User talk:Gabby Merger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Arius edit reverted[edit]

Your changes seem to be for the worse. First, my main complaint against the article was that it implied that Constantine and Licinius "legalized" (and "formalized" whatever that means) Christianity. This is incorrect. Christianity was made illegal by Diocleatian in 303, and was legalized when the persecution was ended by Galerius in 311. You might be thinking of the so called "Edict of Milan" in 313...but this wasn't really an "edict", had no legal force, and anyhow Licinius and Constantine could not have legalized something that was already legal. So the current version of the article still contains the major error. Introducing Gallienus makes the paragraph worse, since he made Christianity legal a half century before the time period being spoken of...it would be better to have no reference made to him, especially since as it stands it seems to imply that he just acted, since Christianity is "newly" legalized. Anyhow I'm not sure where you are coming from. I have made clear my point...the current article implies that Constantine legalized Christianity...he did not. Are you arguing against this point?Ocyril (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

hello. I understand what you're saying in a sense, but the problem is that the current established and SOURCED view and position is that Constantine "legalized" the Christianity of the time. You can disagree with that view or conclusion all you want, but if you don't have sources for your own view, then it's just personal POV and SYNTHESIS. And then removing stuff you personally don't like or have problems with. You act as if this "Constantine formalized or legalized the Christianity of the time" is some concocted view of some past Wikipedia editor...when it's not. Your position is what needs to be sourced and proven. Wikipedia does NOT care what is "true", only if something is SOURCED. And the view that Constantine did in fact issue an "edict" in 313 A.D., etc etc, is the sourced and established view. So again, your constant removing and deleting of sentences you don't like or don't agree with is against WP policy if the sentences you are removing are established and sourced views and positions. You can have personal disagreements (and even be correct theoretically, though in this I do NOT think you really are correct), but your personal view on the "edict" (and even discounting it as even being an "edict") are NOT what are to guide your editing decisions, in true NPOV and referenced manner. Constantine legalized "Christianity" at the time, by DE-CRIMINALIZING it, and where it was NOT an arrestable offense to be a "Christian". What exactly is the big problem? Gabby Merger (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I'm not sure how to include a source for something that I think needs to be removed. But as it stands there doesn't seem to be a citation for the claim that Constantine "legalized" Christianity. Here is a quote from Barnes, "...the Christians did not obtain legal toleration for the first time in 313, but had already obtained it in 311." (Constantine, pg. 95, 2014). Also, Frend, speaking of the "Edict of Toleration" (of Galerius, in 311), "The edict formally ended persecution, freed imprisoned Christians, and restored Christianity to the de facto situation which it had enjoyed for a generation prior to 303." (The Rise of Christianity, 480). Or, again, see Henry Chadwick, "The intensity of Galerius' feeling is shown by the edict he issued on 30 April 311 when he was dying in great pain. He explains that he had tried to persuade the Christians to return to the religion of the forefathers...and he now grants them toleration and the right of assembly..." (The Early Church, pg. 122). Also, i disagree with your suggestion that "Constantine did in fact issue an 'edict' in 313 A.D. etc etc, is the sourced and published view.". I don't think any modern reputable historian would refer to the edict of Milan as an edict (although they very often refer to it as the "edict" of Milan, or the so-called "edict" of milan, to conform with the general consensus that it wasn't an edict), and even if it was an edict all historians would recognize that the Edict of Toleration in 311 was what ended the persecution and legalized Christianity, not the "edict" of Milan (whatever its legal character). I think that the idea that Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 is more like a common historical "myth", like Columbus being the only one who thought that the earth was a sphere in 1492, rather than anything like an "established view". Anyhow it should be removed because it is wrong and doesn't make any sense. I have provided three citations. Is that sufficient?Ocyril (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Where in the paragraph do you see the word "313"? It doesn't even actually say that. So it could be "311" as you say, as "Emperor Gallienus" is mentioned there now too. The point is that it's an established fact that "Christianity" was ILLEGAL for a while around the time of Constantine and around "311" and "313" ish. So? But the actual date "313" is not even in the paragraph. So the argument here about that is somewhat moot anyway. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't that is true. But it does say that Constantine legalized Christianity (I assumed that you thought that he had done so in 313--but you are right that is besides the point). But the point is that it says that Constantine legalized it; he did not. I think I have made myself clear...Christianity was legalized by the emperor Galerius in 311, not by Constantine. Constantine did not "legalize" Christianity. Any statement implying that he did needs to be removed. I would remove the entire first sentence. It would be better if it could be replaced with something that gets at what you are trying to say (that it "was ILLEGAL for a while around the time of Constantine" etc.). I invite you to make the edit since you keep reverting mine...just edit it so that it does not imply that Constantine (or Licinius) legalized Christianity. Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
