User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2010/March/3

Christ myth theory
Thanks for all your hard work with the GA process. I've submitted the article for FA promotion and hopefully the GA status will help. Unfortunately, some opposition has already developed. Apparently, an admin thought that her "go-to" fact checking reference for the article should be that pillar of scholarly evaluation of historical Jesus research: The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. Sigh Eugene (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome, Eugene. I am posting the GA1 comments either tonight or tomorrow. Wishing you the best on the FA promotion. I'm unclear about the fact checking ref. Please explain that to me. Is the inquiry going anywhere? ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the reviewers decided to check the claim that the theory is unsupported--a totally reasonable thing to do. Only, she didn't pick some piece of scholarly historical-Jesus research to do her fact-checking, she picked an aggressive atheist polemic written by Richard Dawkins, a biologist.  Dawkins mentions the theory in passing and says that "It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others, Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist?."  Of course, the article already mentions Dawkins allusion to the theory, dedicates a substantial amount of space to G. A. Wells, and mentions that Wells has abandoned the theory.  But none of that mattered, the reviewer got the article's FA candidacy derailed and now I have to jump through a few more hoops before resumbmitting it. Eugene (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Needed Consensus on the Genesis creation myth page
Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know on my talk page. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, I want to thank you for your very significant and bold contributions to this fray. You are very articulate as a writer, have been more than generous with your time and energies, and keep your cool very well (far better than this writer). You have persevered in the face of abasement as well as courtesy.
 * As you probably have observed, there is a core of editors who seem irrevocably committed to all they can do to emphasize the phrase "Creation myth." I was very comfortable with the previous title, "Creation according to Genesis," but very uncomfortable with their insistence on putting the phrase "creation myth" in the very first sentence like this: "Creation according to Genesis, a creation myth found in Genesis 1 and 2...." I argued for keeping the title the same, but not introducing "creation myth" until the second paragraph. More than once I edited it that way, and received not only immediate reversion but crude, sarcastic comments from some strident myth-ers.
 * So in answer to your question, the previous paragraph sums up what I believe would be needed for a consensus title before I would be  comfortable making improvements to the article. However, there's more than title.
 * I'm fully cognizant of the technical and literary meaning of "creation myth," and agree that somewhere early in the article it needs to be acknowledged that in many respects, the Genesis creation account (I could also accept "narrative," "ancient text," or even "theory of origins") fits the literary/technical definition of a creation myth. While I personally regret the choice of words "creation myth," there's nothing I can do about that. I just don't want that phrase to overwhelm the reader either at the title level, or the first paragraph level. I hardly need to tell you that there is considerable scholarly literature which acknowledges that the first and most prominent definition of the word "myth" is ficticious, imaginary, fable. The literature clearly acknowledges that the term is therefore offensive to people who take their Judeo-Christian heritage or convictions seriously. There is no need to enshroud "myth" in red flashing neon lights in the title and lead paragraph before more gently and diplomatically introducing the phrase "creation myth." But I do concur that it needs to be introduced.
 * "A creation myth is a cosmogony, a narrative that describes the original ordering of the universe" (one of the scholarly article quotes). I have opted for substituting cosmogony for myth in the title. That was immediately shot down.
 * I like what User:Michael Courtney, incidentally an MIT doctoral graduate, wrote some weeks ago:
 * Forcing the word "myth"—as if everyone knows that we are using a much lesser-known definition of the term (which they don't)—doesn't seem to equate to NPOV. Over and over, the overwhelming message seems to be, "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is entirely made up."
 * Knowing that "myth" riles many readers (on and off Wikipedia) and starts them off with a negative predisposition, why must "myth" appear in the very first sentence? Why in the very first paragraph? Should we trade self-avowed liberal or atheistic preference for true neutrality in a really good article that we want people to be able to read with an open mind? Or to ask it another way: will anyone not continue reading the article just because the word "myth" does not appear in the title or first sentence or so?
 * IMO (without the "H"), some editors have an interest in using Wikipedia to attempt to discredit the scriptures of two Abrahamic world religions, which is hardly NPOV, and more like POV pushing. Another sentence I edited in and was immediately reverted: "Jews and Christians consider the text religious authority in varying degrees, and interpretations range from figurative or metaphorical to it being reliably literal." Genesis does contain the creation story that forms the basis of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There is considerable continuity between Genesis creation and the remainder of the Hebrew Bible, and also in multiple places in the New Testament, including the words of Jesus and the  Logos (Christianity). It isn't unreasonable for a reader uninformed about the formal definition of creation myth to conclude that if Genesis is a myth, then so is the rest of the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament, the Logos, etc. To me, this greatly increases the significance of this whole discussion and debate. I think of the number of school children who, from the time that they're able to read, either browse Wikipedia or are assigned research on Wikipedia for a graded project. Does anyone genuinely expect them to know the formal definition of creation myth? Even if they do, is it reasonable to expect elementary and middle school kids to cognitively process this distinction correctly, and incorporate into their reading paradigm, this technicality? For those from religious families, how are they likely to be affected by myth?
 * One final point (I promise). What about the premise that Genesis is just another creation myth and must be treated exactly the same way that we treat the myths of all the other religions. The answer may lie in what some authors have called the marked discontinuity between "pagan" (oops) cosmogonies and the Genesis accounts. While there are some obvious points of continuity between Genesis and the Enuma elish for example, Genesis 1 is distinctive from virtually all origins stories.
 * One final point (I promise). What about the premise that Genesis is just another creation myth and must be treated exactly the same way that we treat the myths of all the other religions. The answer may lie in what some authors have called the marked discontinuity between "pagan" (oops) cosmogonies and the Genesis accounts. While there are some obvious points of continuity between Genesis and the Enuma elish for example, Genesis 1 is distinctive from virtually all origins stories.


