User talk:Jenhawk777/sandbox/Archive 4

Submit button
I could be mistaken, but existing articles rarely get replaced by new ones, unless they get deleted by consensus then later get recreated and don't get nominated again for deletion (or pass at AfD). That said, drafs can be merged in old articles (WP:MERGE). It is possible that in some cases the old article can become a redirect with the new one becoming the main one. Although I was around Wikipedia since 2005, it's only a few months ago that I created my account and started learning more about how these things are done, so my experience with this is limited. It is possible that among other issues Jytdog raised, he also meant this, when talking about the possibility of deletion. A danger is also for the article to be considered a POV fork (WP:POVFORK), but this usually occurs under alternate names with the goal to contradict the point of view expressed in an existing article. Hopefully more experienced editors in this area can comment. — Paleo Neonate  – 03:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * even when there's a flag at the top asking for a rewrite? I've wasted all this time?!?  They didn't mean it?  Has this happened before?  This is very upsetting.  I wouldn't have done it on  my own. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Drafts are not a waste of time, especially when as you said, a rewrite was requested: even if it was ultimately necessary to merge it into the old article, there is more material here at this point than in the old one already. Merging is not as simple as moving, but it is feasible.  What would there be to merge if there was no prepared material anyway...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with PaleoNeonate. I've never seen an established article get replaced with a new one all at once that I can remember. If this sandbox project is going to wind up used in the main article, I bet it would probably be by replacing parts piece by piece. That said -- I'm not saying you couldn't just replace the whole thing. It's just that I've never seen it done. I've also never seen multiple editors working on a sandbox article version like this, so we're sort of in uncharted territory here. If you reach the point where you're ready to submit it, Jenhawk, but then you find it not getting accepted, I'd advise trying to do the rewrite piece by piece, with this sandbox thing serving as a sort of ideal that you'd be moving the main article toward. Alephb (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * multiple users working on a sandbox poses no problem for content that is copied to mainspace, as long as attribution is taken care of. There are a few scenarios. Specifically, if the article in total is moved, that happens the same way as moving a draft created by one person. If selected content is merged to the target article, and that content has been contributed to by many users, the following edit summary should be used: . If a lot of material is pieced together like this, a WP:history merge might be more elegant. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with, the piece by piece approach is reasonable. Try starting with a hoped-to-be-uncontroversial/no-brainer addition/replacement, bottom-up or something, perhaps with an explanatory note on the talkpage. Allow for discussion/edits as needed, then repeat. Lastly, see what we have and write the WP:LEAD. There is a banner that might be useful on the article during this process:


 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you --went and put that up!Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I went and read the pages you include here--and some of the pages they lead to--and it seems that creating a discussion on the idea of merging might be the correct approach.  I copy pasted some of the original article into the rewrite toward the end of merging but now it seems from what I read--if I understand it correctly--that may have been the wrong thing to do. What do I do now? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Copying within Wikipedia explains that you can me a dummy edit (add a space or something trivial) and explain in its edit summary which of your old edits introduced material from elsewhere. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a note at the top of my sandbox article--now do I go to the talk page on the original article and add a note there as well?Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You should strive to note pasting of content in an edit summary. There are templates that you can place on the talk page (not the sandbox/article itself) to serve as more noticeable reminders of pasting. The use of these are optional. You can find them along with instructions here: Copied. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I am attempting to follow everyone's advice here. I will try small steps--even though I really do think it needs to be completely redone! I went and posted one today: under use of violence, the first paragraph discusses Abraham and Isaac. I took out mention of the angel and added in two scholarly views with differing opinions instead. See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

BibleStudyTools
Looking at reference 16, I noticed a reference to http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/. Crazy as this sounds, the folks at Bible Study Tools have produced or are hosting a fake lexicon. Their description on the site says:

<>

But that's just false. If you pick an individual entry in that Lexicon, say this one, for the Hebrew word an, the entry just isn't from the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, and it isn't from the Gesenius Lexicon. For some reason, it looks like someone (unnamed) produced an online Lexicon and then slapped the title of the more famous Brown-Driver-Briggs and Gesenius Lexicons onto it.