O one more thing...I suspect you are confusing Gallienus and Galerius. Gallienus made Christianity legal in the 260s, for the first time in Roman history. Galerius ended the Great Persecution in 311. That's why i object to your including Gallienus in the article. You should also remove any reference to him.Ocyril (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I made the correction to make it Galerius. And since HE is mentioned there then the "legalized" is fine, because it doesn't just say "legalized", but also "formalized", which Constantine definitely had a part in. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you that is an improvement. But I still don't think it is ok. It reads, "After Galerius and later Emperor Licinius and Emperor Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time..." To me this means that Galerius, Licinius, and Constantine legalized and formalized Christianity (the latter did so "later"...though how you can legalize something after it has already been legalized is not clear to me). It still clearly states that Constantine legalized Christianity. This is incorrect. If you are suggesting that the sentence is saying that Galerius legalized Christianity, and, later, Licinius and Constantine "formalized" it, then that should be made more clear. I still wouldn't like it very much, because I'm not really sure what "formalize" means in this context, but i suspect that it means something so vague and insubstantial that it can't really be untrue (because it doesn't really mean anything). I think it would be preferable to say something meaningful, but would be satisfied if it merely was not false. Why not just remove any reference to Constantine or Licinius and get rid of "formalize"? Or how bout, "After Galerius legalized Christianity, and Constantine and Licinius continued a policy of toleration...etc." or something to that effect.Ocyril (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It does NOT "clearly" say that Constantine "legalized" it, NECESSARILY. You're wrong for saying that it "clearly" says that, as there's at least (because the other fellows are mentioned there too) some AMBIGUITY, in that sense. Because the "formalized" could theoretically be the only thing applied to Constantine, in the sentence, and the "legalized" more so to the "Galerius" character. The point is there's NO big need to fuss THIS MUCH over THIS, bro. Seriously. Constantine DE-CRIMINALIZED it by saying "you're all Christians now". It was NOT always "legal". By your own admission, it went back and forth to some degree. But again, the "formalized" word would be (per your protests etc) more with the Constantine, and the "legalized" more with the Galerius. There's no super "clear" anything that the "legalized" is by Constantine, necessarily, in that sentence, the way it's worded. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
First...just to be clear, I'm still unsure of where you stand on the main issue we are arguing about here: whether Constantine legalized Christianity or not. You say, "Constantine DE-CRIMINALIZED it by saying "you're all Christians now"." This is incorrect. Constantine did not "de-criminalize" Christianity...Galerius did. I have provided several citations to the effect that it was Galerius, not Constantine, who legalized Christianity. Can we agree on that point? I concede that the sentence does not necessarily imply that it was Constantine who "legalized" it (although, at the least, it is badly written...its like saying that "Bill Clinton, and, later, George Bush ran for president on the Democratic ticket and went to Yale" ?! this doesn't "necessarily" imply that George Bush was a Democrat...but that would be the most natural interpretation of the sentence), but since you agree that it is ambiguous, it would obviously be preferable to resolve that ambiguity (assuming you concede that it is incorrect to assert that it was Constantine who legalized Christianity). Also, I think I have made it pretty clear why I think this is so important: there is widespread belief, DESPITE the academic consensus, that Constantine legalized Christianity. I think, since you do not think its important, I can edit it in a way that you would be completely satisfied with. Can I give it a try without you instantly reverting it?Ocyril (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. I told you that. Constantine legalized Christianity, by ending the persecution (legally) of Christians. For some oddball reason you want to minimize or deny that fact. But National Geographic says this: "Emperor Constantine I is often credited with converting the Roman Empire to Christianity. In fact, though he ended the persecution of Christians and eventually converted, some historians debate the true nature of his faith." Did you catch that? It says clearly that Constantine ENDED (how so? BY LEGAL "EDICTS" OR "DECREES" OR WHATEVER THE HECK YOU WANNA CALL IT...but it was a LEGAL degree) the persecution of professed Christians. Logically thereby LEGALIZING it. Not sure why you have to be so super uptight nit-picky and fussy over THIS point in this article!!!! Look what else it says in the National Geographic article on "Constantine the Great" article, farther down in its page: "Constantine faced Western Roman Emperor Maxentius at the Tiber River's Mulvian Bridge in A.D. 312....The next year (meaning 313) Constantine, now the Western Roman Emperor, and Eastern Roman Emperor Licinius signed the Edict of Milan, which finally ensured religious tolerance for Christians. The agreement granted freedom of worship to all, regardless of deity, and brought an end to the Age of Martyrs, which had begun after Jesus' death. Christians were also given specific legal rights such as the return of confiscated property and the right to organize dedicated churches." "Legal rights" were given. Thereby "LEGALIZING" it. So as I said, no, I do NOT (and never did) actually "agree" with you on this. Ok, so from this, it seems there are (reliable) sources that at least kind of sort of disagree with your view on this matter. Let's LET IT GO already. Because if you delete either the whole paragraph again, or even that part of the paragraph, you will be reverted. Because in fact, I'm now putting this National Geographic ref IN the paragraph. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to minimize the fact for some "odd ball" reason. I want to deny the fact because it isn't true. According to Wikipedia on 'reliable sources': "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." The National Geographic Web Page does not trump the academic peer review sources that I have cited (3 to your 1). The National Geographic web page is contributing to the problem. You understand the historical sequence of events in the early 4th century correct? Initially Christianity was legal, then Diocletian initiated the Great Persecution in 303, which lasted until it was ended by Galerius in 311. After Galerius' edict Christianity was once again legal. Constantine did have a policy of returning Christian property, so he did give them greater legal rights after 313 (and even before then in territories he ruled)...that is perfectly true. Maybe you can add something to that effect...that Constantine gave greater legal rights to Christians (but he did not make Christianity legal--How could he? it was already legal. How could he make something legal that was already legal?). I will gather more sources...as I said, that Constantine did NOT legalize Christianity is the academic consensus, and peer reviewed articles from the academic community should trump a web page on National Geographic I would think. Let me quote all of the Timothy Barnes (the leading scholar on Constantine) citation that I quoted earlier to try and convince you: "'In the year 313 Constantine guaranteed legal toleration for the Christians in the Roman Empire through the Edict of Milan.' So have we all