 * Thanks for asking for my opinion. That is very "new and different" in this matter. It's so interesting that you wrote today, for just last evening I thought of writing you a thank-you note, and then came your inquiry. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your note :-). Hopefully we can figure out what the non-myth side prefers for wording, and why.  After that, there's still the actual article to discuss -- but sometimes it's helpful to parse.  I do have to say, however, it's quite a task to get a simple neutral statement (or even a straight honest biased one).  I can certainly see why people have been discouraged and fallen by the wayside.EGMichaels (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't you glad you didn't ask me to tell you how I really feel. Sorry to clutter your Talk page up with such a wee little note. :-) In all candor, I failed to notice your "on my Talk page" request until after I wrote and posted the tome on my own Talk page. I apologize. It wasn't intentional. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL! To be honest, after all of this ranting and railing today, I found your little missive a breath of fresh air.  I hope I wasn't too blunt on the article talk page just now -- but I DO hope I was blunt enough.  This bullying is ridiculous.EGMichaels (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EG, I see I'm not listed in the Pro/Con section. It appears you synthesized the opinions. If so, I'd appreciate it if you would add my opinion. (Can't wait to see what you pick out of my little note :-). If I'm supposed to do that, just let me know. Thanks. When is the baby due? The first? Congratulations. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Prof -- the first for my wife. I have two grown kids already and feel like I'm going to be a live in granddad! ;-)  Sorry for leaving you off.  I'll put your points into the table tomorrow.  And thanks for the well wishes!  The baby should come sometime in the next two weeks (hopefully not tonight).EGMichaels (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Geeze, I have an ANI out on me now. This thing just won't stop.  How are you doing?EGMichaels (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that anything like being on a Most Wanted poster? Or that you've made the FBI's or Interpol's Most Wanted list? I need to know because, after all, I must watch out for my reputation of who I hang with. Where can I read this infamous document? Tsk tsk.
 * But seriously, you don't deserve this and you surely don't need it. I'm very sorry! It's all because you do really care and have tried assiduously to help. You've done a super job of helping all of us who participated to sort things out, even our own attitudes. Pardon my ignorance, but can I add my refutation to the complaint? And...thanks for asking: I'm doing fine. No little one yet? ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that I assume to speak on Afaprof's behalf by any means but might I suggest that you also look to the initial RFC he drafted (assuming you haven't already). While I may not necessarily agree with his points I do feel that it was well written and is a good example of not just his but many opinions that is worth a read at the very least.  Nefariousski (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nef, I appreciate your positive characterization of my RfC. Yours is the only positive comment I've ever seen about it. I'm also glad to hear that my intent to be fair to others' opinions apparently was somewhat successful. Thanks! ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- where is it?EGMichaels (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * you can find it here. I know it's a lot to read considering you have a new arrival any day now but it's a good place to start to get perspective on where a lot of the current discussion started.  Nefariousski (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Prof, I apologize for deleting your material. I'll try to get it back in. Pico had done such a number against so many editors that I had to revert back to an earlier version of the article.EGMichaels (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof, I think I have your edits back in place. Please review them. I started to restore Gabbe's edits to your section, but they didn't make any sense. I think there may be some points to his edits that need consideration, though.EGMichaels (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof -- I agree that the refs will need to be trimmed. Right now Pico keeps coming in every night and deleting refs and then claiming ex nihilo has no backing. Once the edit warring stops we can trim these easily. It's real quick to delete, but not so quick to re-ref when Pico comes stomping through.EGMichaels (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops, I just finished my ref edits and then found your note. I did not delete any. Where we saw 8 or 10 clumped together, they were an entire duplicated set of the ones that appeared earlier. I selected what seemed to be a particularly relevant one for the, cleaned up and moved one copy to Bibliography, and left one in References. Please take a look and let me know if you think this kind of clean-up is OK here (given the unique circumstances) since none were removed. The editor of those clumps apparently did not understand notation, and just copied and pasted the full citation twice.
 * I also find what appear to be somewhat duplicated Ex Nihlo discussions but didn't touch them. They aren't identical, but seem very similar. Please put them on your look-at-these-later list.
 * Baby and Mom news, please? ~


