User talk:Jenhawk777/sandbox/Archive 1

ref format
this edit converting a  to a   at the end of the previous citation, seems to have done the trick,. I hope this helps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bless you! It finally occurred to me this morning it might be the reference in front of the problem section instead of the reference I after that was the problem.  Great minds think alike right?!?  Thank you!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Bible and Violence
Okay, see if this is any better. There is a particular Wikipedia style isn't there? I have a question too. There are a couple of sentences and references in source but when I save they are not there--can you tell me why? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * there is so much work left to do on this it's not really fir to look at yet, but if you have ideas I will be grateful!  :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It´s better. If I´ll think of anything more specific I´ll come back. Yeah, there is particular WP-style. Part of it is, if I can tell your opinions/whatever from the text you put in an article, you´re probably not using it. Maybe WP:DEVELOP can be of some help, but it seems to me you´re already doing a lot of that.


 * Suggestion: click the red Jenhawk777 in your signature and write something. If you like, something of what you want to do on WP, or just "hello" or whatever. This will create a WP:USERPAGE and turn the redlink in your signature blue, making your signature not newbie-ish.


 * You´re not having any luck with your WP:PINGs. I use the variant (it´s short), when it works it automagically turns into . Not sure about the references thing, TEAHOUSE maybe? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I went and posted a hello as you suggested--maybe I won't be red anymore! Thank you--I never would have bothered to do that if you hadn't suggested it.  So do you think you can tell my opinions from what I've written?  That has been my ongoing point about the Violence and Christianity article--the opinion of the author is quite obvious.  You noted it in the very first comment you made.  I liked that you were straightforward about it.  I suspect from another comment you made at one point that your personal views are not in favor of Christianity, yet you are honest enough to acknowledge the article communicates that position.  I respect that ability to see both sides of something and have genuinely appreciated your input.

I noted last time I looked at it that he had changed the lead there again to incorporate some of what I had written on the four views within Christianity. I was glad to see that. It did make me wonder--just a little-- why he took it out when I tried to put it in--but whatever--it doesn't matter. Its lead looks a little more balanced now and that's the point. I decided that instead of rewriting the section on the Bible in that article, I am going to suggest removing it entirely. It's completely inadequate and imbalanced as it is. It doesn't actually include anything about what the Bible says which seems odd. Having a section about a topic and then just talking around that topic is confusing. I think removing it there and just referencing this one here is the right approach because there is just too much to put it all in the other article. So that's why I came over here and started rewriting this one--the banner at the top said it might need to be completely rewritten and I agreed with that assessment. But it's all still about the violence and Christianity article for me. It may take me years at the rate I'm going but I am determined to get that one balanced and neutral!! If I don't get too old to care anymore--or die first--LOL! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This was basically to try and see if this works better for me than pinging. I also wanted to tell you I figured out the problem.  I had the backslash in the wrong place in the reference because I had typed it in by hand and it left out the entire sentence and the reference because of it.  It's all these kinds of little things that only time and experience here can teach a person isn't it?  By the time I am done editing my first article and actually know what I'm doing, though, I am going to be thoroughly sick of Wikipedia I think!!  Maybe it will grow on me.  Like a fungus...  :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Now write that ping again, but remove the nowiki stuff. That´s only there to show the thingy in plain text, but it also makes it not work as a ping. I guess you copypasted it from the edit-window, not the actual talkpage, where it´s invisible? Writing a (good) entire article is hard and in this place you also have all kinds people changing what you do all the time, and that is annoying (for everybody, a lot of the time). But this is WP, and it has to be accepted. One can make some sort of impact, but if the goal is to have everything your own way in a large not-ignored-by-almost-everybody article, that won´t happen. And if it did, changes will be made as time passes anyway. As a new editor, you´ve taken a large bite, as are now choking on it a little. Try nibbling a little perhaps, edit, section-wise instead an entire article at once? Large changes can get more resistance to some extent because they are large, and many editors expect big old articles to change more bit by bit. That said, for a new editor who want a fairly big change you are doing well. You haven´t called people names, threatened to sue or been generally unpleasant. You obviously know stuff (more about this subject than I do, that´s clear, but don´t expect that to stop me having opinions), listen, talk, and adapt to the environment. And neither your salary or your grades is a factor, so you have some patience. This is all good, so as long as you have more fun/contentment than fed-up-ness, you´ll stick around. There are many interesting articles, and minor improvements are also improvements. WP wants you here, don´t doubt it. Well, that was quite a ramble, wasn´t it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It might seem like a ramble to you but it was warm and comforting to me! Thank you!  I appreciate the encouragement and the knowledge.  I do not expect to have my way--but I do appreciate the reminder that people will change things.  I don't mind that so much but it has gotten under my skin a little that they block me from changing things.  I have tried reading all the Wiki instruction stuff but there is just too much to try and remember when you don't have any experience to associate what they are talking about with.  Now that I have done a little and go back and read the light bulb comes on!  so I've got about half of it--the other half I look at it and it's still Greek!  I had read about merging articles and wanted to do that with the violence and Christianity article but was told pretty plainly that would never happen and do it a little at a  time.  It was a struggle just to get a few sentences in.  But this one says in the banner at the top that it needs a complete rewrite and they are always saying  Be Bold!  so I figured why the Hell not right?  all they can do is say no!  I don't like the way this one is set up with the whole for and against thing--it's misleading.  Anyway--I will take all your advice to heart because I can tell you are actually trying to help.  Thank you for that!  and for this nice message.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly, WP is built by people who are WP:BOLD, how else would things happen? And we learn by doing, so mistakes and disagreements are ok. One may think there´s a lot of discussion, but on WP discussions can reach stunning levels if editors think it´s needed, and religion is one of the difficult topics, up there with politics, altmed, and SAQ. to mention a few epic ones. These discussions sometimes get actual newscoverage (the third one sure did). And if you feel like relaxing with less serious matters, we have articles like List of fictional angels, List of angels in theology, List of names for the biblical nameless, Wives aboard Noah's Ark, List of planet killers and quite a few others. And the ping worked! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts
So... this is kind of an essay at this time, instead of a Wikipedia article.