If you want to verify this for yourself, you can find an actual facsimile of the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon here: https://archive.org/details/hebrewenglishlex00browuoft. I'm kind of flabbergasted that someone went to all the trouble of creating an entire Lexicon of biblical Hebrew and then falsely labelled it.
 * I accept your assessment 100%. And agree--that's nuts! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's why I don't cite Bible Study Tools in general. I don't know what else on the site is fake or misleading. Alephb (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. There are sites designed to be used on Wikipedia for SEO or traffic purposes.  Perhaps that an WP:RSN thread is in order (and search in its archives for discussion of past issues if any)...   shows that it's used in nearly 300 mainspace articles.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 02:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Citing_sources/Bible suggests that its former domain was bible.crosswalk.com. — Paleo Neonate  - 02:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We have an article about the organization website: Crosswalk.com and over 70 articles still pointing to the old domain which are redirects and 274 total to the domain . — Paleo  Neonate  - 02:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about how you could do an "insource" search. I learn something new here every day. My general impression is that a lot of the content on Bible Study Tools looks like real stuff. It doesn't scream "fraud" as a whole. But then again, the fake Lexicon on their site looks real. That's the part I can't make heads or tails of. It's actually not even a bad Lexicon, from what I've seen of it so far. It's just not "Brown Driver Briggs" and it's not "Gesenius." Super weird. Alephb (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Holy Toledo! I just trusted them to be what they said!  They were easy--I had no idea.  Well today I have found out two of my old standbys that I thought of as authorities--aren't.  I think my world is rocking a little bit!  Man!  That sucks!  But thank you so very much for finding and fixing it for me.  What do you recommend I use instead?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know Oxford has a new set of referneces--but they are 600$--I can't do that for an article on wikipedia. You guys will end up writing an article on "Wannabe Wikipedia writer shot by appalled husband..." Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, two questions, I guess. Do you know your way around the Hebrew alphabet well enough to sound things out? And, are you familiar with Google Books search? The answers to those two will help determine what I'd recommend. Alephb (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be embarrassed to say in public that I couldn't Google search... so even if I couldn't--I'd lie--!! :-) Not really--sure, I can Google books search--used it to check some of the references from the original article that he used for books I don't have or couldn't get from the library.  I checked all his references--somebody missed that one of the ones he refers to more than once isn't actually anywhere in his reference list.  I never did find it.  I don't remember exactly which one now.  Anyway--best to let me stick with dictionaries lexicons and concordances--those I am well familiar with.  My Hebrew is shameful.  :-)  Don't even ask about my Greek!  I liked Latin but that doesn't help much does it?  I can read a little German and speak a little Spanish--and that's the extent of my language skills!  In grad school they allowed us to take statistics as our language. Since I had already learned to hate the others--I did that.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All right. "My Hebrew is shameful" is good news. It means that you have some Hebrew. I can work with this. There's a really neat Hebrew dictionary in progress -- it has about half of the Hebrew words out there -- online here: . I've never seen it cited on Wikipedia, and maybe someone would object, but it might be worth using. If you get reverted, well, you get reverted. Of the old public domain things, the Brown-Driver-Briggs dictionary is the best. The archive.org site is down for maintenance, but if you remind me in a day or two I can get you a link. That one will be easiest to use if you download the PDF to your computer. However, it is from 1906, so while it is very good, it is a bit dated and you might get some objections. I would think of those two dictionaries as back-ups: if you can't get a more up-to-date source, if you you're working on an article that isn't going to be controversial, you can probably get away with citing BDB. I have.
 * But the method I use most often if I need a Hebrew definition is to go through Google Books or JSTOR. Sadly, if you don't have a JSTOR subscription or access to a library that has access, the best you can do is read three articles in any fourteen-day period. But still useful every now and then. For me, what often works is to type a transliteration of the Hebrew word plus an English synonym into Google Books. So if I was searching for herem, I would search for "herem extermination" in Google Books, and all sorts of stuff pops up. If I was searching for hamas, I'd type "hamas violence" in, but then a bunch of political stuff comes tumbling out. So I'd go more specific, and type "hamas violence Bible" and then the right kinds of stuff pop up. (For all of these, I would use the quotation marks in the search itself.
 * Here's a trick to use with Google Books. Say you want to use this . Just copy the URL (https://books.google.com/books?id=sWv7YVmcpREC&pg=PA108&dq=hamas+violence+Bible&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR0-fMi73VAhUB2oMKHR4sBAsQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q=hamas%20violence%20Bible&f=false), and then paste it into the text bar at http://reftag.appspot.com. Click "Load," and it produces a citation for you, already formatting for Wikipedia. You get this:




 * It even provides a link so that someone reading the article can click straight through to the source you used and read what's there.