 * Since my name has been mentioned: I have never said that ex nihilo has no basis in the biblical text, that would be absurd. What I've said is that it's only one of two possible readings of the Hebrew of Gen.1, and neither can be priviliged (neither is "true").~

Apostolic Succession: Methodist, & Mormon
1. I understand you deleted the Methodist section because of its lack of references, which you indicate has remained without citations for several years. Yet it seems to me that this deletion leaves a significant gap in the article's coverage of different Christian perspectives. The ecclesiastical nature of the Methodist church, as a democratizing "offspring" of the episcople Anglican church, would seem to result in its holding a very interesting place in the array of church governance typologies per Apostolic Succession. Unfortunately I myself currently have neither the time nor the ready familiarity to research adequately this important subject.

2. You do not give a reason for deleting the Mormon section; but I assume it is similar, i.e., lack of references. Also, it could be the strangness of the apparently singular Mormon understanding of the issues, or otherwise. Again, it leaves a gap, e.g., which would serve to facilitate comparison and provide some context in order to appraise similar conceptions made by "new" churches which create the office of apostle, or recreate that of bishop. On the other hand, such novelties (which to some are non sequiturs) may only further confuse comprehension of the terms employed.

Note. Several years ago I spent a significant amount of effort to re-organize and rewrite the article--not without some opposition, and not without some accidental results due to an unintended "edit conflict". At that time, I did retain the Methodist as well as the Mormon sections but, as to both, without any attempt to clarify, organize or otherwise restate the then existing content in a coherent manner. Overall, in doing so I might have been somewhat successful in mitigating the conflict inherent in the bi-polar approaches to the subject from different ecclesiastical positions; I'd like to think so anyway, yet can't help but notice my own shortcomings in this regard. Elfelix (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * El Felix, I'll be back Monday and will respond then. Please forgive my lack of prompt reply. I appreciate your concerns well-expressed here. Thanks. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello El Felix. I have reviewed your kind notes and agree that something needs to replace the two unsourced sections I removed. I have in my possess some authoritative sources on Methodism and will try to add them promptly. The LDS successionism is quite well known, so it shouldn't be too difficult to locate reputable sources. Thanks again for your work on the article, and for calling to my attention the two voids created by my deletions. Should you come across any significant sources re: these two, please forward them to me. Also, once I post something, I will welcome your comments. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth
I believe that the edits lost yesterday on the Genesis Creation Myth article have been restored by EGM and myself. Afaprof01, hopefully we got everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadtotruth (talk • contribs) 15:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DTT. I appreciate your efforts─very much! Good job! User:Afaprof01 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory GA concerns
I noticed the GA status of the Christ myth theory and have one major concern—the quality of the definition. As I have pointed out before the very term "Christ myth theory" seems to vary too much to really pull enough of a uniform definition out of the mess and "Christ myth" is even worse.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expressing your concern, Bruce. I am unfamiliar with much of the history. Have you attempted to add a definition and experienced a problem? In addition to the definitions in the lead, what would you like to see? GA evaluators usually have no particular in the topic, otherwise they would have been an editor of the article and therefore disqualified for GA evaluation. That is my case. Being new to the topic, I was satisfied with the definition. However, the article is in no way locked, and it may be edited to include better definitions if you are aware of any. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrogation?
In Book of Genesis: Could you find a commoner word? PiCo (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw, I thought that was a good 4-bit word. It comes from the same stem as arrogant. How about contemptuous, insolent, self-aggrandizing? Or along another path, what about rebellious?
 * What's the latest on the ephemeral beings? --Afaprof01
 * The beings are going well, tho it's a bit confusing for me. It seems Cambodians believe that people have not one soul, but 19 (tho I keep getting different numbers). These multiple souls are highly skittish, forever prone to wander off into the forest (in fact there are forest-dwelling demons who try to entice them away). If you have less than your full complement of souls you fall prey to ill-health and, worse, bad luck. So you get the witch-doctor in to call the souls back - that's what those ceremonies are about where people are lustrated with holy water and have red threads tied around their wrists. All this is for living people. For dead people, there are shamans who can get in touch with the dead soul and talk to it on your behalf (this soul seems to be something quite different to the 19 who are so prone to wander off while you're alive). I met with a woman who's son dies last year in a motor accident - it was quite touching for me, it obviously meant so much to her that she'd been able to "talk" to him again. And the shaman is quite sincere too - she really believes in her spirit guides and is not a crook. The monks are not much help to the believer - they just