Talk:Epistle of James

Archives
Untitled /Archive 1

lead

See WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the article and be able to stand on its own. The current lead is nothing like a good Wikipedia lead. Could someone please beef it up? Jonathan Tweet 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a controversial book and thus this wikipedia article is subject to POV blanking and edit wars. Catholics and Orthodox claim it invalidates the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, Protestants claim it doesn't. Just read the Catholic Encyclopedia: Epistle of St. James: "Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation. ... For the question of apparent opposition between St. James and St. Paul with regard to "faith and works" see EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS." 75.15.199.148 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the lead is supposed to show the reader why the topic is interesting, a neutral summary of the controversy belongs there. Jonathan Tweet 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, the problem is just what goes in the lead, because opinions vary over what are the key points to put in the introduction. To the pious Christian with little interest in Biblical disputes, it is an intensely practical book (no cite there, just a personal observation). To many Protestants and Catholics, it is a key book in the faith/works question, and also perhaps in questions on prayer and healing. To the conservative Bible scholar there is the question of which James wrote it, when, and why. To the more critical Bible scholar, there are also questions of pseudonymity. For a simple Bible dictionary type introduction, one might want to mention its audience and its Jewish character. So... writing a concise and NPOV introduction is tricky, and it looks like everyone's dodged doing it so far :) Peter Ballard 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you seem to have a good handle on what goes in the lead. It should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. Everything you mentioned would fit. The point is to describe everything the book is, not decide which one thing it is. I look at it this way: write it as if the reader is going to read nothing but the lead, and we are going to give them a complete picture of the epistle just with the lead. Jonathan Tweet 13:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The lede is really taking shape. There are a lot of weak leads on WP, and it's nice to see one come into its own. The lede could still use a summary of the epistle's content. Jonathan Tweet 13:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

James does not simply list/rave against sins (though this is discussed throughout the text). This is why I believe that the content of the lead should not necessarily state this in this manner. Maybe this should be merged into a content section?Patrick Fisher 06:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishepat000 (talk • contribs)

Rem486 / Original Research

User:Rem486 consistently reinstates a paragraph of pure original research. I've left a 3RR warning on his talk page. Grover cleveland (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct use of Talk Page / Archive Created

I remind users of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

Since User Rem486 has written a lot of his personal views on this Talk page, I have put them (as well as old discussions) in the Archive page /Archive 1. I was tempted to delete them altogether, but I instead dumped them in the archive.

Please use this Talk page only for discussing the article, not for talking about pet theories*. Depending on how ruthless I feel, I may simply delete opinion pieces in future. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

==What happened to the Jewish Content section? What happened to the Jewish content section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

James son of Zebedee the author?

The article has whole paragraph, uncited, saying "Authorship has also occasionally been attributed to the apostle James the Great, brother of John the Evangelist and son of Zebedee". Attributed by who? FWIW I have never heard that claim. I propose deleting it unless a decent cite can be found. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole authorship subject needs to be reorganized. There are comments all over the place in no specific order.Patrick Fisher 19:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishepat000 (talk • contribs)

Never say just... For the sake of it: Explain what the word temptation signify. According to the authoritative Greek word study tool of the Perseus Project at Tufts University: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=peirasmo%2Fn&la=greek - Peirasmon may mean either 'trial', or 'temptation'... To my mind's capacity those two concepts are quite different.. So "just"... is not exactly a proper reaction... Or should I say: Just keep your temper... --Xact (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then all you need is a reliable source saying that. But we can't, see WP:NOR (I'm sure you've been told that before). Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not a reliable source. How many times do you have to be asked to read WP:NOR & WP:VERIFY. Seriously, this is getting WP:Disruptive. If you refuse to use or find reliable sources according to our criteria (see also WP:RS you simply don't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And your analysis of James is what I am talking about. Find a reliable source that discusses James and says what you are trying to say. We can't use your analysis. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who just stumbled across the article and happened to view the talk page, I don't believe that Dougweller's actions can be fairly called hypocrisy. For many statements that are not cited, we may simply assume good faith and let the statement remain in the article and leave a citation needed tag to allow the author time and opportunity to add the citation. However, I can see that it in this case it was somewhat more difficult for Dougweller to assume good faith as you've historically had a tenuous relationship with this article and various other editors: numerous warnings; repeated publication of original research; failing to add citations for each time you've reinserted original research after deletion by a fellow editor; and exegetical effort on the article's talk page to develop and explain ideas. Given this, Dougweller was certainly not being hypocritical when he opted to enforce WP:NOR and delete your contribution.

