."
 * Presidential voices: the Society of Biblical Literature in the ... p342 Harold W. Attridge, James C. VanderKam - 2006 "In the Society of Biblical Literature, no one particular confessional stance or methodological stance can be imposed, ... Analogously, can we not at this point in the biblical guild produce not a cacophony but a symphony of our various ..."
 * The social roots of biblical Yahwism p11 Stephen L. Cook - 2004 "Such approaches have been maturing within the biblical guild in recent decades, and most scholars now recognize their validity and usefulness in interpreting the Bible. I draw on comparisons and parallels from a variety of cultures and ... Society of Biblical Literature"
 * Relating to the text: interdisciplinary and form-critical insights p15 Timothy J. Sandoval, Carleen Mandolfo, Martin J. Buss - 2003  "Since arriving at Emory, Martin has served the local institution and the guild of biblical studies in various capacities. ... He was vice president (and program chair) for the Southeastern Region of the Society of Biblical Literature in ..."
 * Presidential Addresses of the Society of Biblical Literature: www.jstor.org/stable/27638354 P Gray - 2006 "Members of the guild who have served as president of the Society of Biblical Literature comprise an exclusive fraternity."

Only infrequently "the guild" and NOT "irrevently" or "ironically"
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) These sources refer to the SBL as a guild, but only far more infrequently baldly as " the guild" -- definite article and without qualification (such as "the guild of biblical scholars").
 * 2) You have provided no substantiation whatsoever that that this is meant "irrevently" or "ironically".
 * Hi Hrafn, well, shall I suggest then that I let you be the one to restore the "founded 1880" content and source, and at the same time you can add in 3 or 4 of these 9 sources and put in front of them any wording about "guild" in relation to SBL which you like. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the fact that a scholarly society is colloquially described, especially by its members, as a "guild" particularly noteworthy? I would expect this to happen quite frequently. Speaking for myself, I do not think it worthy of inclusion, however if you want to note that a number of sources describe it as a "guild", I have no objection. Please provide full citations though (minimum: title, author, date, page, isbn or journal&issue). I've already re-added Cutter with a full citation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Hrafn, Can you please help me by adding up how many of the above sources say "a guild" and how many say "the guild"? Thanks! :) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, nobody but the SBL itself (SBL Society Report (2003): 3, AAR/SBL annual meeting program 1996, Presidential Addresses of the Society of Biblical Literature) refer to it baldly as "the guild" without some descriptive qualifier. This is of course perfectly understandable -- within the context of the SBL itself, which "guild" is obvious -- in any other context, the reader or listener needs to be told which guild -- so a qualifier is needed. But the article needs to be written from an external point of reference, not an internal one. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again Hrafn :)
 * As you're not familiar with the article subject I guess that's how it might look. But I'm interested in your view, seeing as you've changed the article based on your view.
 * How many of those 9 "guild" sources do you think are SBL internal, and how many are external?
 * And then following that, how many of the "internal" SBL sources from the 9 use "the" and how many of the "external" from the 9 are "a"?
 * Thanks! :) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, and I don't particularly care. That only the SBL itself baldly calls itself "the guild" (as opposed to a "guild" or "the guild of...") is sufficient. Therefore, as we are meant to take an external/third-party viewpoint, we should not baldly call it "the guild", nor place WP:UNDUE weight on the fact that the SBL calls itself thus. To be blunt, it is not my job to find facts that may support some argument you intend to make (the logic of which I'm fairly sure I will disagree with), any more than it is my job to provide adequate citations for content you include (whose noteworthiness I disagree with). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

SBL Handbook of Style, secondary refs
Hrafn, Please add in these two WP RS with your own copy in place of the copy/content deleted, and restore the download link. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Quality Research Papers: For Students of Religion and Theology Nancy Jean Vyhmeister - 2009 "The Society of Biblical Literature has developed a style for use in its own publications. Some schools use this style ... If your school uses the SBL style, please refer to The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999)."
 * Studying the historical Jesus: a guide to sources and methods Darrell L. Bock - 2002 "For standard abbreviations of the Old Testament books, see The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, ed. Patrick H. Alexander et al. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 73"


 * Is either the fact that "the Society of Biblical Literature has developed a style for use in its own publications" or that it has developed a list of "standard abbreviations of the Old Testament books" particularly noteworthy? I would suspect that many scholarly societies that publish their own journal in a fairly specialised field would do this. However, lacking much in the way of third-party coverage, I have no problem with you adding this material if you see fit. It does not however come even close to "address[ing] the subject directly in detail" though. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And time to remove Notability tag
After adding back in the founded 1880, the guild refs (in whatever form you like), and the Handbook of Style WP RS (again in whatever form you like), that will have satisfied WP Notability, and the tag can be removed too :)

Cheers. Everyone happy now? :) In ictu oculi (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The requirement is in fact "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" where significant coverage is defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." No 1880 plus "the guild refs" does not meet this standard. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn
 * You just restored "founded 1880" Cutter 2004 so how can you say Cutter 2004 doesn't qualify as WP:RS?
 * On what grounds are none of the "guild" mentions WP:RS?
 * On what grounds are the 2 SBL Handbook sources above not WP:RS?
 * Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of "sources address the subject directly in detail" did you fail to comprehend? <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC) A start date & a handful of passing mentions of it as a "guild" is not addressing the subject directly and in detail. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Nor is a couple of passing mentions of their handbook. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Hrafn,
 * Well I obviously fail to comprehend what your problem is with the sources. However, you don't have to agree with everything. You've said above that you'll let me insert the SBL Handbook sources. Will you also allow mention of the guild sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem with the sources, as stated, is that they do not "address the subject directly in detail", but merely give it passing mention. Another way of saying this is to say that they lack depth of coverage on the topic. I have already answered your question: "...however if you want to note that a number of sources describe it as a "guild", I have no objection." <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC) What I would be looking for as a solution to this "problem" is an independent reliable source (or better yet multiple sources) that spent at least several paragraphs (and several pages would be even better) specifically discussing the SBL (i.e. the SBL itself is the main topic of the paragraphs). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition or Translation
When reading a scholarly article or book on the Bible, sometimes I see a footnote labeled SBLMS. Is this Society of Biblical Literature manuscript? Can someone define this or translate this for me? Should this be mentioned in the article? L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The acronym SBLMS refers to the SBL Monograph Series, one of many series of books published by the SBL. See the SBL Handbook list of abbreviations (§ 8.4.2). There is probably no need to mention this in the article. --2n4rm (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Update
this needs to be updated, and a new page dedicated to The SBL Handbook of Style should be created, especially because SBL has finally updated its 15-year-old handbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshelley509 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)