learned at our school desks, and yet not a single word of that sentence is true. For the Christians did not obtain legal toleration for the first time in 313, but had already obtained it in 311; the originator of this legal measure was not Constantine, but Galerius; and there never was an 'Edict of Milan' which concerned itself with the questions of the Christians. Admittedly, a document which people are in the habit of calling bu this name is still preserved in its original wording. But, first, this document is no edict; second, it was not issued in Milan; third, it was not issued by Constantine; and, fourth, it does not grant legal toleration, which the Christians had already possessed for some time, to the whole empire: its content has a much more restricted significance." (Barnes, Constantine, 95). Although I disagree with Barnes suggestion that the so called "Edict of Milan" has limited significance (I think it is extremely important and indicative of Constantine's continuing policy of general religious toleration), everything else he says is spot on, and you will have a hard time coming up with a modern academic historian to contradict him. Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Your own words "After Galerius' edict Christianity was once again legal. Constantine did have a policy of returning Christian property, so he did give them greater legal rights after 313 (and even before then in territories he ruled)". So the point is that AT LEAST IN SOME SENSE Constantine (it could be said in some broad manner, given even admitted facts) "legalized" Christianity. National Geographic IS a "reliable" source. Just because you personally don't like it or don't like (or don't agree with) their article on Constantine. National Geographic website is definitely considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. I can maybe agree with you that there was some legal toleration in 311 A.D., but NOT 100% (arguably) as in 313 A.D. In other words, it's NOT necessarily such a black and white issue, as you seem to be making it out. Constantine definitely at least had something to DO with it all (on or before "313 A.D.") Do you know that some theologians, by the way, who are basically what's called "anti-Catholics" (of Protestant ilk mainly) who believe that the Roman Catholic Church actually had its infancy in 313 A.D., and that it did NOT start with Christ and the Apostles in the first century. (The argument being that there was no such thing as the "Vatican" or "College of Cardinals" or "pope" this or that, or fish hats and mitres and "nuns" or the usual Catholic nomenclatures such as "Mary Mother of God" and "Father Peter" etc etc, in the first century. But that type of stuff actually was a corruption that began later, and really became more so in "313" (or maybe 311, depending on your view)) Side point. Anyway, bro, again, the fact is that Constantine played a role, and had some parts in the matter, so you ARE minimizing a historical (and sourced) fact, that IS true (at least in some ways). You ask in your comment "how could he make something legal that was already legal?" Well in that in 311 it was NOT 100% legal in every aspect necessarily...as there was arguably a PROCESS. 311-313. In other words, it could be said, that Constantine made it MORE "legal". As (by your own concession it seems) the professed "Christians" did NOT have all the legal rights QUITE YET before 313. Not everything. That's all, man. Please. I appreciate you being careful and trying to keep things accurate, but let's not go overboard here. You can't deny that at least some (reliable and used) sources do say that Constantine had a hand in the formalizing and legalizing (more so) of the Christianity of the time, in Rome etc. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Gabby you are really reaching. I agree that Constantine gave Christians the right to reaquire property in 313 that had been lost in the Persecution. He did not make it legal. It was 100 percent legal in 311, after Galerius's edict of toleration. He certainly played a huge role, the major role,of any emperor in the process of the empire transitioning from a pagan to a (later) Christian state. He preferred Christians and gave them all kinds of legal benefits, preferences in appointments...he gave bishops legal jurisdiction of cases (and didnt allow even allow an appeal), he made laws obviously beneficial to Christians etc. etc. Your suggestion that he made it "more legal" by allowing Christians access to property is...I dunno...a really silly argument (sorry to sound insulting). I agree that Christians acquired more legal rights after 311...under Constantine, under Gratian, or Theodosius etc. (why not say that Theodosius legalized Christianity, since he made it "more legal" since Christians had more legal rights under Theodosius than under Constantine...you see the absurdity of your argument?). I do admit, however, that you can find many sources that support your contention that he did make Christianity legal...even many more than I can...but this is only because it is a widespread misunderstanding which has even been taught in schools. But it isn't true, and you cannot find academic, peer reviewed material that will support your contention; I can gather many citations. It really is a very clear cut issue. I guess we cannot come to an agreement but...since my argument, and my citations are superior to yours (in my opinion), I think we ought to go with my suggestion rather than yours yes (lol)? We have to have this issue resolved by someone else. I don't really know how it works but...I am pretty sure that objective non-interested observers are going to find my argument more persuasive than yours. (But its not really MY argument, its the consensus of the academic community who specialize in this area of study). At any rate I am willing to let someone else decide the issue. There does not seem to be much interest on the talk page. You clearly know much more about editing than I do. How can we have this issue decided by some sort of arbitrator? Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we can post this entire discussion on the talk page? and some other contributors will chime in and establish a consensus? Just one more attempt to convince you...consider this thought experiment...Lets say marijuana was legalized in Colorado in January 2014...Lets say in January 2016, the state of Colorado decides that all of the property that it had confiscated in marijuana drug busts should be returned to the owners...now, when did Colorado legalize marijuana? Clearly they did so in 2014 right? They didn't make it "more legal" in 2016...you agree? The same is true in the case of Constantine and Christianity. It was illegal when being Christian was a criminal offense, and it was legalized when being Christian was no longer a criminal offense. It was no longer illegal to be a Christian after Galerius and the edict of Toleration in 311, and Constantine had nothing to do with it. Thanks.Ocyril (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


