User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2010/January

"The Baha'i official Web site makes no claim to an association with the three Abrahamic religions. " at Abrahamic religions
Hi, and happy new year btw. I don't understand the comment in the ref you added. "association" has many meanings. If you mean the religion has no administrative or authority dependence on the other religions, a kind of backward way of saying the religion is independent, then I'd say that seems sound more or less. But if you mean something like the religion has no relationship to the other religions I'd have to disagree. There are already refs about Abraham I and others have brought up. And even a cursory search would turn up innumerable references to the other religions in the scripture of the Baha'i Faith. So what do you mean "The Baha'i official Web site makes no claim to an association with the three Abrahamic religions"? Smkolins (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Smkolins, and a very Happy New Year to you, too. I realize this is a "touchy" issue, and also that you have some strong opinions on it, which I respect.


 * Re: "The religion is independent" comes from their Website: "The Bahá'í Faith is the youngest of the world's independent religions. They don't define the adjective, so I didn't attempt to, either. Feel free to improve on it.


 * Re: "The Bahá'í official Web site makes no claim to an association with the three Abrahamic religions." A true statement. For whatever reason, neither the US hq nor world hq makes any statements about Bahá'í being Abrahamic. What's a better way to say that? I struggled with terms like "the ____ three," traditional? main? original? Will appreciate your suggestion here as elsewhere.


 * This article should contain comparable parallels between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (JCI) and Bahá'í. For example, until I added it last night, there was no parallel subheading on Bahá'í's relationship to Abraham, without which it definitely doesn't qualify as an Abrahamic Religion. In trying to find a connection, I found what I quoted from the Bahá'í Official Website. They claim no connection to Abraham other than that Bahá’u’lláh, "the latest in a line of great religious figures that includes 'Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad'." Do you know why the official Websites do not even mention it, or am I overlooking it somewhere?


 * The official Website says Bahá'í claims kinship with Buddhism, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism,  two of which are defined as major non-Abrahamic world religions" and all of which are quite unique from JCI in most ways. It is difficult to draw parallels between Bahá'í and Abrahamic JCI. Although some have claimed Bahá'í is a "breakaway" from Islam, that is disputed, and there is no clear evidence provided in our Wiki article. IMO, this article needs to show clear, documented, well-sourced parallels of Bahá'í to the religions which have been historically and traditionally recognized as Abrahamic. Those might include evidence of:
 * Inextricable linkage to one another because of a 'family likeness'
 * Certain commonality in theology.[3]
 * Faiths that recognize a spiritual tradition identified with Abraham.
 * At present, our article does not do that.


 * Thanks again for your comments, and I look forward to your reply. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then we are agreed on the first point that the religion considered itself independent so that can be stated if it needed - not sure it is as that's why it's listed universally as a religion in it own right compared with entries like "Seventh Day Adventist" or "Catholic" which are clearly segments of Christianity.


 * About the official websites making no claims of being Abrahamic. There are in fact many many websites. Official websites, there are collections of materials available online and of course third party sources. I've provided many references in the past both internal and external about a relationship with Abraham and a trivial search for the religions will find a very large wealth of references. For example if you compiled all the references to the timeline of the founding and early Christian Church comparable to the New Testament period you'd find a small book worth of refs form primary sources and scholarly sources discussing Jesus, Apostles, etc and a similar amount would result from compiling refs to Judaism and Islam. To a far less extent, though on principle of similar scale, there are references to Hinduism and Buddhism though again beyond the limits of categorization the religion's refs to those religions and their founders is also basically positive. A problem in being categorized as Abrahamic is that in some ways, without diminishing a relationship with Abraham or the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, there are acknowledged relationships with other religions as you noted above. A challenge in treating historical references to the Baha'i Faith is that it's only 160ish years old but still clearly in the 1800s before lots of modern developments. For the first hundred years it was hardly noticed and clearly it's numbers grew from below the dozens and was still in the thousands around the turn of the century. But now it's above 7 million by third party sources and closing in on the size of Judaism (and clearly growing faster than Judaism by all sources.) I'll pull the refs out again for the part of Abraham again. See if they suit. Smkolins (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * About the issue of parallelism - I think the struggle has been how to illustrate the parallelism - it's clearly fluctuated over the age of the article. On the one hand the article asks for things to be laid out and on the other there's been a push that content reflect notoriety which limits proportion of space. This kind of balance has been achieved in other articles. I don't think it would be hard to pull together content about parallels between the religion and other members of the family and commonalities of theology (of which I think the article already has many entries) and about series of religions descending from Abraham while still keeping a balance on proportions. Smkolins (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Some refs to consider
Some of these are not available online but most are. Where online, search down page for "Abraham" to get to the main part relevant to this discussion:
 * Geneology of the Prophets from Adam to Baha'u'llah by with notes by Kay Zinky (there are other versions as well)
 * more about the genealogy aspect - Sharh-i-Shajarih Namih-i-Mubarakih (Description of the geneology of Baha'u'llah)
 * A History of Judaism from a Bahá'í Perspective by Robert Stockman, prepared for the Wilmette Institute
 * The Covenant by Moojan Momen
 * Christianity from a Bahá'í Perspective by Robert Stockman
 * Studies in modern religions, religious movements and the Bābī-Bahā'ī faiths By Moshe Sharon
 * Mihdí, Mírzá (1848–70) Baha'i Encyclopedia project
 * Bahá’í World Center Baha'i Encyclopedia project
 * BIC : 1992 May 29 Statement on Baha'u'llah
 * Mihdí, Mírzá (1848–70) Baha'i Encyclopedia project
 * Bahá’í World Center Baha'i Encyclopedia project
 * BIC : 1992 May 29 Statement on Baha'u'llah