While your statement concerning the lack of content in James was by itself innocent enough, the concerning point is that you are seemingly using it as a platform to air your belief that the Epistle was written during Jesus' earthly ministry (at which point the Crucifixion and post-Crucifixion events wouldn't have yet occurred, which you purport to explain James' lack of reference to them), which seems to be a dating for the Epistle that is held by an extremely small minority as I've yet to see this viewpoint presented in a reputable scholarly or theological resource. Fundamentally, it seems that you're misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia: it isn't a medium to publish and develop our personal ideas about a particular topic, but rather its purpose is to present the ideas of individuals published in reputable sources. As others have said, if you have a reputable source that espouses the pre-Crucifixion dating of the Epistle of James, you are more than welcome to reintroduce the relevant information with appropriate citations.

As a minor note, when you asked previously in the talk page whether an editor was "trying to covertly transition to the idea that James was written before the crucifixion, by postulating that it was written before Paul's letters? Because before Paul's letters was the period of time before the crucifixion", that editor was not. The cited source explicitly states the most likely earliest date for James being written is the mid to late 40s. Also you are incorrect in that Jesus' Crucifixion directly preceded Paul's first letter (1 Thessalonians) as by using traditionally accepted dates, from the Crucifixion (33 AD) to Paul's 1 Thes (52 AD), there would have been a period of 19 years which coincides with the cited source's statements. Sixteen85 (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You may misunderstand the purpose of this page. It isn't to discuss the Epistle of James (or any other Epistles) but to discuss the article. And a lot of original research gets deleted, I have no idea why you think it's only yours. It's been almost four years since you were first warned about original research yet you seem to either not understand our policy (have you read it) or are disregarding it. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My edits

With these two edits I removed a paragraph that contained an alternative theory that the epistle was written by James the Great. I don't have any problem with this theory per se, but it needs a source. The paragraph was also awkwardly placed, in that an earlier paragraph had already established that evidence points to James the brother [or half-brother] of Jesus. Therefore, I have no problem with someone reinserting the following text into the article if a reliable source can be located for the hypothesis:

Authorship has also occasionally been attributed to the apostle James the Great, brother of John the Evangelist and son of Zebedee The letter does mention persecutions in the present tense (2:6), and this is consistent with the persecution in Jerusalem during which James the Great was martyred (Acts 12:1). If written by James the Great, the location would have also been Jerusalem, sometime before 45AD.

I am (not) Iron Man (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is a mess. It contains no clear organisation, and sadly, like a lot of the articles on the texts of Christianity, seems to contain a lot of OR from amateurs who are interpreting it from there own religious tradition and are not aware that that interpretation is not the global one. I am starting to clear out the obvious WP:OR. If you disagree with a chop, please re-include with a clear cite that makes the point (not four cites provided as evidence that you synthesise). The 'Alterative interpretation' section is the worst. The name does not make it clear what it is interpreting and what it is an alternative to. It seems to contain a lot of original research and gives undue weight to something that may be a minority interpretation. Ashmoo (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article poorly organized. Lets work to make it more consistent with the Wikipedia article on the Epistle to the Romans.Patrick Fisher 20:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

shoud present majority view first, rather than traditionalist view

As far as I see, the majority of scholars considers James to be pseudepigraphical, it could not possibly have been composed by an actual follower of Jesus. As of now, the article first presents speculations about which James from the gospels could have written it, but fails to mention that this view does not at all represent the majority view among contemporary scholars. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No Gospels to Follow

Other scholars, such as Luke Timothy Johnson, suggest an early dating for the Epistle of Jame

"The Letter of James also, according to the majority of scholars who have carefully worked through its text in the past two centuries, is among the earliest of New Testament compositions. It contains no reference to the events in Jesus' life, but it bears striking testimony to Jesus' words. Jesus' sayings are embedded in James' exhortations in a form that is clearly not dependent on the written Gospels."[14]