I was gonna ask you that myself! Why have you been writing all this stuff on my personal user talk page, instead of on the ARTICLE talk page? Anyway, you do admit that there are sources supporting the view. But you bringing up "Theodosius" does NOT necessarily negate my point that Constantine ADDED more legal rights to the professed Christians of the time, and in effect "made it more legal". So what if maybe others did too? Doesn't necessarily cancel out the factual point. Anyway, yeah, why did you even do this on my page in the first place, and not the article talk page? But regardless, there are valid sources that support the GENERAL AND NOT-SO-BLACK-AND-WHITE POSITION THAT CONSTANTINE AT LEAST HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE "LEGALIZATION" OF THE PROFESSED CHRISTIANS IN THE EARLY FOURTH CENTURY A.D. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


I see now, looking at the history, that you do disagree with me. You say, "it mentions both emperors, and is valid and overall accurate. "Christianity" before those two emperors was NOT "legalized"...but actually considered criminal." You are incorrect, for the reasons I have stated. I will get you some citations that you can look at so we can avoid an edit war. But, again, you are incorrect to assert that Christianity was criminal before Licinius and Constantine in 313...Galerius made it legal again in 311.Ocyril (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence is certainly inaccurate. First, it implies that the Catholic Church was "newly" legalized...as if for the first time, which is incorrect. The Christian Church was legalized by Gallienus in the mid 3rd century. Second, although it was made illegal during the "Great Persecution", it was not made legal once again by either Constantine or Licinius; Galerius made it legal once again by promulgating his Edict of Toleration in 311. The rest of the paragraph is, strictly speaking, not inaccurate, so i will leave it...even though (maybe) it anachronistically suggests that "homoousious" was a watchword for Athanasius from the very beginning, whereas the truth is he only emphasized that term long after the initial "controversy" (after 340). I think it would be better just to eliminate the whole paragraph, but will compromise by eliminating only the first sentence which is incorrect. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocyril (talkcontribs) 16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baucalis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Schism, Council of Constantinople and Meletius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cornell NYC Tech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy-efficient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cornell NYC Tech[edit]

Nice work on the edits to Cornell NYC Tech. I'm not sure what you meant by information that was removed but this is what the article looked like before a couple of us had a crack at cleaning it up. Scary stuff. I actually went to the Cornell Wikiproject to ask if more editors could chip in and add some info - not sure if you saw it there or just stumbled across it but thanks for contributing. Cheers, Stalwart111 12:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For writing the article on Cornell NYC Tech :). Ironholds (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Van Allen radiation belt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Solar activity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon edits by Kennvido[edit]

I think we might have a troll onhand. Kennvido also removed reliable, cited info about the claims about a suspect that I and another editor had placed. I've replaced it, but looks like this person has a habit. It's been awhile since I've edited Wikipedia, but this kind of behavior sure is frustrating. — Yksin (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And he or she just deleted the stuff you replaced, again. Again, with no explanation. I can't keep up with it... I'm at work. Is an admin needed? — Yksin (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Yes, I believe I remember this character from the past. Not sure what his problem is. But it's not something I would ever even THINK of putting up with. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy[edit]

I'll thank you not to accuse me of violating some nebulous "policy" by reverting your incorrect edit. Elizium23 (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Read what I wrote on your talk page. There was NO "incorrect edit" on my part. And it's not "nebulous" that you should always leave a comment or explanation when reverting someone. Also, NOT to revert at all if it's not vandalism or incorrect. You failed to explain just how my edits were "incorrect". But just rudely reverted. Not cool...and NOT something I would tolerate. Explain at least why you felt the need to disrespect my edits. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Your edit was incorrect, and I have partially reverted it for that reason. The "Orthodox" section covers both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions. "Eastern Orthodox" is unnecessarily specific and incorrect for that section. You are more than welcome to cite chapter and verse of which policy I have violated by reverting you. I'm just dying to hear it. Elizium23 (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If in the context more than just "Eastern Orthodox" was being referred to, then maybe I can understand... But then again, why not have "Eastern and Oriental Orthodox"? Saying "Orthodox" can sound a bit incomplete. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nontrinitarianism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nontrinitarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Epistle to the Hebrews may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Christian Resource Institute. [http://www.crivoice.org/biblestudy/bbheb1.html] Accessed 17 Mar 2013]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Debra Nelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seminole County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bible: Pseudepigrapha on July 23[edit]

Hello Gabby,

My name is Jeremiah, and I noticed that you edit the Bible article plenty on times_ Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible _I just want to ask you for a favor in that article. I have scrolled the article plenty of times, and I didn't see much mention or if any information regarding the Pseudepigrapha. Can you please insert some information about the Pseudepigrapha I only read the articles to give suggestions to users who are dedicated to their articles, but I try not to edit the articles of dedicated users such as yourself. I hope that the Pseudepigrapha would be noticed by readers. That is all...

-Jeremiah A.
 Thank You  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIBLEDIT SENTINEL (talkcontribs) 23:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Thank you so much Gabby for the quick response to my request on article: Bible -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Asiocentrism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, East Indian and Polynesian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dominican Republic[edit]