 * Thanks for these references. What I'm looking for, and can't find, are credible references from neutral sources. We also still need to build the parallel structure to build credibility for the inclusion of Baha'i comparable to the three main religions that have held the Abrahamic title for a very long time, and whose connection is clear and very well documented. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Several of the initial refs are from neutral sources and I'd only suggest verifiable respected sources. Simply because they come from Baha'i publishing channels doesn't mean they are non-neutral. However I'd agree most modern scholarship on the religion only dates from the 1980s so there isn't as much material available though the world wide population is close to half the numbers of Jews. I'd certainly welcome any refs you can find to help.Smkolins (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Smkolins. While I agree in principle that Baha'i publishing channels don't make something non-neutral, here we're dealing with a topic that we're trying to prove, in a sense. The absence of scholarly research from neutral sources weakens the case. To this day, virtually all high-trust sources that I've found, religious and secular, even with current articles, maintain that there are only three Abrahamic religions. Somewhere, besides either lesser known or BH authorship must be out there to verify that BH does meet the requisites for an Abrahamic religion, and an explanation of how Mirza Husayn Ali, better known as Baha'ullah, is verified to be an Abrahamic descendant. The best I've been able to find is that he "thought" or "believed" he was a descendant. One source says, he "believed that he was the prophet foretold by the Bab, a religious leader who was a direct descendent of the prophet Muhammad." I'll continue to watch for that golden citation we are hoping for. We can get back in touch if we find such. Hope you're having a really good Twenty-Ten! Afaprof01 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While a descendence is claimed that is hardly the only parallel to Abraham being suggested as the refs above make note of - there is the travel from east to west (for different practical reasons), the sacrifice of a son (with different outcomes), the importance of the Holy Land (with some distinctions as well), and the promulgation of a relationship between Man and God on a Covenant and prophecy and prophet (of which it can be said something must have progressed over 3000-ish years though we are barely into 160 years for the Bahá'í Faith.) This also gets to the issue of parallels that need to be drawn. Smkolins (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Creation-Evolution Controversy
If you want to change something, discuss it on the talk page. Don't just revert. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Creation–evolution controversy‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ben (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Creation–evolution_controversy/Archive_21 and User_talk:Afaprof01 for replies to your last attempts. Ben (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have already been bold, and have been reverted, in two separate instances now. See WP:BRD. In several editors opinion your edits are not improvements. Please write up a proposal, submit it to the talk page, allow other editors to comment and finally respect whatever consensus is achieved. Cheers, Ben (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Creation according to Genesis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ben (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Creation according to Genesis, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are also edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain where you see "commentary and your personal analysis into this article. I'm unaware of having done that. IMO, I have provided reputable relevant citations for all of my edits.Afaprof01 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This edit was completely inappropriate. Dayewalker (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On my absolute honor (and where I teach there is a strict Honor Code, infractions of which can affect my tenure)─the edit,, is NOT MINE. I realize it says it came from Afaprof01, and I need to find out how that can happen. I am changing my Password again today. It sounds like it was written by a quasi-literate "hick" who can't spell and who is a super-fundamentalist. I am very embarrassed that I was fraudulently identified with the edit, and can only imagine how much that edit dropped my "stock" in the eyes of fellow editors. I don't want to fill up the Talk page with my inquiry, but I will greatly appreciate guidance on how I might get the actual IP address investigated (compared to mine), and anything else that might identify to Admins who is the hacker. I stand my the edits that are mine, but until you pointed this one out to me, I had not seen it. Also, how does one get the ID [e.g., 337146764] of an edit? Thanks very much for pointing this out, Dayewalker. Afaprof01 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