Pro-Catholic POV

We've got a bit of pro-Catholic POV in the article here where. In the section "Doctrine," sub-section "Justification" we find this little gem: "However, this position [i.e. a Protestant position on justification] does not make Biblical, Traditional or Logical sense. Furthermore, the Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (NABRE James 2:24)." It was added by an anonymous IP. I removed it, explaining that it introduced a particular POV and therefore had to go. It was added back in by the same anonymous IP. Since the IP address seems unwilling to discuss the issue, and because policy forbids me from edit-warring, I'm in a bit of a bind here. Any suggestions on how I should handle this? For the record, I have absolutely no problem with the article discussion Catholic interpretations, or any other interpretations, of the Epistle of James. I just want WP:NPOV followed, in that Wikipedia should describe theological positions without endorsing them, whether from a Pro-Protestant, Pro-Catholic, Pro-Muslim, Pro-Jewish, or Pro-anything-else standpoint.Alephb (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"I have absolutely no problem with the article discussion Catholic interpretations, or any other interpretations, of the Epistle of James." Seriously, you'd have no problem with the article including the interpretation that James is a pre-Crucifixion epistle? Seriously? Oh wait, yeah, you qualify that with the thing about the wiki-echochamber. [rem486] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Problem with Compromise

Within the New Testament canon, the Epistle of James is noteworthy because it makes no reference to the death, resurrection, or divine sonship of Jesus. It refers to Jesus twice, as "the Lord Jesus Christ" and as "our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1, 2:1).

This statement from the introduction of the article, is a compromise between the traditional dating scheme of the Epistle of James and the Very Early Date thesis. But like all compromises it solves nothing. The inference that the Epistle twice refers to a glorious Jesus, implying that it documents that it was written after the Resurrection, is totally false. James 2:1 does refer to Jesus being from glory, but the word Lord has to be supplied into the verse to come up the translation 'the Lord of Glory'. Also referring to Jesus as Lord is a very pre-Crucifixion reference. While I do have to admire that you've finally agreed that their is no reference to the Crucifixion or Resurrection you subtle attempt to keep it as a post Crucifixion epistle is false. rem486

Change, but Why?

It's amazing how different the present article about the Epistle of James is from the article that was view-able in the fall of 2006. You would think that the opinions regarding a 2000 year old epistle would be settled law by then. However, it appears that there has been some dynamic exerting pressure on the commentators regarding the authorship and composition of the letter. As if something mysteriously transformational had occurred to someone. Mysterious because there is no explanation for the changes over time. The changes are made without giving credit to anyone for the change in perspective. Thakfully, there is this 'Talk" page to help clarify whats been happening over time. rem486

Please try to sign your talk page posts. To do that, write four tildes at the end of your comments (~~~~). That way people can tell when you said something, as well as what your username is. If you need further instruction on this, see WP:SIGN.Alephb (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have some concrete idea for making the article better, go right ahead and change it or describe how you want it changed on this talk page. But vague complaints about mysterious changes, without detail, don't do us any good at all. Alephb (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

First, the post clearly states that it was written by rem486. Second, I was of course being sarcastic, there is no 'mystery' to the changes that have been made to article. The only mystery is why the reason has never been formally acknowledged. And of course my 'concrete' idea for improving the article is. it was written before the Crucifixion.

Please try to sign your talk page posts. To do that, write four tildes at the end of your comments (Alephb (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)). That way people can tell when you said something, as well as what your username is. If you need further instruction on this, see WP:SIGN.

If there is significant support for the pre-crucifixion position in reliable sources (WP:RS), then you are free to edit the article to add your idea. Alephb (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Just Checking Back

I re-read the article on the Epistle of James from time to time because it is so fraught with contradictions that it is always profitable to put a 'fresh' set of eyes on it from time to time. As an example there is this statement from the Canonicity section. "Its late recognition in the Church, especially in the West, may be explained by the fact that it was written for or by Jewish Christians, and therefore not widely circulated among the Gentile Churches." The epistle was undeniably written to and for Jews, but not one centiliter of evidence exists that they were "Christian". The acceptance of and adherence to Jesus by Jews before the Crucifixion makes that time period of equal viability with the post Crucifixion era. The saturation of the Law in Chapter 2 biases it towards the pre Crucifixion period. Christ nailed the Law to the Cross (Coll 2:14) for both Jew and Gentile alike. To give the Mosaic Law any credibility after the Crucifixion is literally heresy. Oh, that and the fact that Chapter 1, and verse 1 states "...to the twelve tribes of Israel in the diaspora." makes it certain that no part of 'the Church' had started yet.