The decision to focus the biblical part on specific words is interesting. That choice should be grounded in and follow scholarly studies of violence in the Bible, not your own work going into Strongs and finding stuff, which is WP:OR. (In terms of direct references for words, you really should be using scholarly lexica like Liddel Scott for Greek and HALOT for the Hebrew, to the extent you are going there at all). You have theology mixed into this part, which is not good.

The second part is all theology. Even calling this "apologetics" is problematic, and it isn't clear to me why you went for that term instead of "theology". It isn't clear to me where three three subsections came from (Deny Divine Inspiration, Deny the texts represent God’s Intent, Accept Inspiration and Explain The Texts). I am concerned those are your creations, which again is OR.

What is lacking is an ANE section - work by historians trying to understand what we know of the culture of ancient israel in light of its context. That is a big hole.

I don't know if you have read Trible's Texts of Terror (a work wrestling with violence against women in the Hebrew Bible), but you should do. Great writing and great wrestling, written by one of the pioneers in feminist Biblical studies, who was very much anchored in and in dialogue with the traditions and faith in which she was raised. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So hey! It does still need a lot of work doesn't it?  I will change the Strong's references to a lexicon--although why a lexicon is better than a concordance I can't say I understand--I am just quoting what it says there--I would have to look it up myself in either place--but I will take your word that you know Wiki's rules, so I will do it.  Theology and apologetics are not exactly the same thing.  Theology is sort of the big umbrella--the overall study of a religion and its beliefs, while apologetics is under that big umbrella but it's under there with several other umbrellas!  Apologetics is using reasoned arguments to justify some aspect of belief--and apologetics can be used for things besides religion.  This is specifically apologetics and not theology in general.  I went with it because the original article contains apologetics--and it is a big aspect of this topic.  Not discussing apologetics when talking about violence in the Bible would be like talking about war without mentioning politics.  It is so integral to the discussion it's just really not possible to discuss it with any thoroughness without including it at least some.  That would no doubt be why the other guy did it as well.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can shorten it--I will when I finish writing it--then I will edit and shorten it. and I would ask you to help please because I think you are a really good editor.  You take things I say in thirty words and make them make more sense in ten!  I really like that!  I am not as good an editor but I am a good researcher and writer, so maybe between us all we can get this!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am contemplating the comment on history and waffling back and forth. This isn't the Christianity and violence article--this is strictly Bible stuff--and covering all the many historical interpretations of this subject in the Bible could make this extraordinarily long.  I have alluded to a couple but if you think it should be in there--I could see whether or not I am capable of writing something SHORT on it--but historical views opens up a whole other line!!  I'll think about it--you could write something of course and add it in. That would work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the section on non-sectarian apologetics, I do discuss history of the culture as an approach that is used and cover three or four of those. I was hoping it would be sufficient--I am thinking all of this needs to be shortened!  The three sections reject deny etc.  all came from something in the lead that I took out when Gråebergs Gråa Sång told me I needed to redo the lead.  She (he?) gave me places to go look  and I took notes on the different approaches and copied their style.  This lead is now reflective of the style of the lead to the article on violence in the Quran.  It is an improvement over what it was.  Now I need to go add that reference back in to the apologetics heading.  I should have done it right away--and I might have forgotten completely so thanx for the reminder!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not so much asking about the lead, as I am about the structure of the body (the lead just summarizes whatever was done in the body). I've done graduate work in theology and biblical studies (fwiw) and (again, fwiw) there are two broad ways of approaching the Bible - one is as a piece of ancient literature that is very much a human product of the times and places it was written and redacted - one with enduring cultural significance and meanings, and another, as a source of revelation.  There is high quality completely secular work from people who study the ANE and the classical era, as well as people who study literature, and there is a wealth of high quality theology work as well (not to mention history of theology, as interpretations and uses of these texts and the traditions behind them have a ~3000 year history).  Generally (depending on how much authority they give to the bible and in what way) some theologies fully embrace and use the findings of the secular studies; some more or less subsume them into a priori theological stances, and some completely ignore secular studies.  But an encyclopedia article would be remiss in not giving the secular studies their own space, distinct from the faith-based ones.  Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have some suggestions? I can't afford to buy a 600$ set of reference books for a Wikipedia article.  