SBC Conservative Resurgence
Oh come on Afaprof01, "infested" is so much more colorful. jk Eugeneacurry (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yuk Yuk! Good one. Actually, I was thinking of substituting Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous for references to the other side so it would really be colorful. Happy New Year, Bro. Great to hear from you. Hope things are going well for you, your family and church. Afaprof01 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Creation according to Genesis
Hello Afaprof01. I am seeing a steady stream of reverts by you on the lead of this article:


 * 01:12 on 11 January you remove Browning's book and 'creation myth'
 * 03:17 on 11 January you remove Browning's book and 'creation myth'
 * 04:18 on 11 January you remove Browning's book and removes the 'creation myth' language from the lead.
 * 06:11 on 11 January you insert frankly POV language about the term 'myth' being offensive to Christian believers. "without tainting the newtral article with an atheistic POV referring"
 * 06:12 am on 12 January: same removal of Browning
 * 06:20 am on 12 January: you remove Browning's book yet again (with a misleading edit summary)

You already broke the WP:3RR rule with your reverting on 11 January, and then you continued to perform the same edits on 12 January. Since others keep reverting your change, you must be aware that you do not have consensus.

If you will agree to stop editing this article for a week, you may be able to avoid a block for edit warring. Please indicate whether you will accept this offer. EdJohnston (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Baptist
I just reverted some Mark O. edits. I think we were doing it at the same time and you inadvertantly put back his edits by undoing mine (though your comments makes clear you meant to undo his, which I did seconds before you apparently). Maybe take a quick look. In addition, if he reverts again, I think we should ask that he be blocked. Novaseminary (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing the error. I got an 'edit conflict' on saving, and tho I follow the directions carefully, I've had this same unwanted result occur in the past. Once it "pasted" into mine some total foolishness from another editor, and that one got me into trouble! Admins couldn't explain that one. Sorry to create more work for you. I agree with your recommendation above. Afaprof01 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionist
No, don't worry about it, I find it all very humorous actually! :-) I was once a young-earth-creationist (YEC), then became an old-earth-creationist, then a theistic evolutionist, and am back to being an OEC again. So I've been everywhere on that particular spectrum. Tonicthebrown (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to communicate with Ben Tillman: A total waste of time and effort, but I tried
The article creation myth must be renamed. So long as that article exists, your censorship of the term is doomed to failure. Ben (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NOT TRUE. While some may deny the term, it should be a recognized fact that the term exists and is used by some theological scholars. I have not been opting to remove the term from the article, but to put it in a place that gives is proper perspective, rather than cram it down readers' throats as you have tried to do. AFAprof01 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not cramming anything mate, I'm using the terminology used by relevant academic community. As as reader and editor of this project, I expect all articles to follow the relevant academic conventions so far as they align with this projects policies. Ben (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Tell me, "mate," are you sincerely denying that you aren't forcing it into the very first few words of the first sentence, and that you have persistently, patently refused to negotiate moving it somewhere further down, even in the Lede? AFAprof01 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you move the words "geometric theory" further down the article in the general relativity article, or the words "comic novel" further down the article in the Emma article? Ben (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you, Mr. Tillman, I would not put anything in the prime spot in those articles, nor in Atheism, that is considered so optional or unimportant by Ency Brit, et al, that they don't even mention it─much less put it further down with an explanation of what it means in this case. It would be like prefixing mathematics with the word "pseudo" in areas of your professional expertise. You are obviously a smart, educated person. I suggest that even you might have a very negative conditioned response to something very meaningful to you if anyone were to say, "Aw, that stuff that you believe, Michael, it's just a myth. Oops, be sure to look up the second or third definition of 'myth' before you get upset." Since higher education is my profession and I'm obviously interested in educating people, I have no objection to acknowledging that it is a technical term used by many (but not all) to describe beliefs of any group of people about how their world came into being. It's just bad teaching to start the class by saying, "Good morning, students. Today I'm going to lecture on how some deeply held beliefs of yours, and in fact your whole Bible since other OT writers and Jesus in the NT believed in a divine Creator, is considered a MYTH."