Ditto this comment from the 'Dating' section: "The cultured Greek language of the Epistle, it is contended, could not have been written by a Jerusalem Jew. Some scholars argue for a primitive version of the letter composed by James and then later polished by another writer." Okay, now this is just pathetic. Can Wikipedia readers really be this stupid or this dogmatic? First of all, cultured or not its Koine Greek. Common Greek. After several readings I've seen no sign of even one μέν δε in the text, so just how cultured is it? Also, equally outrageous, is the idea that the letter had to have been written by a Jerusalem Jew. Talk about straw men, none of the men documented in Scripture as being named 'Ικοβιυς' or "Ἰάκωβος" were assigned the birth place of Jerusalem. Also the background of the Disciples with that name are brief and their educational background unknown; their capacity for authorship is in no way eliminated. Then. compounding the rhetorical manipulation, it is then suggested that a mythical 'primitive' version was 'cultured up' by a totally manufactured editor. Of course all this for me is 'sour grapes'. This palaver is allowed, but a very simple succinct explanation that the Crucifixion hadn't happened yet is totally forbidden. rem486

There's nobody named Ικοβιυς anywhere in the Bible. Not one. You've gotten things mixed up. Anyhow, if you want the article to include the opinion that the epistle of James was written before the crucifixion, you'd need to find reliable sources confirming that James was written before the crucifixion. If you're not going to do that, there's no reason to keep complaining here on the talk page. Alephb (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes after your name (~~~~). That will display the time you made your comment as well. That's a required thing on Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"There's nobody named Ικοβιυς" No wonder, as the name is misspelled. The Greek version of the name is "Ἰάκωβος" (Iakovos). It is based on the name Jacob. Dimadick (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Way to 'Major on the Minors', My comments actually have nothing to do with the pre-Crucifixion dating of the Epistle, but the overall sloppy exegesis of the Epistle by the writers of the article on the Epistle. Granted I view them as one and the same, but I didn't include anything about dating in my comments. Oh, and yeah, the time I posted the comments is vitally important info I wouldn't want to leave out, because, yeah that's really going to influence the reader. rem486

It influences other editors, allowing them to keep track of comments in any given talk page, without having to check your edit history. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes after your name (~~~~). That will display the time you made your comment as well. That's a required thing on Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Ditto this tripe from the Authorship section. "Furthermore, the salutation of his letter concludes with the term “greetings" (Greek χαίρειν), much like the letter on circumcision that was sent to the congregations." Seriously, I mean seriously? A root used almost 150 times in the New Testament is a 'pillar' that someone wants to use to prop up a dying idea? Because there is one word used in two epistles, that proves a convoluted, contorted, contrived hermanutic? A word that almost anyone with a two word vocabulary would use to start a letter is proof that a specific person wrote both letters. I'll keep checking back. rem486 Rem486 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. Whenever I make a valid point abut the weakness of the article, (as in the statement above) simply remove that section of the article. Quick and dirty but it shows the strength of my point and the feebleness of yours. rem486 Rem486 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, when you do check back, try and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes after your name (~~~~). That will show us who made the post, and when, which is helpful. Alephb (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Ditto this statement from the 'Dating" section: "Many scholars consider the epistle to be written in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries:" To speak it plain, "Many scholars consider James to be a lie in black and white. Here's the problem: If it is not written by a true follower i.e. someone who actually walked with Jesus, then why is there no reference to any of doctrines that define the actual Christian Church? If it was written long after the 'Jerusalem Church' was having any impact, then it is the height of deception to parse the Epistle as if there was no Gentile Church. (Hypothetically speaking of course, it was actually written before Jesus was Crucified) Again, if all that remains of God's work in the World at the time of it's authorship is the Gentile Assemblies, then it is falsity at it's worst to write to anyone as if it hasn't even gotten started. To make it appear that the Epistle is early when it is actually very late is dishonest, and commentators who believe so should label it as pure deception. rem486 Rem486 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh I get it now. Whenever I make a valid critisism showing the weakness of the article, (as in the statement above) simply remove that section of the article. Quick and dirty and it shows the strength of my perspective and the impotence of yours. rem486 Rem486 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The comment immediately above this one was made December 10th. In the future, please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~~~~ ), so that we can see when you make your comments. Also, put your most recent comment below all the previously existing comments in a thread. Alephb (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ditto this statement from the 'lede': "Within the New Testament canon, the Epistle of James is noteworthy because it makes no explicit reference to the death, resurrection, or divine sonship of Jesus." Explicit reference? There isn't any explicit reference? There isn't even a hint of a reference to anything as supernaturally significant as the Resurrection of someone from the dead. Let alone a substituional unilateral sacrifice of God in the flesh for the sins of Israel, the sins and of the world. The fact there is no reference to the Resurrection whether explicitly or implicitly is a Scriptural contradictory problem. Jesus told His disciples to be witness to Him. What were they to testify about? His Resurrection from the dead. The fact that a believer in Jesus would not mention it? It hadn't happened yet. rem486 Rem486 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