 * And there you have it -- a decent citation on a Hebrew word. Almost any Hebrew word of any significance can be dragged out of Google Books. If you can't find a word in Google books, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. I might be able to show you how to refine the search to find what you're looking for. If neither of us can find it on Google Books, there's a good chance the word is so insignificant that it really isn't Encyclopedia-worthy anyhow. I hope that helps. Alephb (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Since you told me to go feel right at home on your userpage, I copied links in for some useful Wikipedia tools. If you don't want it there, feel free to take them out. I decided to be bold and use that "carte blanche" you granted. Alephb (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is astoundingly helpful! Thank you so much!  I will copy and keep all of this--I wish there was a "save" button!  I am familiar with Jstor--I actually rented the two articles from there that I reference for this rewrite.  But I can see how that could get to be an expensive hobby!  They have great great stuff though that's for sure.  I looked at the abstracts of several things--just couldn't get them all!  You can swing by and drop off gifts like these anytime you like!  :-)   Thank you again.  OH!  And just so you are current--I put a comment on the talk page of the Bible and Violence original article that people should look at the rewrite before I attempt to post anything.  I hope to have all issues resolved before pressing that big blue scary submit button!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've got JSTOR access. If there's a particular article you need to see the inside, I think it would be within the bounds of copyright for me to look at it and copy a brief quote or two for you. I probably shouldn't share whole articles, though. If I've learned anything from the tragic end of Aaron Swartz, it's that you don't mess with JSTOR. Alephb (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You have access?!? You are golden!! If I could take advantage of that right away... I want to! I am looking for a reference about Jesus' apocalyptic sayings that is negative about him/them. I know I should just take what I find but--look--Jytdog has been great and continues to try and help in spite of me being a pain in the neck and he sent me this suggestion --which I had not thought of--that I should include Jesus' apocalyptic sayings. He sent me a list of the ones he thinks are violent by nature and he sent me a connection to Google books. I started at the top and have been working my way down through the books one at a time. I have found plenty of stuff saying the apocalyptic worldview is inherently violent but I have yet to find anything that says Jesus was. I have three different texts saying he wasn't--but I'm afraid to put them in without the point he made being there with some strength. He has accused me of not having a neutral point of view--which seems unfair to me. I thought I had both points of view--much more than the original article does--and have fixed at least some of its problems, so I am disappointed in his pointed response. But I want this to be balanced. I am not pushing an agenda or a point of view--so I really need that other ""anti-Jesus"" material!! I will keep looking at books till my eyes bleed... A jstor article could save my bacon--or at least my article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course--you don't have to send it to me if you feel like writing something yourself--make one of those 'small edits' you were talking about!  :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Other resources that may sometimes be useful could be WP:LIBRARY or WP:RX. — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * -- if you can give the title of one or two articles you're particularly interested in on JSTOR, I'd be happy to look and see if I can find stuff useful to you. Alephb (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! That is really kind.  I think I have found the majority.  I have been unable to verify the reference for supersessionism.  I believe it to be a personal interpretation and cannot find that particular source--NT and Violence by Leigh someone (its page 3)-- that is referenced and can't find anything that duplicates the statement there-- that supersessionists are about comparing the "violence in the New Testament"-- or any other source that says that.  Jytdog sent me a reference-- which I thought was kind-- that I was looking for on Jesus' apocalyptic sayings too, but I have not gone over it yet.  I have had a full day today and don't feel like reading it tonight. Tomorrow.