 * Sorry, I shouldn't be wasting your time to even read this. For just a few minutes I forgot that you have labeled me dishonest (and some other characterizations) and that you are so closed-minded (unusual among people of your persuasions) that you don't care to be confronted with even facts that you have prejudged. I am trying to show genuine respect for you, even though you have done nothing but "dis" me. I wish things were different. AFAprof01 01:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Afaprof01, you have acted dishonestly. You participated in vote stacking and you labeled a suggestion that had been looked at, and responded to, overlooked. These are not honest things to do by any standard. Anyway, I think you now understand why I think the term creation myth belongs in the introductory sentence of the creation according to Genesis article. Whether you agree with me is up to you of course. On the other hand, if you happen to show that my most cherished piece of mathematics is considered junk by the mainstream mathematical community, I will agree with the addition of this information in any relevant article. Ben (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Comment
I just wanted to thank you for practising what you preach with your "PERSONAL NOTE" on the Creation according to Genesis talk page. While we may not be on the same side of the discussion but you've inspired me to at least approach the discussion in a more civil manner. Nefariousski (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nef, I tremendously appreciate your very nice note. It's a real encouragement and "lifter-upper" from the discouragement and chagrin I felt. Thank you so much! ─AFAprof01 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing Advice
Hi Afaprof01, I've recently finished a long editing campaign at Christ myth theory. It took a long time before the obstructionists (advocates of the theory, mostly) finally gave up and moved on, but it's finally done. (It got sort of heated at times.) I've submitted the article for GA review and I also submitted a request that WikiProject Christianity bump the rating up from a B to an A. After looking at the chart, though, and noticing that there are only 3 measly articles in all of WikiProject Christianity with an A ranking, I suspect my hopes were way over-blown. Still, as a member of the project, what advice would you give regarding the article that would help improve it and get it just a little bit closer to at least a GA ranking? Eugeneacurry (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Eugene, I appreciate the inquiry, and would very much like to be of some assistance. I don't know of an experienced GA-proposer within the Christianity project. I have not generated a GA recommendation, but I'd gladly begin one for this article if you'd like me to.


 * One of the foremost requisites is for you to be able to say (as I think you are in a position to say): "I have done all that I can so far to improve this article. I think it is a good piece of work. Could you please review it, and if it is, please pass it. If it is not, what can I do to improve it?" WP:RGA


 * You have improved it several hundred percent! The first requirement is that the article be "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." We need to be able to show that it has become more stable, despite its history. You've most likely seen the WP:RGA page, but here is a link to perhaps the most important paragraph: WP:RGA.