The secular studies do have their own space--it's the non-sectarian section under apologetics.  Apologetics is not solely a Christian activity. It can apply to any belief from any point of view, both pro or con.  Apologetics attempts assessment using reason, logic, data, historiography--something other than faith in the belief itself--that is apologetics.  The scholars assessing the Old Testament from the perspective of archaeology--whatever their conclusions--are doing apologetics-- whether they always call it that or not.  If you actually read through that section on apologetics you will see the statements scholars make are both pro and con.  They are not one-sided. But I am happy to add anything you suggest to that section.  You may be more fully informed in that area than I, so some concrete suggestions would be a big assist.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I normalized the section header formatting. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That was kind.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you thank you--I can't say it enough! You did a great job and I appreciate the help. I don't understand a couple of the things you said about the references. Could you expand for a newby who is still a little clueless? I really really hate what you did with all the pictures! :-) But that's okay, I will just go remove some.  Did you think the content was neutral pov?  Do you have any recommendations as far as content goes?  I am so grateful for your participation with this.  Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . What I did for the pictures was remove the "left" directive.  The reason was that although some images could be at the left, when they are close to eachother it causes images to be both at the left and right of the text, squeezing the text in between them.  This text column then becomes very narrow for the manual-of-style recommendation of supporting 1024 window width (even on HD screens this can be a useful browser window width to view more than one window at a time or to avoid having to read paragraphs that extend from left to right on large HD screens).  An alternative would be to set a smaller explicit thumb size instead of using the default (i.e. 200px), but this would then ignore user settings.  More information is available at MOS:IMAGES and MOS:LAYIM.  Then there's another potential issue: if there are too many images and they are all aligned in the same direction, they can expand down further than expected, including into unrelated article sections.  In such cases where the images are still considered useful it may be possible to include an image gallery in a section dedicated to this in addition to inline images.  Galleries can also be at the end of related sections, an example being at Quebec.  If there were less inline images, it would also be no problem for some to be left-aligned. For the references, feel free to ask specific questions and I'll be glad to help.  In case my Sfn comment was what you are wondering about, an example article using sfn for shortened footnotes (when multiple pages of a source are used) is Animation.  But Rp is good too, both are better than multiple full citations with only a page change, or than not specifying pages.  According to rp's documentation, this is mostly used for cases where there are so many page references that shortened footnotes become unwieldy.  The advantage of Sfn in this case is that it automatically combines redundant page references and that the text itself remains lighter (only small blue links are used to point to sources rather than inline page ranges).  Happy editing, — Paleo  Neonate  - 15:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the need not to have them on both sides, so thank you for fixing that. I went and took some of them out--I just liked the look of lots of pics all around the text!!  Lots of text is so boring!  I was specifically concerned about the "raw url"???  I thought putting those inside regular reference brackets was what I was supposed to do.  Should they be external links instead?  What's the best way to deal with that?  I am interested in any comments you might have specifically on content.  Is it okay?  Is npov okay?  Does anything need deleting or expanding to make it more neutral?  I really appreciate your help.  Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I will have to read it more throughly to have an opinion on neutrality. To answer about bare-urls, there are many citation formats used on Wikipedia and although there are good practices there is no mandated standard for all articles, but within the same article it is best for it to follow a consistent style.  Bare-urls lack contectual information (they are only URLs, in link, text or both forms).  Adding more information like the title, date of publication, author, solves the bare-url issue.  The CS1 (WP:CS1) citation templates are useful because they ensure uniform formatting and can be processed by software including link-rescuing bots and citation assisting tools.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 22:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Some Thoughts. Maybe Too Many Thoughts.
I'm here from the note at WP:BIBLE. I have way too many thoughts, feel free to read some or all of this. First, kudos to you for working on an article that needs work. As it's on a controversial topic, it might be frustrating for a newbie. I think the odds are most in your favor if you don't change the article in one giant edit, but do so in a series of edits, giving some time between edits for the community to digest what you're doing. You could do it all at once when you get this ready to go, but it could easily get reverted. Do you mind if I make small typo-level corrections to your sandbox directly? If you object to anything I do to your sandbox, you can undo easily and I won't fight you over it.