I got tired of pussy-footing around and went all crazy and started editing the Bible and violence article. I moved a whole bunch of stuff. I imagine people will be screaming and pulling out their hair sometime this week. :-) I added one sentence to the lead because I needed the reference, otherwise it's all in the body.  Please review it if you can stand it!  I value your input.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Holy cow you did like 50 edits in 5 hours adding about 40K bytes to a 40K article. I'm not surprised that got reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alephb (talk • contribs) 06:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Holy cow indeed! :-)  Half of those were correcting errors created in my own material by moving it though.  They don't really count.  :-)  Why are you not surprised it got reverted?  How is it consensus if one person gets to decide what others see and have the opportunity to respond to?  What if the Wiki community came along and edited everything I wrote?  I expect them to.  It would get the ball rolling and the article would be improved and that's the point--isn't it?  This article is flagged as needing total replacement--since I was advised that wouldn't really happen--I went halfway.  But even that was "too bold" apparently.  I don't want an edit war and have done nothing yet in response. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've never seen someone rewrite a controversial article all in one fell swoop like that and have it accepted. If Jytdog hadn't reverted it, someone else probably would have. I really don't know if you "broke a rule" or if there's any piece of policy you violated. It's just that the way you're working is different from the way all the other Wikipedia editors are working. The usual method on an article like this would be to make a specific change, stand back a bit, see how it's received, once the dust settles on that make another specific change, and so on.


 * Here's what it looks like when I edit Wikipedia. I think most editors probably have a work flow a lot like mine. Each day that I contribute to Wikipedia, I check my Watchlist. I've got 950 articles on my watchlist, and the watchlist shows me every article that's been changed. Maybe twenty articles have been changed. I use the watchlist to look at each of the changes. In some cases, it's vandalism, or well-intentioned bumbling. In those cases I revert the edits. In some cases, it's fine, and I don't do anything or I thank an editor. Sometimes I notice that the article is a bit of a mess, and then I go fix a bunch of superficial stuff. I'll bounce from article to article, making small to medium-sized edits. That's what my workflow looks like.


 * I could be wrong, because it's not as if editors usually describe their workflow to each other, but my impression is that I'm pretty typical of the people who do a lot of editing. I make incremental changes, I evaluate incremental changes, and so on. If I ever did fifty edits (or twenty, or ten) in a row to an article, it would either be because I was fixing little typos, or because I was fixing obvious problems in a way no one could object to, or if I was working on a very obscure article. But something like this -- it would just be far enough outside of the usual practice that I wouldn't expect to be able to pull it off. I'm not saying the Wikipedia community is right or wrong, or that you're right or wrong. There's just a way something like this is usually done, and you're operating on a very controversial article in a very unusual way.


 * Because you seem to be hitting a brick wall, my guess is that it would go better if you made your edits more like this one. One stand-alone edit, then wait a day or two and see what happens. That's what I think most experienced editors would do here. Now, if you're only editing one or two articles, that might seem like a really slow process. If you get bored, you can do like I do when I'm bored on Wikipedia and work on our big list of low-importance, low-quality Bible-related articles. It's a really good place to gain some experience if that's what you want to do, and a lot of the work that needs done will be mostly uncontroversial, giving you a chance to do something where you don't feel like you're banging your head into a wall. Alephb (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Once again you have come to my rescue.  I had no idea there was a protocol.  It's one of those unspoken things I guess--it's not written anywhere.  Go slow is kind of the opposite of be bold.  I don't want to cause trouble--I just wanted to edit one article.  I will see if I can stand doing this once a week maybe.  That's an awful lot of work just sitting there going nowhere.  I don't want an edit war so I edited one section today--it amounts to three changes.  I came to see if it had been reverted yet.  If it had, I was ready to quit.  so--where do I find those boring little obscure articles anyway? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on what kind of BLOA:s you want! You can search category:something you like and see what pops up, like Category:Christianity or Category:Stub-Class Christianity articles. You can look at places like TEAHOUSE and Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 8 for articles that needs help. I´m sure there´s more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * BLOA's! LOL!  I love it!  That's what I will call them from now on!  :-)  Thank you.  I will give that a try I guess.  I put three sentences in the Bible and violence, but I put them in a section I really think just needs removing.  How does one go about getting consensus for a suggestion like that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does say "Be Bold," but I think part of the reason they allow boldness by newbies is that the revert function always allows for any excessive boldness to be cleaned up. Another mixed message is the Wikipedia principle "Ignore All Rules," which will get almost anyone who tries it precisely nowhere. Another source of BLOAs would be here, where you can find various lists depending on how shabby the article is that you want to edit, and how obscure. So if you want to work on low-importance, low-quality articles, you might try here, while if you want to work on good-quality, high-importance articles you might try here. There's all sorts of other combinations, too, available from the link in the paragraph. Alephb (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