 * The best approach seems to be the reviewer going through the GA checklists, then the content with a fine-tooth comb. Please let me know the extent you would like me to become involved. I'm eligible since I have not been an editor on the article. Warmest regards, ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Re: why not more Christianity-related articles are GAs? It's probably because so few of them can qualify as "stable." I'm thinking of the SBC articles that I kept stirring for awhile. The same thing happened with Baptist and the various women in Christianity articles. Right now, there's a flap going on in Baptism over Baptismal regeneration, and the Creation according to Genesis. If you're writing about tea and crumpets, you probably get a free pass from edit wars, but even then you may have disagreement about the type of tea or which fingers to extend as you hold the cup for a sip. :-) ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Complementarianism
Thanks for your message. Yes, there is a difference between Complementarianism and Biblical patriarchy, but it's quite subtle - more one of emphasis than anything else, though women in the civic sphere is an explicit difference. But those associated with BP would deny any criticism of holding to differences in worth between men and women, so perhaps in the Complementarianism article we should say Complementarianism lies between Egalitarianism and Male chauvinism. I'm concerned about the straw men associated with BP, of course. AFAIK, no adherents would say men are intrinsically more competent than women, just more competent to do certain tasks. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This clarification helps. My main interests are in CgEgl and Comp, so have done the most study there. But I've read several places that BP is considered by some to contain outright misogyny. Your idea of a point between CgEgl and Male chauvinism is valid, IMO. However, if we can find a good way to compare the three biblical/religious perspectives, we're going apples to apples. I'll keep looking. Thanks! ─AFAprof01 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure some would call BP "misogyny", but that's obviously pejorative and would be denied by BP advocates. But if you find a reference to a specifically BP position, I think that would be very helpful for the BP article. Thanks for the gracious way you've handled this. StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Baptism
You're at the limit for the wp:3rr on the Baptism article. I won't revert it again. I will not comment on the POV of the section you keep replacing, but I will state that the references you're removing are definitely needed and you should not be delting them. I would argue that you could change your material to include both views more efficctively and believe that you are adding your own POV to the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Görlitz, this is my first rv of this section. Next time, please look at the username before you popoff and accuse me of 3RR. I realize errors can happen, especially when we're frustrated as you have a right to be. I'll be glad to propose some alternative text that includes your POV, but I would appreciate even more than WP:Civility. Thank you. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Biblical patriarchy
You edited this article, and marked it as a minor edit, but removed the entire criticism section. I can only assume it was accidental, and have reverted it. On the other hand, this will be an important issue in this article in particular - is, for example, Midwest Christian Outreach a reliable source? StAnselm (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". StAnselm (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * StA, I really wish you wouldn't post such a castigation. I realize it's very polite boilerplate, but I would have preferred a short note from you, pointing out my error. It's not that I don't know the rule, nor is it that I'm intentionally not cooperating with it.


 * Thanks for the repair. The whole thing was indeed accidental. There were 3 of us editing at the same time, and the edit conflicts were flying. I use WikEd, and I've had several similar results when I try to save but get the Edit Conflict screen. Someone suggested it is an edit problem in WikEd, but I can't be sure.
 * Re: Midwest Christian Outreach. I was not familiar with it. Their Statement of Faith on their Web is fairly traditional for conservative evangelicalism. They have taken on Bill Gothard who may be the quintessential poster-person Hierarchicalist. You may want to look for this quote from their Website:
 * In his (Bill Gothard's) culturally monastic Christian utopian vision, large homeschooling families abstain from television, midwives are more important than  doctors, traditional dating is forbidden, unmarried adults are “under the  authority of their parents” and live with them, divorced people can’t remarry  under any circumstance, and music has hardly changed at all since the late 19th  century.
 * He teaches what he calls the "umbrella" principle, a.k.a. his Chain of Command principle: God ← Husband ← Wife ← Children. Years ago I attended 3 of his seminars. If the wife, for example, stays under her husband's umbrella of protection, he protects her spiritually as well as physically and emotionally.

Regards, ─AFAprof01 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

3O
Ohh it was taking you to the wrong page I ment to write Talk:Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Thank You! House1090 (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll take a look. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am so thankful because its urgent, thanks again. House1090 (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Woud you mind taking one last look please? Thanks! House1090 (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Christ myth theory/GA1

AGF regarding Ben?
Hi!

Do you by "That agenda is not even a hidden one" mean to say that you don't assume Ben is acting in good faith? No debate is going to get anywhere if you just assume that anyone who wants to insert the term "creation myth" is doing so in bad faith. Gabbe (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't assume Good Faith in this editor─but it's not because "anyone who wants to insert the term "creation myth" is doing so in bad faith," not at all. I don't assume GF in this because based on his history of being rude, crude, insulting, disrespectful, and obnoxious, and 100% nonnegotiable toward me and others. It has gotten very old. Good faith does require the willingness/ability to be negotiable to a point (such as where "CM" is physically placed.) He has indicated zero tolerance for any place except first sentence, and refuses to allow any explanation of the term. So, it's not that anyone who wants to insert the term CM is doing so in bad faith; it's the way they force (I'll use his word, "bully") their way to a 't', and what appears to be a conspiracy to insist on three things"


