Jump to content

User talk:Peter Kirby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Poorman (talk | contribs) at 06:15, 6 September 2005 (No original research!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived

Peter Kirby's talk archive has these entries:

  • Welcome from Longhair
  • Notice from Agriculture

No original research!

See No original research! Am I in more trouble? --Poorman 06:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Authentic Matthew

I like your style, and believe you will include all sides fairly, even when you have a differnt point of view! Melissa and I are taking a break for she says this is taking taking all our time (she is a teacher I am clergyman)--The not so Very Revd.Poorman 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter

Sorry about deleting your writing. We were both editing at the same time. Have a go at fixing Authentic Matthew. We need all the good will we can get! --Poorman 07:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Aboard

Hi Peter. It's good to see you getting interested in this. I think Wikipedia will benefit a lot from what you have to offer. I tried it out for a while, but eventually I had to set priorities to accomplish certain things I wanted to do. At any rate, there are lots of interesting personalities that make Wikipedia both so exhilirating and so frustrating. Of the people who were around when I was more active, Mkmcconn (Mark) was one of the good guys. Stephen C. Carlson 02:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, one of the singularly most useful features is the watchlist. It'll make it easy for you to keep tabs on the articles you're interested in. Stephen C. Carlson 03:07, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
I'm glad to meet you, Peter. I'm grateful to Stephen for alerting me to your presence, and your area of interest. Let me know if I become one of those causes of frustration, that Stephen mentioned ;-) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

As a new wiki-user, please be aware that NPOV is something that must be kept in mind. NPOV means Neutral Point of View. This is extremely important, especially as you say you are interested in biblical criticism.

In particular, concerning the edits you made to the Aaron page. The information was excellent, but the JEDP theory officially has it's own page, and the Aaron page concerns Aaron as he can be seen through what information we have about him through the biblical narrative. Ideas of the JEDP nature are presented on Documentary Hypothesis, while the basis of JEDP findings can be presented in an NPOV fashion on the page to broaden the information present, without being directly POV. SF2K1

Biblical criticism

Hi Peter. Thanks for the question. I think that you'll find quite a bit of room to work on Psalms#Authorship and ascriptions, if you haven't visited there, yet; and if you check What links to Easton's Bible Dictionary, you'll find a virtual playground, I think. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of something else, which I mentioned to another user (and he doesn't have time). Would you be interested in starting an article on Toledoth , concerning the literary structure especially of Genesis? I'm certainly not an expert, but I think that such an article might be useful in several places if it's written in a balanced, fairly complete and interesting way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm needy and require feedback or I start to worry that I've said something stupid ;-) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have so many books, I'm not sure whether I have a commentary on Psalms or it's on my to-buy list. Nevertheless, I have a few introductions and Bible dictionaries (Anchor Bible, HarperCollins, Oxford) to which I may refer for the Psalms article, plus the university library. Don't know much about Toledot right now, but I can learn. I notice that you have quite a few edits of the Jesus article and talk page to your name... is there anything I can do to tidy up that thing? You can see my page explaining the various Jesus theories here. --Peter Kirby 06:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a helpful survey. I do get lost in all the theories, and as you've probably noticed I'm a neanderthal, when it comes to critical views. I just don't get it - but that's why I feel I need to work hard to understand where all this stuff comes from. That's to say, I'm glad you're here. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good attitude to keep. By the way, at the annual meeting in November of the Society of Biblical Literature at Philadelphia, there will be a "biblioblogging" (blogging on the Bible) section, and aftwards some of us will have lunch to discuss ways to promote and succeed at open access scholarship. Among other things, I plan to encourage more scholars and profs to contribute to Wikipedia and its biblical information. --Peter Kirby 08:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Join the party. Wear a funny hat.

Good. The more the better for Wikipedia. So, I've explained my interest in your field of expertise. I've admitted my lack of understanding for the whole enterprise (when my frustration doesn't give way to outright hostility). And I've assured you that I really mean it, when I say that I want to learn from you. Now, will you come to this discussion and help me to work out a proper NPOV categorization scheme? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you work with the definition, for the purposes of categorizing, of (1) a narrative, (2) passed on in oral tradition, (3) including superhuman or supernatural beings? That would include some but not all biblical stories. For example, it would not include Esther or Maccabees or much of anything in the letters of Paul, but it would include the creation story and the Elijah story and the Gospel story. Even though I think there is history in the Gospel story. Perhaps using two categories for some articles, "Christian Mythology" and "Christian History" (such as the Gospels and Acts) would make it clear that they are not mutually exclusive. --Peter Kirby 19:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WELL ... now, that's an idea. I hadn't thought of that. Hmm. Let me try to think of an objection, and I'll get back to you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Experimenting here. How about a category: Bible as myth? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go a half-step further in your direction and offer the category, Bible as "myth" (I like to over-use scare-quotes; they aren't essential), or Bible as Myth, would prove useful for sub-categorizing literature types. I like the "as" word, so common among these meta-textual critics - through pervasive use it has actually serves to identify the sense in which the Bible or the Bible story is being called "myth". If it appeared together with Christian history, this would add an additional explanatory and useful way of categorizing the articles. The benefit of this scheme is that it lowers the bar considerably, for access to scholarly opinion; and in combination with more "orthodox" categories, it also satisfies the complaint against neutrality. What do you think? If you like it, do you want to be my proxy and present it? I consider it your idea. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my page. BTW I'm hoping that Keith's prediction doesn't come true, that people may use the mythology category in the same way they had before all of that discussion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew

Thanks for the offer and, looking at your user page, your interests may well be helpful here.