PS -- When it comes to your question about getting consensus, you might bring it up on the talk page first if it's a big edit, and then wait a couple days and see if anyone objects. Since I have the Bible and Violence article on my watchlist, I'd see that something happened on the talk page and then chime in. Probably a few other editors would too. The other approach, which I would usually do, is just to post an explanation for the removal on the talk page, then immediately remove the bad section with a short edit summary that says something like "removing unnecessary section, see talk page for more", and then wait and see if anyone objects. If I get reverted, then I'd try to talk through the issue with whoever reverted me. So normally I don't "get consensus" for things I do -- I just do them and worry about consensus if my edit is undone. And I do have edits get undone -- probably every week. Sometimes, I talk it through, sometimes I don't even bother and just let the undoer undo it. I probably make a hundred edits that nobody objects to for every one that gets reverted, so sometimes I just don't even try to advocate my position, satisfied that 99% of what I do is being accepted. But given that you've already had a significant portion of your work on that article reverted, probably the best approach for a major edit would be to throw up the idea on the talk page first. It is slow going, I know. Kudos to you for sticking around this long.

But when doing routine work on articles, I'd say, follow the BRD acronym that's famous on this site -- Bold, Revert, Discuss. First, don't bother trying to get consensus. If you think you can improve the article, be Bold and go right ahead. Do whatever you want, within reason. If nobody touches you're contribution, perfect. If someone comes along and reverts (R), then go on to (D), discuss. Start a discussion on the talk page, and ping the person who reverted you. Then you can try to talk it through. If you hit an impasse, only then maybe seek dispute resolution, if it's worth going to the trouble. That's the BRD cycle, and it's the normal way we work through conflict. If you hit an impasse with someone, where the two of you have tried to talk it out and haven't settled the problem, and want to look into dispute resolution, I'd try and find a more experienced editor and ask them how to proceed. If you hit an impasse with multiple people, it's usually best to just let the majority have it's way, because Wikipedia is a very democratic place that way. Only in exceptional circumstances would somebody mount some kind of formal appeal against multiple editors. Usually if there's a clear majority on one side, like 2/3 or more of the editors who have chimed in, then we just go by majority rule. There's an essay called WP:BRD that outlines the process in more detail, but to be honest I don't think I've read the whole thing. I've mostly just picked stuff up by watching. Alephb (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a huge help. I went and found a couple bloa's and did them--and you're right--it helped.  It gave me additional information that maybe it would be possible to actually do something here after all.  I have been here for a few months now mostly trying to edit that one article--the one that led me me here-- and I have tried multiple things, from one sentence, to a section, to attempting this entire rewrite here, and I have yet to post anything that didn't get reverted or changed--no one else ever got the chance to see or read much of anything I wrote and form any kind of majority.  How can there ever be a majority view on something that gets instantly removed?  Most of it was reverted within minutes of my putting it up.  That's been my experience here so far.  That's probably partly why I was so happy to let you --or anyone who would--show up on my sandbox page and do whatever they wanted.  I was just so happy to have other editors get a chance to see and comment.  People actually did stuff and helped--it was wonderful.


 * I did work on two sections on the other article only to go back and find those sections completely gone with no explanation I could find. I pinged the person that removed them and asked why and never got an answer. The only answer I ever got to anything was "slow down."  I also got some helpful instruction on what I was doing wrong--not properly indenting my talk sections and stuff like that.  I needed it.   It was helpful.  But not why or how things are done--like this here.  I should have tried to read through every page of instruction before doing anything I guess--but honestly--my brain was going numb after awhile.  I suppose programmers find all the little minutiae fascinating but it makes my eyes bleed...  ;-)  Anyway, I appreciate this--all of it.  You've been kind and helpful.