When it comes to WP:NPOV, my time here has made me see that generally whatever Jytdog says closely reflects what the majority position of Wikipedia editors will be. He's not "in charge" or anything, he just understands Wikipedia's positions really well. I'll work from top to bottom of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead sections is supposed to be more like an abstract of the whole article than an introduction. It is there to rapidly summarize key points. That'll be hard here. The Wiki community probably won't accept the lead as you have it now for POV reasons.

Your Creach references make it look like they're all citations to p. 9. That will need fixed. Your reference #12 will need fleshed out. If possible, it would be best to have page numbers for the citations to Jacob Wright (and any other citation too). If it's all right with you, I'd like to edit the transliterations of Hebrew terms you use in a number of places to get them all in line with similar standards (I'm thinking using SBL standard here). Reference #21 will need fleshed out. The relationship between ref #21 and ref #22 will need clarifying. Refs 23 and 25 will need expansion. Pagination for ref 27 will need clarifying.

I think you're using "apologetics" in a different sense from the usual one. This might warrant some revision. Refs 36 and 37 will need expansion. Citation 40, to the New World Encyclopedia, will have to go because the New World Encyclopedia uses Wikipedia as a source, and Wikipedia frowns on that kind of "circular" reference. Wikipedia only uses sources that don't rely on Wikipedia, or else we could get "facts" that have no real grounding. The accusation that Friedrich Delitzsch and Adolph van (?) Harnack might prove controversial. I'm not sure that grouped Hector Avalos' approach with Marcion's is quite right -- Avalos is an atheist and doesn't buy that any texts are inspired, while Marcion was working within a religious framework to narrow the canon.

In general the "Conclusion" section doesn't fit with how Wikipedia handles topics. It's a little more like a personal essay. The normal Wikipedia approach would be to simply leave the tensions between different views hanging there, rather than providing a conclusion like "Perhaps these texts are challenging us all to ask hard questions." I think the lead and conclusion both have a noticeably pro-religious tone, and I don't anticipate the Wikipedia community accepting either.