I'm still waiting for your reply to this message since yesterday. I assumed you had found better things to do in the meantime, but clearly this is not the case as you found the time to revert my changes with the bewildering explanation that "you never wrote anything in the talk page for me to answer" and even dropping me a vitriolic message on my talk page, complaining that "You wrote zero. So as I said, ADDRESS IT IN TALK". The message for you to answer is there, if you can't or won't read it it's not my fault. And I told you twice already, your manners are terrible and if you don't make a little effort to be a little more civil don't be surprised if people respond in kind. Regards.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I opened a dispute resolution request here about this matter.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
A decision was taken at DRN, if you revert again I will report you to WP:ANI.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
There was no final decision made, just an arbitrary closing of the discussion...with my last comment un-answered. Not cool. Hardly anyone even participated, so don't give me that. Report what you want... It doesn't matter. Save your threats. The discussion was never completely finished, no matter what TransporterMan wrongly prematurely did or said. Finish up what we were talking about, and try addressing my last point and last question, instead of dodging it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
it remains closed now. Fine. I won't pursue this nonsense. I leave it alone. As TransporterMan's big issue and hang-up was "if you don't provide reliable source for that pronunciation" then so forth....but the problem is that last point was un-answered...and discussion was closed prematurely... it's whatever though.
I'm not pursuing this thing anymore. It's too trivial overall. It just seems that French dominance and involvement in DR's very formation seem to be under-played and watered down too much by certain parties. And Wikipedia should not be that way, when it comes to historical facts and points. That's all I was saying really. The pronunciation issue is debatable admittedly, but made its point in a way. Obviously France had the pronunciation from way back, and its pertinent (arguably) to the point (factual and historical point) that France was also involved in DR's very existence, formation, and development, and culture.
But even so, instead of dodging my last point and question, why not address it? The last thing I wrote was in RESPONSE to what YOU wrote just before that, about "French rule and involvement" supposedly coming much later, etc. If that's the case, why is the whole "French rule" matter brought up so early in the article? Instead of evading that point (which really refutes your claim that it was so much later etc) why not address it? That's all I was saying.

Your comments about Twinkle[edit]

Hi Gabby, re your edits to the Twinkle talk page: please be aware that Twinkle is merely a tool that users may use to roll back others' edits. As the Twinkle information page states, users who use Twinkle take full responsibility for their edits made using Twinkle. Please contact the editor who made the edit in question to discuss this issue. Thanks, — This, that and the other (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposing to rename the page Nontrinitarianism to Non-Trinitarianism[edit]

Since you are a contributor to the Nontrinitarianism page, please share your thoughts regarding renaming the page in order to try to reach consensus. You can find the discussion here: Talk:Nontrinitarianism#nontrinitarianism_or_non-Trinitarianism.3F

Many thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


Nontrinitarianism[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gabby Merger. You have new messages at Banaticus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Luke was Jewish"[edit]

Regarding your message. I am not following you around. Your edits are simply bleeping on a number of pages I have watch-listed. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. It just seemed a bit weird. That's why I asked. I didn't want to assume 100% for sure. Overall, I've noticed your hard work on WP, and I've appreciated it, and agreed usually. So I don't know where this stuff is coming from recently. Anyway, as I said...
it actually IS a notable opinion, held by a number of scholars, regardless or not if it's the "majority view". The point is why delete or hide that sourced information? No valid reason to do that. The edit is accurate and sourced. Stop edit-warring and disrespecting valid edits and additions, that are referenced and are apropos to the context and paragraph. Just because you (or maybe some others) DON'T LIKE. That's against WP policy. And suppressing information and points from potential readers is not the wise or proper course.


As for your wrong statement that "Paul says Luke was uncircumcised". Paul never EXPLICITLY said that. It's not worded that way. Read it again, in Colossians. This idea that Paul clearly said that Luke was "uncircumcised" is an old sloppy TRADITIONAL talking point. But doesn't hold up, under more careful, more critical, and closer analysis.
The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of “the circumcision”, he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence, indeed. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather Paul’s personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background.
Thus, there are reasons other than background why Luke would not be included in the list of “the circumcision.” It is risky to build a concept on evidence which is so weak, and this is the strongest evidence in the Bible that those who believe Luke was a Gentile use to prove their point.


Also, to be honest, NONE of that really matters anyway. As it doesn't matter what YOU (or I) think Paul meant or said, and even what the "majority view" of drone-ish "scholars" think or write. The mere fact that you have even a few theologians, writers, and ministers, and sources, saying that they believe Luke was either definitely Jewish or probably Jewish (a Hellenic Jew, etc), is enough to warrant at least making mention that some scholars think that. Like, as one of many examples, this one right here. So what??
Just because you personally think Luke was a Gentile is irrelevant. A number of notable scholars and writers (past and present) don't buy that, and say clearly that he was a Hellenic Jew. It's fairly copiously sourced. Don't start an edit-war, over this. Because it's not worth it. The info is valid and sourced, and it stays. Thanks. Revert again, and I revert back. Or bring to article Talk. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm also not following you. In ictu and I watch similar Christian pages. Ckruschke (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Greek Orthodox Church[edit]

Abbey, you really need to read and understand wp:verifiability. You don't have to like it. You just have to accept that this is the basis on which Wikipedia works. Of course Dr. K.'s edits are biased. Of course they are selected because they support his POV. That's the way that Wikipedia works. Getting yourself banned won't stop that happening and it certainly won't correct any mistakes in the article. You need to learn to work within the system that is Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if something is verified by a reliable source then t is verified. That's the end to the story. You can't remove it, you can only find other material that challenges it, and let the sources speak for themselves. You would have achieved much more by doing a simple Google search to find those sources than by getting engaged in an edit war and arguing ion the talk page. When you find your references you can add whatever you like. It doesn't matter how much you revert or how much you argue, you won't be able to change a single damn thing. Those are the rules. You need to accept them and learn to work with them. If you can't learn to do that, your time here will be brief and frustrating. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said that those refs can't be used to make the general point or statement. That's fine. What you're not grasping or maybe just not understanding where I'm coming from (or the WP policy regarding this) now is that it doesn't matter how those refs word things, as those refs in question are NOT neutral encyclopedias, and those refs are valid to bring in (no problem) only as far as giving the point that "it's believed"...when dealing with cases like this. I know about "verifiability, not truth". I told you appreciated your time and attention to this matter, but now you seem to missing the point yourself, about simple NPOV wording...that's all. It's not about which ref can or can't be used, per se, to make the general point. But for WP to state dogmatically is another thing. Other refs (do you even agree with that), don't even come close to agreeing with the words or notion that "Greek Orthodoxy came directly from the first century apostles" or "making the sign of the cross was from the apostles" etc? I don't disagree that those refs can be used, but the point is neutral tone...and that WP is not to endorse one position like that, especial in cases like this. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I tagged Taylor Business Institute under speedy deletion criteria A7, yet I must have been something else because such criteria does not cover educational institutions, so I removed the tag almost instantly. Sorry for any stress or inconvenience it might've caused. Ging287 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited God the Father, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roman numerals may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gabby Merger. You have new messages at Davejohnsan's talk page.
Message added 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gabby Merger. You have new messages at Kresblain's talk page.
Message added 10:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for July 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elder Gods. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Hades[edit]