 * I have never done anything but attempt to cooperate I don't think. I've gotten upset once or twice with the person who just kept blocking me, but I really do think they are a skilled and gifted editor.  I also do think it's personal point of view that's getting in the way.  Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but I keep thinking that if I could get something in that had a chance to be reviewed by other editors-- and wasn't instantly reverted-- that the community would show me the answer to that--if they are just given the chance.  If I'm right, the community will choose to leave it, and if I'm wrong, well then it will get reverted or edited or something and that will be the community making the decision and not one person--and I would be okay with that--that would even be good--because that's as it should be.  I long for majority rule.  I long to have the opportunity to ever have the chance of getting consensus on anything.  I put a couple ideas in the talk section-- a day or two ago I think-- and haven't gotten any response yet--so maybe I will do what you suggest.  If it goes badly for me, I don't want you to feel bad about it okay?  It can't be any worse than it's been really.  It's my own decision what to do and I am grateful for the information you have passed on here.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * One question: can you give me the quick and dirty on what page name space and page title are and what the difference is? Where is the ID number?  I don't know any of this... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, so there's several name spaces. Right now, we're talking in user space. Each user controls their own user space, more or less. That includes your talk page, your sandbox, and so on. When people who don't edit Wikipedia search for stuff, they wind up in mainspace, where the articles live. So when I write a new article, like I did for Puqudu or Horvat Maon, I usually start working on it in my sandbox, in my user space, and later I put it in mainspace. Then there's draft space. The idea there is that if an article doesn't exist yet, people can start it in draft space, and then later move it to mainspace when it's ready to go live. I've never used draft space, and probably never will. I only ever hear about it when there's some kind of argument about what can or cannot go in draft space. Nobody has complained about me using my sandbox, so I'll probably just keep doing things that way in the future, instead of having to educate myself about what can or can't go on in draft space. I do know that if you want to rewrite an existing article, you cannot put your proposed rewrite in draftspace. People get unhappy about that and it seems to upset the editors who care for / manage draft space.


 * I think you're under a false impression when it comes to the reverts. Remember before how I talked about my watchlist being my go-to place to review new edits? The same is true for most editors. So I see when someone reverts your edits on The Bible and violence, for example. Other people do too. So it's not as if your stuff is just disappearing into the void and no one sees what's happening. Most new edits are seen by one or more people using watchlists, whether they get reverted or not. So when I see a reversion on my watchlist, I check it too. Sometimes I step in and restore the stuff that got reverted out. So far I haven't in your case because I really don't want to be defending a 40K addition to an article when it goes against the way these kinds of things are normally done. Now, if you got reverted and you thought you shouldn't, you could always discuss it on that talk page. And if I saw it, and happened to think the revert was unjustifiable, I'd probably chime in and offer my opinion. And there would be an expectation that the person who reverted you explained why once the subject is brought up on the article talk page. Other people could then chime in, and form a majority opinion, one way or the other. Of course, discussing an edit that has been challenged is much easier when the edit is small enough that you can explain and justify the whole edit. And that discussion, on that talk page, is where a "consensus" would form. That would be the normal way to deal with a reversion conflict -- on the talk page of the article where the changes are happening. It looks like that worked well with the last edit you made on August 7. I guess the next step is to see if there's any problem with the edit you did most recently, where you added stuff about hamas and so on. But if you make edits large enough that you couldn't succinctly defend them on the talk page, then it would be very hard to do anything about someone reverting.