 * (a) first sentence,
 * (b) no explanation or amelioration to make it more palatable to those who wish it gone or at least toned down/explained,
 * (c) not allowing any explanation of the technical/literary genre definition of CF, without which I submit that many will conclude that if Gen. 1-2 are therein characterized as a myth (albeit CM which I maintain that most Wiki readers don't have a clue is a technical or literary term), the many other places in OT and NT that affirm Gen. 1-2 are also "mythical."
 * The no-myth people showed considerable negotiability to back off of their initial insistence on the term being removed, agreeing to have it moved down and somehow explained. The myth folks didn't give a proverbial inch in the pages and pages of supposedly consensus-building time.
 * Where is AGF in this? What about the Wiki policies that agr cited (cf. Talk:Book of Genesis? So it's OK to ignore Wiki policy when it doesn't work FOR you, I suppose. Where is the AGF in Ben's having an unqualified (unexplained) "Creation myth" appear not once, but twice in the first two paragraphs of the lead in the Genesis article.
 * Just glance up my Talk page searching for Ben's comments. Please show me GF, much less WP:CIVILITY. It's sheer arrogance, sarcasm, uncooperativeness to the nth degree, insult added to injury. Again I quote:


 * The above is─to say the least─very honest and open. But that doesn't make it right or in the spirit of "come then, let us reason together." I don't enjoy conflict. I'd like to get along with Ben─I'm a people-person. Early on, I wrote that to him. But the choices seem to be: do it exactly, precisely his way, or you're the enemy who lacks honesty, integrity, and a few other things according to his accusations. He indeed is willing to bully and to persecute ad nauseum. On first reading some time ago, I took those two self-characterizations to be intended in an avant garde kind of humor. I now believe it is intended as a dead-serious warning. He has proven it all true.
 * I'm assuming Good Faith in your inquiry, Gab. I am concerned that you had the impression that my opinion of 'not GF' was based solely on the issue of their wanting to insert the term "creation myth." While I don't solicit your agreement, I do hope for your better understanding of where I'm coming from. Thanks for your sincere inquiry. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How does someone admit that he's a "bullying editor" and avoid official sanction? Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Afaprof01: You say that Ben "refuses to allow any explanation of the term". Yet here he suggests doing exactly that. Regardless, being unwilling to compromise is quite different from acting in bad faith. Policy doesn't require editors to seek compromises, but to find consensus, which may come in other forms than a compromise. Specifically, that someone insists upon having the term "creation myth" appear without explanation doesn't necessarily mean they're acting with an agenda, or in bad faith.
 * Furthermore, I've "glance[d] up [your] Talk page searching for Ben's comments", as you suggested. Could you specify to me where you see evidence of what you mean? From what I've seen, I still believe that both you and Ben are acting in what you believe respectively to be the best interests of Wikipedia, but that you disagree about what this means in practice. Gabbe (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gabbe, I sincerely appreciate your efforts here. I don't think any good could come from my stirring the pot by posting a series of quotes from other Talk pages where Ben and I have had exchanges. And I agree: his postings to my Talk page—where there's no correlation with the sources Ben refers to—doesn't reflect much arrogance or sarcasm.

You were somewhat involved with Talk:Creation according to Genesis and may recall some of the flak. Since I opened the RfC on advice of 3 admins, he has accused me of censorship, acting dishonestly, being "woeful" by starting the RfC, POV pushing, WP:CANVASS, concludes that "honesty really does seem like a foreign concept to you." Another retort to my disavowal of a particularly bad edit that I've since heard could have come from a WikEd error contained crass sarcasm, wording that smacks of a racial or ethnic slur, and strong implication of prevarication on my part: "Hahahaha - dems hicks gots good vocabs dese days, dats for shore!" WP:AGF???

Personal affronts aside, my real concern is "the issue." As it stands, I see no progress toward amelioration and no hope for any concessions. I've lost faith in there being any effective Wiki conflict resolution process in cases such as this. It seems it was an enormous waste of time, and a sounding board for ego trips, and overt attempts to bash others' opinions, feelings and convictions. But I sincerely appreciate your time and efforts. ─AFAprof01 (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely think someone is being unfair in their dealings with you, then responding in kind (or "sinking to his level", so to speak), is not the appropriate course of action. Following WP:DR is. I'm not saying you have responded in kind or anything, I'm just saying that with this edit you seemed to be heading for the wrong path. And again, if Ben disagrees with you and seems unwilling to acquiesce, his reasons for doing so might be something other than malice. Gabbe (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very wise advice, Gabbe. Thank you. I agree with your point and with your example. This is a clear case of not practicing what I teach. Have you seen a true consensus reached on a controversial article─where it ended up with both some give and some take? If so, I would like to review the Talk for it as a learning experience. Any advice on what might be a reasonable next step for me to take with "the issue" will be appreciated (i.e., how to proceed, if at all). Merci! ─AFAprof01 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)