I'm not saying the references are unreliable because you added them, but because they are from unreliable, non-academic sources. As for the first ones, are afterlife.co.nz and tentmaker.org authorized to speak for the groups listed? If not, they are just two guys opinions. The last one already has a bible ref, so another source is not needed unless you are making any additional claims about the meaning of the text or interpreting the quoted text. Editor2020 03:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hades as per User:Editor2020 reverts, including that website, please discuss on Talk page. Do not add back into article without discussion, per WP:EDITWARRING, sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent AFD comments[edit]

Regarding your recent comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's immigration crisis, please remember to assume good faith on the part of other editors and refrain from ad hominem attacks. Keep your comments related to the content of the article, and not the nature of the person making the nomination. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but some editors are a bit uptight about certain news events and articles. But point taken. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pestilence. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of "bioethicists"[edit]

The word "bioethicists" is not hyphenated in common usage, nor is it on Wikipedia (see: Bioethicist. 132.216.227.193 (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

maybe so, but at first you totally undid it even as a WIKI-LINK that I put (which was the main point of what I was trying to do). You undid that part of it also, unnecessarily. You could have just changed it to remove the hyphen, only...at first. I see that you did that afterwards, which is fine. But not with your first revert, because that removed even the wiki-link I did, which was totally valid on my part. But yeah, if you prefer "bioethicists" even though "bio-ethicists" is NOT necessarily "wrong" per se, then fine. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so much for the explanation. I had kept the WIKI-LINK that you had created (see old version, though I did not specify this in the 'Edit summary'. This was an oversight on my part and I sincerely apologise for the misunderstanding. Your addition of the WIKI-LINK was a very relevant one and I did not mean to remove that, and I am sorry it must have looked that way. 132.216.227.250 (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Resurrection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eternal life. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No edit warring[edit]

If you disagree with my edits to an article, please discuss them on the article's talk page. See Wikipedia:Edit warring. I began the discussion on Talk:Taylor Business Institute after your previous revert. Reverting without addressing my points is not a useful way of trying to resolve a dispute. Ground Zero | t 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I DID address your point. You just don't see it that way. I left a comment in the edit revert, as to why the word "presently" should be left...because of historical context. How is that "not addressing your point"? Don't lie, and claim "edit warring". I addressed your point, and I gave reasons. YOU are edit-warring also, if that's the case. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Moon landing conspiracy theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 18:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael (archangel)[edit]

Just thought I would say thank you for finding the reference for Spurgeon on the Michael (archangel) page. Dromidaon (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Book of Elchasai[edit]

Hello Gabby Merger, I just created my first article ever on Wikipedia: Book of Elchasai, and I would like for you to expand this article as much as possible. I used this site as a reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/elchasai.html, but within the site contains many references for sourcing by scholars and church fathers. Perhaps this may give you some interest as this article is around your editing field -- Thnx & Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

Copy and pasting[edit]

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT.LeadSongDog come howl! 01:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabbatarianism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabbatarianism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Handling copyrighted sources on Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, Gabby Merger. :) As an admin who frequently works copyright, I was asked to look at the situation at ANI with the content you recently added to Uterine cancer. I just wanted to stop and have a word with you about our approach to using copyrighted content. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

Source Your first edit Your initial cleanup
We do not yet know exactly what causes most cases of endometrial cancer, but we do know that there are certain risk factors, particularly hormone imbalance, for this type of cancer. A great deal of research is going on to learn more about the disease. We know that most endometrial cancer cells contain estrogen and/or progesterone receptors on their surfaces. Somehow, interaction of these receptors with their hormones leads to increased growth of the endometrium. This can mark the beginning of cancer. The increased growth can become more and more abnormal until it develops into a cancer. It is not clearly known yet exactly what causes most cases of endometrial cancer, but it's been concluded that there are certain risk factors. Hormone imbalance is one factof for this type of cancer. Much research is going on to learn more about the disease. Most endometrial cancer cells contain estrogen and/or progesterone receptors on their surfaces. Somehow, interaction of these receptors with their hormones leads to increased growth of the endometrium. This can mark the beginning of cancer. The increased growth can become more and more abnormal until it develops into a cancer. It is not clearly known yet exactly what causes most cases of uterine cancer, but it's been concluded that there are certain risk factors, such as hormone imbalance, and interaction with estrogen. Increased growth can result in cancer.

I have bolded the content that is taken directly from the source, but some of the other text represents a problem of close paraphrasing. The first version is, as you acknowledge, clearly a problem, but the second edit is an issue as well, as you are retaining much of the language and structure of the original.

I realize it is disconcerting to have content removed, but every time you save a page on Wikipedia you receive a notice that says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." The correction of copyright is the most urgent thing, however that's done. Straightforward removal is well-within policy, and editing articles to remove copyright problems is actually exempt from the prohibition on edit warring for that reason.