 * If you made three or four edits and none were challenged, then you could probably take that as a sign that you're getting the hang of the process, and maybe could speed up a little. Alephb (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This all makes perfect sense. Someone named Martin told me after the big revert that it makes it hard on the other editors to manage that much change at once--and I felt pretty stupid for not considering that.  I should have.  I won't do it again.  I went and edited out my own edit--is that copacetic?  I added those references to that peace section--but it really bothered me that it was there at all--so I guess we'll see if anyone objects to that.  Please do check it out for yourself and see if you think the change is actually an improvement.   Watchlist!  Of course!   You're right--I have misunderstood about how reverts work.  That is good to know--this doesn't work like editing for other mediums does it?  It seems all upside down to me--no one is working on deadline!  Everything is done a little at a time--everyone needs to agree--there's no boss!  Also not competition but cooperation.  I like that part!  I will keep that standard in mind--don't put in more than you can defend in a talk session!  I won't forget.  I promise.  Thank you again--you have really gotten me through this.  If I stay on wiki and actually make a contribution here, I will owe it to you in particular --and the wiki community in general too.  Even the person I have been struggling with has been trying to help.  It's been quite amazing really.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Aha, now you´re getting in tune with the WP-mindset: There is no deadline. Funny thing is, there are articles where single editors can edit peacefully as they will sometimes for years, but that requires a relatively quiet corner of WP. That can be all to the good, or at some point they get a nasty shock when the article gets some attention and ten editors screams HEY YOU CAN`T DO THAT! The good thing is that some attention/discussion tends to stabilize the content, so when something is agreed upon, it tends to stay. Other times it will seem like endless discussion is the religion of this place: Lamest edit wars. This one is a beauty: . Remember, you´re one of us now... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel humbled by that. Thank you.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Jenhawk, please don't feel bad about not knowing some of the many, many intricate details about how Wikipedia works. It's not at all stupid of you that you don't think of some of our weird habits, any more than it is stupid of me that I don't know Malaysian and couldn't participate in a Japanese tea ceremony. Educating newcomers is probably not one of our greatest strengths in this community. Our "Be Bold" principle says, if you're not familiar with Wikipedia, and you're acting in good faith, go ahead and jump in. A well-intentioned user who is willing to listen and learn from their interactions with the community in their early days on Wikipedia won't break anything permanently. And one of the things Wikipedia needs most is new people who are willing to put in the time it takes to getting acclimated. Your willingness to learn, you're willingness to engage in civil conversation instead of just edit-warring, and your willingness to keep plugging away through frustration are all features that Wikipedia needs in new editors. If you go on to contribute more broadly to Wikipedia, that's great. And if you just keep working on these two articles till you feel happy(er) about them, that's fine too. We welcome all different levels of contribution. A lot of our new content is written by new editors. Certainly, you've reminded me about a lot of the ways we fail to communicate details to new editors (inevitable on a project as complicated as running the world's biggest encyclopedia) and I've learned about some things like watchlists and such that I might mention sooner to new editors in the future. Our big problem is this -- if we educate new users about every policy we have, nobody would ever get to edit. There's big sections of policy I've never read myself. If we educate them about too little, they can feel like they're being judged by rules they were never told about. It's a tricky balancing act, and I appreciate the patience you've shown in the process.

We do things upside down here, but on the other hand, despite it's difficulties, it has worked for us. Traditional editing has never produced a knowledge base with Wikipedia's size before.Alephb (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That makes me feel better--truly. Thank you.  I am hanging in--partly because you and Gråebergs Grå Sång--I think I spelled that right!  and Martin and all the rest have been so patient and kind that it has made a genuine difference for me.  When I was about to give up--there you were.  I won't forget that.  It does seem a little upside down to my past experience!  But it is right side up for wiki--and that's what I need to adjust to.  I have learned a lot quickly--about reference tags, and proper formatting, and how to indent on the talk page--and about reverting and being patient--and a lot more about how wonderful people can be.


 * Have you taken a look at the section I edited a couple days ago? It has not been reverted yet!  I am giddy with excitement!  Also, the talk message on supersessionism.  I value your input if you choose to make it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes! I've seen that you're editing is getting through over at Bible and Violence lately. I'll take a look at supercessionism. You are adjusting to our alien ways. My guess is that if something stands for more than a day, that means most of the editors watching the page have no problem with it. Not guaranteed, but it's a good sign. Alephb (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead
One of the templates on this article says the lead needs changing. What would you think about using the introduction as the lead?

I am about halfway done with references. They are not all high quality references I'm afraid--but they do all properly reference whatever is being said in the article. I'm having a lot of trouble with Numbers. It doesn't use the same wording for events that sources do and it is making it difficult. I will persevere to the end with this though.

I have noticed no changes or comments on the theology section. Does that mean anything?