"It refers to Jesus twice, as "the Lord Jesus Christ" and as "our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1, 2:1)" This statement from the lede begs the question 'Is the article about the Wescott and Hort epistle of James, or the commonly used English translations of James?" Because there's a big difference. rem486Rem486 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, Is the article about the Wescott and Hort et. al. Greek Text, or is it about the English Translations because there is a big difference. For instance, the quote "our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" from the lede I cited above is a correct translation of the Greek text which differs drastically from the usual English translation, which usually provides a second kurios (Lord) to deflect the Jewishness of the letter. Also, equally egregious, is the translation of the word 'synagogue' in verse 2 of Chapter 2. Very few English translations transliterate the word as it should be. Particularly notorious is the KJV which transliterates the word in every instance of its use except for Jammes 2 where it uses the word 'assembly'. Flagrantly violating its own exegesis guidelines. Why? Again, to hide the pure Jewishness of the epistle. rem486 Rem486 (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The article should either isolate itself as an article about the Greek text, or be totally rewritten to discuss the major problems with the usual English translations.

"Framing his letter within an overall theme of patient perseverance during trials and temptations, James writes to encourage his readers to live consistently with what they have learned in Christ. He wants his readers to mature in their faith in Christ by living what they say they believe. He condemns various sins, including pride, hypocrisy, favouritism, and slander. He encourages and implores believers to humbly live by godly, rather than worldly wisdom and to pray in all situations." This statement from the article is true as far as it goes, but does not state the situation clear enough. Not what they have "learned in Christ" but 'what they have heard from Christ' would be more appropriate. Since Jesus is still physically present with them, James is reminding the readers to live what they heard from him while they were recently in Jerusalem or Galilee. All the admonishments in James make much more sense when you envision them as coming directly from Jesus. Rem486 (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[rem486]Rem486 (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"In the latter instance it was apparently Jesus's brother, James, who spoke prominently in the assembly of "the apostles and the older men" at Jerusalem." This statement from the article is factually correct, but spiritually deceptive. James is quoted as 'speaking prominently' but speaking falsely. Acts 15:19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” Knowing full well both Paul and Peter's insistence on the full reliance of God's Grace being sufficient for the salvation of the Gentiles, James insisted on throwing in as much yoking to the Law as he could get away with. Knowing full well the pull of the Pharisees in the crowd he wanted to save as much face as he could to keep up his popularity. So James, the relative of Jesus, is invalidated as a candidate for Divine Inspiration being willing to compromise the truth for his own personal benefit. rem486 Rem486 (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rem, when you do your inevitable "checking in" to remind us all of your WP:FRINGE views on when the epistle was written, please remember to put your newest comments at the bottom of whatever thread your commenting in. Otherwise the whole conversation starts drifting out of chronological. Alephb (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Alephb, Thank you, that's the nicest thing anyone has said about the 'Very Early Date' hypothesis. A 'Fringe'theory. You do realize the community you placed my idea in. Germs, continental drift, the aurora and complexity theory, not to mention the round earth, a Solocentric solar system. So thanks for the shot of adrenaline. [rem486] Rem486 (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to have brightened your mood. Alephb (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

=James is a Pre Crucifixion Epistle

"James is a Pre Crucifixion Epistle: the Very Early Date Hypothesis" is now available on Amazon as a Kindle book. rem486Rem486 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is discussing ways to improve the article, not for advertizing Kindle Books. Alephb (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

But I used 'tildes'. B.T.W. I'm not "advertizing" anything. rem486 ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)