Anyhow, thanks for putting the time in to work on a difficult article. I wish you the best of luck. Alephb (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I am not surprised the conclusion will need to go.  I expected that but I liked the quote so much I put it in anyway knowing I would eventually take it out!  But I am surprised about the lead.  It was recommended that I go look at a couple other articles here on Wiki like the one about the Quran and on the Crusades that were considered to be good examples, and I did, and I basically copied the method of the one on the Quran...I thought.  Could you maybe give me something specific that is too religious?  I would really appreciate it.  Jytdog has been a big help I agree.  I have page numbers using the rp designation for all the different pages--I thought!  I will take note of all your points and work to fix them.
 * Apologetics is using reason or data or historiography (something not faith) to evaluate--pro or con--for or against any belief. That's why the non-secatarian section is under apologetics.  It isn't limited to religion actually and it isn't limited to justification. The reference to Delizsch and Harnack is a direct quote as is the one on Avalos.  I went and checked his book directly--but I will recheck that one!  That would be a big mistake if that's wrong!  Thank you again!  I am writing all of this down to go do now! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot! Feel free to make any corrections or changes you see fit!  Write on it--do anything you please!  It's still in a very amorphous state, so if I hate it--I will ping you and we'll discuss it--but I am guessing I will like whatever you do.  I generally like anything that makes things better.  Jytdog edited some things I did on the other site and I thought he made them better and told him so.  I appreciate conciseness--I'm just not good at it!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As for apologetics, I'm thinking in terms of the sort of thing described by the Wikipedia page Apologetics, or the sort of thing that comes up when you Google the word "apologetics," or the only thing that comes up when you look at Wiktionary: . Usually, at least in things I've read, the term is used to mean "defense of religion." Outside of that use, I've seen the term used, with negative connotations, as a metaphor for other types of reasoning that have some kind of advocacy as their goal. I don't think anyone doing anything other than defense of religion calls their own work "apologetics." I'm not saying the word is never used in your sense, but in a religious context I think the term usually has a more specific meaning that any evaluation of some idea, pro or con.
 * I may have to rethink what I said about the lead. I think I misread the bit about Eric Siebert the first time I read it. There's still some things that could probably be tweaked, but it looks considerably more even-handed than I remember for some reason. If the Delitzsch and Harnack material is a direct quote, it needs to be in quotation marks. Equating Delitzsch and von Harnack with Marcion strikes me as something that's likely to be controversial and nuanced, but I'll admit I haven't read the source you're using there. It's just one of those things that throws up a mental red flag for me, but I'd need to do more reading to be sure. I wonder if it might be worded more neutrally, like "Person X says Delitzsch and von Harnack are like Marcion" rather than "Delitzsch and von Harnack are like Marcion." Marcionism, at least in some contexts, is a fairly serious charge, and I can't imagine that Delitzsch or Harnack would consider themselves methodological heirs of Marcion. But I could be wrong. Alephb (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OKAY!! I think I have done everything you said!!  Did you go in and remove the headings?  That's better really?  It looks disorganized to me--but hey--whatever--if you think explication is better than apologetics I say let's go for it!  I figured out the problem with Avalos too--I had put him in the wrong paragraph!  Thank goodness you caught that!  This gave me an opportunity to give a direct quote too--so that worked out too!  I know we aren't supposed to comment on other editors--but you have been amazingly awesome and I could not be more grateful.  Thank you!  I'm glad you reread the lead!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the spirit of the guidance about commenting on other editors was designed to prevent editors from saying, "you have been amazingly awesome and I could not be more grateful"! At the risk of breaking the policy myself, I'm glad to see how much effort you're willing to put into getting things right, and it's always good to see that a new user is open to collaborating. I don't think I removed any headings, but based on readings earlier today I'd agree that there's probably some room still for improving the organization of the whole thing. It's a tricky thing to organize, because so many scholars have so many different things to say about the Bible and violence. Happy to help. Alephb (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If I may continue to impose on your good will I am concerned about expanding reference number twelve--the lexicon references to the Hebrew words. I had originally referenced Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek dictionaries--it's easy and I own the humongous thing, but Jytdog said that constituted original work and told me to switch to the lexicon.  I was totally confused by that--I still have to look it up in a lexicon just like I do in a dictionary--I didn't do the translating!  He never got back to me and explained why HALOT is better than Strong's--the old standby for the last fifty years!  But I attempted to make the changes just because he said so and he knows more than I do about being here.  Now you don't like this reference either!  Can you help me improve it?  And I just said you are amazing because you are!  No one else has given me the specifics like you have.  You rock! :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * there is also a problem with the access date on number three and four and I can't figure out why. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we may be getting our wires crossed slightly because there's so much editing happening so fast. When I first made a comment about reference #12, all that was there was "Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament | Volume=4| pages = 478-87." So my suggestion was just to expand the reference with things like who wrote it, who published, what year, that kind of thing. It wasn't an objection to your use of the source -- it was just that a reader might need more information to confirm a the detail themselves. Since I said that, it looks like it's now been replaced with an NAS Concordance reference.
 * When it comes to Strong's, it has to do with Wikipedia's approach to choosing reliable sources, as outlined in WP:RS. (I'm not telling you to read the whole policy, just linking for convenience.) To paraphrase it, basically Wikipedia tries when possible to rely on the latest products of the most mainstream academic sources. Stuff that goes through peer-review, stuff that's up to date, stuff that comes out of a university press, stuff that gets good reviews in scholarly journals, stuff that is cited often and used as standard by scholars, stuff that is published by recognized leaders in their field. Not every source has to check all of those boxes, but those are the sorts of things that would count in favor of a source. HALOT is probably, I'd say, the most standard academic source in English on the meaning of Hebrew words. Strong's Concordance gets used a lot on the internet for some reason -- probably because it is out of copyright and convenient for people who don't read Hebrew -- but it's not a reliable source. I mean that in both senses of the term. In the ordinary sense of the word "reliable," it's just pretty bad and generally people who read Hebrew fairly well chuckle when they see anyone cite it. In the technical "legalish" Wikipedia sense of "reliable", it fails because it's not a product of a process like peer review, it's really old, it doesn't come from a university press, and Hebrew scholars never cite it. Assessing reliability doesn't come down to any single factor, but I think if you look at the range of factors that Wikipedians generally use to assess whether a source is reliable, Strong's doesn't do well and can easily be replaced by sources that rank a lot higher in the Wikipedia approach. Alephb (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I think I've got the access date problem fixed. Looks like the genius computer was unable to process a comma in the date. Alephb (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I had no idea! I have been using Strong's for decades!  OMG!  I don't speak Hebrew--when I get stuck I have a Jewish friend in Israel who does!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing that! I could not figure out what the issue was.  Wikipedia makes me really really grateful I decided all those years ago NOT to study code writing... :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