We are getting close to completion I think. Is there anything in particular that you can think of that we might have overlooked that should be included? There isn't a history section as such--though some is included throughout--is that sufficient do you think?

These are a lot of questions aren't they? :-) Answer as able of course.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have not yet read/commented on the theology-bit I said I would, I feel guilty about that and will (but I have learned what a standing bell is). I did notice that the crucifixion section goes off-topic, and I think there´s room for something about turning the other cheek and that Jesus disliked stoning, surely someone must have commented on the I4I/turn cheek and stoning/no stoning thing? I´m going to try a merge of lead/intro, see if you like it. BTW, was this intended for the article talkpage? If so, feel free to move it there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't feel guilty! I went back and took out some of what I considered pov leftover from the original article. I figured if it seemed non-neutral to me it probably really was. If you don't have time to mess with it, it's perfectly okay. I just thought someone else should at least read it and agree it's okay or not.  That's all.


 * I should have put this there and meant to--how do I move it? Simple copy paste?  The merge is okay with me if you are happy with it, but in my mind they kind of say the same thing two different ways--is that normal for WP?


 * I am so glad you said something about the crucifixion section. I put the negative stuff in first believing it had the best chance not to be reverted, and then I was sure I would get reverted if I said anything at all along those 'other' lines, so I didn't do anything at all.  But it has always been my view that a discussion of violence should include all the comments on it that there actually are--and not just the negative ones.  So I support and agree with that effort--by you. :-) No one else has commented on what's missing.  But you're right in my view. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Just move/copypaste is fine, you can add (moved fom my talkpage) to the title to avoid confusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Biblical Ethics
@Jenhawk777, sorry I won't be able to help very much, but will leave a few thoughts here.
 * You might consider how you include the Divine Command Theory and its relation to Biblical Scripture, even in passing. Even if it's most notable that it doesn't influence Biblical Ethics. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics states that "It is not ... true to say that for the OT writers righteousness is defined by what God does; i.e., an act is not made righteous by the fact that God does it." That source appears to distance the Divine Command Theory from Biblical Ethics, although it's a bit different in that the theory involves commands and the passage noted involves the Biblical God's actions.
 * What I don't see represented well yet is how some major Jewish and Christian "denominations" lean on Scripture for ethical decisions in their official positions. That coverage will provide some modern relevance for readers. Challenging will be deciding how expansive to be here. Another decision would be how to treat changes in positions over time by religious groups that rely on Biblical Scripture to inform their actions. I recommend leaving that alone, or perhaps simply alluding to the fact that there have been changes, as that's probably a massive project, with multiple child articles involved. Happy writing! --Airborne84 (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is great! Honestly--these are good thoughts.  I was kind of thinking the same thing about Divine Command, but Aleph had this idea that different ethical theories should be at the bottom instead of the top--he thought that starting with the specifics is more consistent with the more major part of the topic first and  the lesser things last.  Since I think like a philosopher--since that's both my background and my nature--it would n ever have occurred to me, but I think he's absolutely right. So I am starting with those topics first and different theories will be toward the end--but I will definitely include it then!
 * I am unsure where to put contemporary denominations--but with all the controversies going on these days I agree it should be somewhere. It's possible it could fit more than one place. I promise I won't forget! Thank you for showing up and helping out with this. Wikipedia is best when played as a team sport!  We make it better together!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You bet. It looks like you have another article up for FA, so you already know about the "comprehensive" criterion. Without including a paragraph or two summarizing some of the major current official positions related to Biblical Ethics, this article might fall short there. As you know, those are the type of things that many readers will come to Wikipedia for—to research how a topic relates to current discourse. You can treat it how you like, but it would be a useful addition to the article, IMO anyway. In any case, it appears that the article is in excellent hands. Thanks again for your efforts. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I do! Biblical criticism is up for review!! Go take a look--anyone can comment. Speaking of which--we need your input here too, there is enough for several people to do on this article.  We really need someone who loves history!  You should go ahead and write on contemporary issues--there needs to be some in sexual ethics, some in criminal justice, and in family, and--oh well--you get it--wherever you feel like putting in your two cents I say go for it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)