Here is the sorry and convoluted tale. Authentic Matthew was created by User:Melissadolbeer who has been vociferously defending it, and reverting all attempts to clean it up. She has admitted using at least one sock puppet User:Mikefar and quite possibly others.

User:Ril VfD’d the article as 'original research' (and I supported him). But due to Ril's repeated trolling the VfD was a fiasco and was aborted. A second VfD ended with a delete majority, but no consensus. (In part due, I think, to folk's justifiably negative reactions to Ril and to the technical nature of the subject). See the VfD here - and particularly the arguments for deletion. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew

Subsequently, and after discussion on the tak page, I redirected the article to Gospel of Matthew but that was subsequently reverted by Melissa. We now need to establish a fair consensus on what should be done with the article and then to enforce the consensus against any unilateral opposition.

I'd invite you to review the article yourself. Check a commentary, see what you think. My own thoughts are this - in 7 years study and a PhD in NT, I'd never heard of 'Authentic Matthew'. Perhaps Jerome made mention of something such (I don't have access to Jerome to check). But this article mentions Jerome and then puts beside that a number of other pieces of scholarship. 1) discussions over an original Hebrew or more likely Aramaic Matthew in Eusebius. 2) The unrelated 'Gospel of the Hebrews' (language and recipients being confused). 3) Synoptic theories and ideas of the M source. Of course, all these are real views and can be, and are, discussed under Gospel of Matthew and Synoptic problem. The 'original research' is in putting these ideas together in one article - and implying a position that no NT scholar holds. Look at any commentary on Matthew - or any Bible dictionary - can you find a reference to 'Authentic Matthew' - I doubt it. --Doc (?) 14:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a fresh VfD is not an attractive option. However, we could restore the redirect to Matthew, or create a new article on the origins of the gospel and re-direct this there. Or rename this article and clean up. See the discussion towards the bottom of the talk page under ‘compromise’ and ‘redirect and protect’

Anyway, I'd be obliged if you could look at the matter, give your views, and help reach and enforce a consensus. Beware, if you get involved here you are likely to endure attacks by Melissadolbeer. --Doc (?) 14:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peter, your suggestion isn't a bad one, and I suspect a more nuanced reading of Jerome might reveal slighly different inferences. However, I have neither the Patristics not Latin nor access to the text. In any case, we'd end up with a very short article, which probably would be better merged elsewhere. What I'm going to do is this: a) revert the article to an earlier cleaned-up (but still pretty pointless) version (I expect this move will be undone - and, if you agree with it, I'd invite you to assist me in defending it with reverts as neccessary, so it isn't a my uinilateral move). b) propose on the talk page that the article be again redirected to Gospel of Matthew for now, with an option that someone might create an 'origins of Mattthew's gospel' article later, if they wished. (You might like to vote for this - or suggest an alternative on the talk page). Given the history, I need to be able to show clear consensus for any move I make. Thanks --Doc (?) 21:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Peter, I'm going to conceed that you obviously have more knowledge here than me (I'm really a Paul scholar). If you want to make your suggestions on the talk page of the article - I'm willing to follow your lead. As long as we contextualise Jerome's remarks (what do modern scholars make if anything of his comments?), rather than putting them alongside unrelated theories. Mellisa and her supporter 'Poorman' (who claims to be her husband) are indicating a willingness to co-operate. I'm just about willig to assume good faith - but we'll see. At any rate the text as it stands needs a drastic clean-up - and again you may be the person to do it. --Doc (?) 08:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this was possible. My belief in redemption is being restored. You have no idea how bad this was in the past. I look forward to seeing your work when completed - although, as I say, it's not quite my field. (Little aside, how come with so many of us Biblical folk around the articles on the canonical books are so awful?) Cheers. --Doc (?) 00:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAD and Manetho

Just to let you know, Manetho has been drawn as the next Current Effort on the Featured Article Drive. Rob Church Talk | Desk 22:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent work

I've been watching the work you've been doing, and I am impressed by the standard to which you adhere, of neutrality and scholarship. Your proposed revision of the Gospel of the Hebrews is a good example. I'm glad you're here. I'd like to help beyond some recommendations to improve readability and appeal to a wider audience, but regrettably, for the most part, I'm not in the same league with you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I've had a look at your 'sources', frankly it is all even more involved than I'd thought. There's a PhD thesis in there somewhere (although that's probebly been done). My advice, for what it's worth, is to keep the article fairly basic. Perhaps: 1) very brief summary of possible allusions to a 'gospel of the Hebrews' 2) difficulties with interpretating the evidence 3) list of possibilities offerd in main scholarly views 4) references. I'll have another look when I'm less tired, but I'm afraid I'm out of my depth a little. --Doc (?) 23:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another 'authentic' Matthew

Peter, I don't know if you know anything about the Talmud of Jmmanuel, but it is up for VfD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talmud of Jmmanuel - and I thought you might have some insight to offer. --Doc (?) 23:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just realised this was nominated for deletion back in July, but never listed. I've left a note with the nominator to see if he wants to proceed or withdraw. At any rate the article needs something done with it. --Doc (?) 00:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding

Thanks for your insightful summation of my concerns. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Kirby&oldid=22678670"