It is critical that content you place in articles conform to our copyright policies. We have had to blank and delete articles that are years old because of content such as that, losing the work of multiple editors. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for writing that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

If you believe that you have added content in the past in this manner, please go back and address it now. It is far better to remove and rewrite content within a relatively short window than to have to excise it years down the road. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ransom theory of atonement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Russell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism nominated for deletion.[edit]

I've nominated the above article for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. As you were the only "big" contributor to the article that I could see, I'm letting you know. Debate is occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 00:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah[edit]

In articles that are not directly related to topics relating to denominations that specifically use the name Jehovah (primarily Jehovah's Witnesses), the correct term to use is Yahweh. This is especially the case in broader topics about the Ancient Near East.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the majority of “scholars” may use the form “Yahweh” but it’s not all of them. But since it’s the majority, that is the reason I have not changed it on all Wikipedia articles that contain the form “Yahweh”, nor would I. So I agree that because “Yahweh” seems to be used more by more “scholars”, Wikipedia should (arguably) reflect that. But the point is that a sizable number have (and still do) also use the form “Jehovah”. And therefore arguably Wikipedia should reflect THAT too...at least in some articles, here and there. And that’s really my only point in that. Because I would NOT change it in other articles necessarily. Since “Yahweh” is majority “scholar” use. But, again, it’s definitely not the only. Even in broad topics. (But especially Biblical topics of Bible characters and people, etc.) A number of scholars and theologians also use the more Anglicized form “Jehovah”. And it was just for balancing it out a wee bit on Wikipedia, as (again) scholars ALSO use “Jehovah” in their teachings, books, and writings. And all of them are established and would be considered “reputable”. Past and present. Authors, scholars, historians, theologians, ministers.
Such examples are: John Walvoord, Andrew Jukes, Elmer Towns, Clarence Larkin, Kent Hovind, Nehemiah Gordon, Thomas Gataker, Michaelis, Drach, Stier, Johannes Buxtorf, Johannes Buxtorf II, Ethelbert Bullinger, Robert Morey, John Moncrieff, Johann Friedrich von Meyer, Peter S. Ruckman, William Fulke, John Owen, etc. And the point is there was no real good reason (given that a number of scholars also use the form “Jehovah” even if not the majority) to revert. Also, the main point is you’re following me around, you put my name on your list, and you’re HOUNDING me, and SECOND-GUESSING my edits, simply because we had a bit of a disagreement a couple of months ago. And you even said that you’d check and follow me etc. Something I’d never put up with.
Again, though, if “Yahweh” was the ONLY form ever used by “scholars”, then I’d agree with you, and I would not have even done the modification. But a number of ‘scholars’, writers, theologians, ministers, etc, (who are NOT “Jehovah’s Witnesses”) use and even prefer the English-Latin form “Jehovah”. So for those two reasons: some scholars use “Jehovah” too, and also you should NOT be following me around like this...you are reverted on this, and will continue to be, if you do what you did again. Unless REAL consensus (which I respect even if I don’t always agree with) says so (if you take it that far, and knowing you, you may), and etc. But for now, sorry, the Anglicized King James/Revised Version/American Standard Version/Darby/New English Bible/ etc form of the name, and what’s used (and documented) by a fair number of other scholars, should arguably (as a good-faith and valid edit) remain. At least on a couple of articles here and there, on Wikipedia, reflecting the fact that the Anglicized form is ALSO used by some scholars. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you are aware that the majority of scholars use Yahweh, then you already know that your insistence on the JW-preferred term does not constitute a neutral point of view. It is not the case that Wikipedia articles (that are not directly to JWs or similar groups) 'should' arbitrarily use the name Jehovah in a manner that some editor guesses is maybe an approximation of how many scholars probably hold the minority view. (Essentially, your argument is If n% of scholars use term A, then an arbitrary n% of Wikipedia articles—based on nothing but guessing—should also use term A, regardless of whether the articles are closely related to the subject addressed by n% of scholars.)
I'm not remotely interested in your attempt to 'shoot the messenger'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
if the form "Jehovah" was only with a certain "denomination" or two, your point would be more valid...but I already proved and demonstrated on your talk page that the Anglicized form "Jehovah" IS an established and widely-used form by "scholars" as well.. It's not so "arbitrary", like you're making it. The names of scholars and writers who use the form "Jehovah" that I listed were just a sample. There are many others. Past and present. Your argument that the form "Jehovah" should only be used in directly-related articles that deal with that form or pronunciation is patently invalid and inaccurate on its face, given the fact that (as I said, and I have proof) the form "Jehovah" is used in books and web pages etc in situations NOT directly related to that form or pronunciation, but used in the same way that other scholars use "Yahweh".
And it's NOT so remote or obscure. It's substantial enough, even if the minority lately. And why should WP not reflect that fact too? You act as if "Jehovah" is just some narrow or even cultic usage by remote people, when that's not really the case. And I'm a little surprised at you, because you've obviously been dealing and working hard on these types of articles for years, and should know that it's NOT "non-neutral" thing like you're saying. PLENTY of non-JWs and even anti-JWs prefer and use the form "Jehovah" over the form "Yahweh". Plus, as I said, your arguable following, stalking, hounding, second-guessing, and to be frank trolling and hounding of me like this are enough to have you reverted. That's very un-settling and disrespectful. I'm not perfect. No one is. But something like this (and also you removing the Bible verse simply because it was from that website) seems biased and "non-neutral" in the other direction. I do NOT incorporate pro-JW stuff on articles willy nilly, and I'm very careful with things. I would NOT go on various articles on WP to change the (inaccurate NON-English) form "Yahweh" to the more Anglicized logical form "Jehovah" simply because I personally like it better etc, given that the majority of "scholars" prefer and use the the more Hebraic two-syllable form "Yahweh". I respect that.