opening paragraph
The opening paragraph of the lead is nothing but a very overlong list of what different groups may mean by the books of Bible. If doen't seem needed at all, or at least now with 90% of the detail currently included. tahc chat 16:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it's violence in the Bible it seemed appropriate to begin by defining each. You don't agree? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Opinion: No on the Bible bit, pretty much. For the lead, a wikilink to The Bible covers it well enough. There is one in the first sentence, for some reason the WP-custom is not to wikilink anything in that first bold bit (or section-titles). Stuff like additional books in Ethiopian bibles can appear in the body if they are relevant there, otherwise they just seem off-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will make that change. Jytdog has also suggested adding some stuff on Jesus' apocalyptic teachings.  I am researching that right now.  This is all really helpful!  Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

cleanup
I cleaned up some issues (mostly wikignome stuff) but didn't mess with organization and such. There are still some problems which need to be addressed. Editor2020 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for looking at it and doing that! Could you be specific about problems?  We have done a little more work on it--fixed some of the reference issues, took out the term apologetics and the other headings--which makes it look disorganized to me but others seemed to prefer, so that'll work. The Wiki community has been very responsive and helpful.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I apparently also have "bare urls" and that's a bad bad thing--and I haven't a clue what I am talking about!  Could you help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bare urls are what you have on references 16, 57, 59, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 86, 87. I can fix a few of them up for you. Basically, you want a reference to include things like author, title, and dates, instead of only a bare web address (URL) like http://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/. Alephb (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you getting tired of my admiration and appreciation yet? Thank you again.  Could you explain how or what you did so I could learn something about it?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I went and looked at history and saw you had spent a lot of time and did a lot of work and I am very grateful and wanted to say thank you. It's all amazing.  I am kind of in awe of all of you right now!  I had one thing I questioned; the removal of the section headings.  It did away with what organization there was and the lead makes no sense without those sections since they are what the lead alludes to.  I went and put them back--the two headings of non-sectarian and religious, and the three subheadings under religious but I don't want you to think that means I am ungrateful for all you did.  It was amazing--honestly.  But having the entire article just one long list of comments with no organization at all just didn't work. It made it hard to follow.   If you don't like these headings--maybe suggest others?  I left the removal of the word apologetics and the change to explication--so if you have other heading title ideas--that would be cool too.  The use of that term apologetics did seem to be giving people all kinds of trouble.  It's not an exclusively Christian concept though.  Shoot--now I am going to have to go to the page on apologetics and try to change that!  I just came here to do one article!  I had no idea did I?  Anyway thanx again--and forgive me for not agreeing on the headings things.  It has to have something!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. If you feel that something needs to be undone please feel free to do so.Editor2020 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You improved everything, really, and if you have any other ideas about organizing the material I will probably do whatever you suggest! It just needs something--I don't love the headings--but they're better than nothing.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You not liking the headings gave me the motivation to go back and rearrange everything and do away with them altogether--so they're gone, but it does have some organization again after all. You were right--and it's better now I think. Thank you!Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)