tell you that their are no ghosts and it's all your imagination, which might be true but is no comfort to this woman. PiCo (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could wow them with "Arrogation." You just got me on "lustrated." Does that make us even? "-) I realize there are no links from Cambodia to Haiti, but with the shaman and all, is their religion anything like Voodoo? I wonder if 19 is somehow significant to them, like a perfect number. One more: any overt similarity to better-known seances? MiszaBot III (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this like Voodoo? I have no idea what voodoo is like. But I imagine shamanism is a universal phenomenon, and must have many similarities wherever it's found. It's found in Christianity, incidentally - the glossolallia of the evangelical churches is a shamanistic phenomenon, and even the Catholic Church teaches that the priest becomes the human instrument by which the Divine Being changes physical bread and wine into a spiritual flesh and blood. It seems the Cambodian shamans are actually more morally respectable than the monks - they have to be, or else the Ministry of Religion will be on their backs in no time! MiszaBot III (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PiCo. This is quite interesting, indeed. Do you feel safe there? How long is your assignment, and do you know what's next for you? (You probably hope the question-mark key on my keyboard breaks so I can't ask any more questions. If so, just yell STOP. Meanwhile, I'll try not to "arrogate" too much. BTW, glossolalia is rare in Mainstream churches, and even more scarce in Evangelical Protestantism which generally believes in the cessation of the sign gifts with the closing of the "first dispensation," at which time the canon of scripture was closed. Except for pockets here and there, it is typically found in openly charismatic churches that probably are "evangelical" but are not so identified because of the dispensation issue. Take care! MiszaBot III (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Safe? Perfectly safe. Today I met, in order: (a) an ex-monk who now teaches Buddhist law; (b) a professor of anthropology who is probably the world's leading expert on Cambodian folk-religion; and (c) a so-called medium who may well be a conscious fraud (my Cambodian friend thinks he's a fraud). None of them were dangerous :) MiszaBot III (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory peer review
Hi, I've recently submitted the Christ myth theory article for peer review. Given your interests listed on the PR volunteers page and your experience, I think your comments could be very helpful here. Thank you. MiszaBot III (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- MiszaBot III (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Grace articles
I disagree with the name changes - Irresistible grace is the usual term for it - frankly, Grace (Irresistible) does sound a bit silly. I like the idea of the template, but think you should stick to the common names. I'm OK with Grace (Christianity), and I like the fact that you restricted the scope of the article to just Christianity. But I don't like the other titles. I made a quick adjustment to the template - User:StAnselm/Template:Grace in Christianity. It preserves the technical (and well known) phrases but still looks OK. StAnselm (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect and accept your judgment. Thanks. Feel free to adjust the template more if it needs it. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've changed the template, and moved three of the articles back. As far as the Grace (Christianity) article goes, it looks like you've attracted a few other editors as well - and let's face it: that's one of the reasons to be bold. But the comment on the talk page was spot on, the definition currently at the top of the article ("spontaneous, unmerited gift of the divine favour in the salvation of sinners") is not neutral, since it is, essentially, the Protestant view. Roman Catholics see grace as a substance. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Baha'i is back in Abrahamic
I know you were involved in this about six months ago, care to rejoin the discussion? Jeff3000 might be starting an edit war, with multiple unexplained reversions. I'm only trying to follow what I think is t he consensus reached last year that Baha'i is not ready for inclusion as a prime topic in Abrahamic religions, but he keeps reverting. In fact, he reverts anything I do at this point, because he's become vigilante-like on the subject, and assumes I'm there just to cause Baha'i problems. Dovid (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an easy one. I've made some edits this afternoon, but they may be reverted as well as yours. The sentiments among the Baha'i proponents was fairly strong last year, with one user in particular. I'll be more watchful for what's going on. Thanks for the heads up. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Cosmogonic beliefs from Africa
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Cosmogonic beliefs from Africa. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Creation myth. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Creation myth - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. RadioFan (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cosmogonic beliefs from modern religions


The article Cosmogonic beliefs from modern religions has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * POV fork of creation myth

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ben (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cosmogonic beliefs from Africa
Hi. I have declined the speedy on this, as I understand that what you are doing is a split of Creation myths. When you do this, it is vital that you maintain the attribution history of the contributors, by following the procedure explained in WP:Splitting. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)