BUT, even though you obviously don't agree, since QUITE A NUMBER of scholars (who are NOT JWs) use and have used the established form "Jehovah", there's nothing so terrible or wrong or out-of-place with that form being in at least a few WP articles here and there, REFLECTING the fact that quite a number of scholars and theologians use that form also. But, again Jeffro, though I acknowledge your hard work on Wikipedia, and examining many of your edits I know that I agree with many of them, I do NOT like or appreciate you following me around. It's creepy and disrespectful, and violation of wiki:hound, whether you think you're actually doing that or not. This is not something worth going through so much over, to be honest. Again, I respect the fact that the majority (whether I agree or not) use the form "Yahweh", and which is why I would NEVER go around trolling Wikipedia religious or Biblical articles and look for "Yahweh" to change it. I would not, as that would be against WP policy of majority scholar use. But I doubt that the form "Jehovah" is only 1% use in scholarly circles. It's been established for years, and still used widely. And that fact should not be hidden (in a way) by Wikipedia. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Your argumentation is irrelevant. It's really quite simple. If the sources being used for the specific article use the form Jehovah, then the article may also use that form. If there is no basis in the sources for using that form, use the more common form.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Whilst the form Jehovah is indeed the minority view in scholarship, I did not at any point claim that it is "remote", "obscure", "narrow", "cultic", or any of the other irrelevant loaded terms you've used above. The fact remains that there is no reason to use the form Jehovah in articles about the Ancient Near East unless that form is specifically used in a relevant source. Your insistence on using that form seems to indicate a personal point of view rather than a desire to improve articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I see that you are continuing to try to inject an unnecessary POV into the article about Sennacherib. The name Jehovah is a name that is preferred by a minority of Christian theologians when referring to the deity of the Abrahamic religions. It isn't in mainstream usage by most Christians, it is even less frequently used by scholars independent from Christianity, and it is almost never (probably just never) used by mainstream Jews. All of the people you named as proponents of the form 'Jehovah' are Christian theologians or ministers (and one Karaite Jew, an extremely small sect of about 50,000 people worldwide who reject key Jewish traditions such as Hannukah), and not scholars in any broader sense that would apply to the article about Sennacherib. The article about Sennacherib has no direct relationship with Christianity in particular, and as such, there is no good reason to prefer the form Jehovah at that article. If you want to use that term, supply a maintream source supporting use of the form Jehovah in relation to the 'angel of God' as used at that article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's NOT just "Christian theologians" that use the form "Jehovah", but even Atheist scholars and non-religious historians use that form sometimes. Like Daniel Dennett in his book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006). He uses the form "Jehovah" there. So you're wrong on that one, and YOU arguably are "injecting POV" by your biased removal of this widely-used and established Anglicized form, that is even used by NON-religious scholars. The names I put forth (as I said) are just a sample of more religious types, true, but obviously not exhaustive in general. It would be different, Jeffro, if I was trying to incorporate one of those "sacred name" renderings like "Yahawah" or "Yahowah" or "Yehuwah"...(if you've seen that), as THAT is really "obscure" and NOT "established"...and would be "POV injection". But you can't get around the fact (that you seem to not be aware of or care about) that the Latin/English form "Jehovah" is not just used by professed "Christian theologians or ministers", for centuries, past and present. I've read liberal agnostic historians and scholars, in books and magazines, etc, use that form too. And as I said already, and I'm tired of repeating myself with you, that I'm NOT trying to change every WP article that has the less-accurate two-syllable Hebraic form "Yahweh", out of "POV", as I know that that's the (in some circles) more used form...and hence WP (whether I agree or not) should reflect that. But you act like "Jehovah" is used by a very very very "tiny" minority of "scholars" in general, past or present, and that's not really true. "Minority" yes, probably, sure, but not as minor as you're making it out. It's too established AND used by quite a number of scholars (religious and non-religious and in-between) to ignore or for you to make such a big fuss about and disrespect with your OWN (well-known) in a sense "POV". I told you if you keep reverting this, you'll keep being reverted. And it'll only stop when real true "consensus" goes your view on this. Because I always acquiesce to real consensus on WP, whether they're wrong or not, or I agree or not. Take care.... 17:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at this thread and I honestly cannot see which articles this discussion would directly relate to. I see the names of a few scholars included, but no indication as to what specific content within those articles the discussion might pertain to. That makes it much harder to know what the point of contention is. We have at least two separate articles which the word Jehovah could, at least theoretically, related to: God in Christianity and God in Judaism, and God the Father is yet another at least potential option. It would help to point out a couple of specific instances in which it is advocated the word Jehovah is used in an article over something else, and why that is the case. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sennacherib. Again, though, the point is that the Anglicized form IS used in many scholarly circles, some religious and some not so religious, for decades, and centuries, up to the present. It's not so remote or "minor", even if the two-syllable less-accurate Hebrew "Y" form has been used (wrongly, since these same scholars say "Jeremiah" and "Jacob" no problem with the "J" sound, etc), by most scholars. "Jehovah" is STILL widely used and established, big time, and WP should at least in some articles or some paragraphs here and there rightly reflect that fact. That fact that Jeffro is trying to suppress from his own bias and own wrong notions. He's not infallible. Though he likes to think he is. He's good in some ways, many times, sure, but not infallible. Not even close. But yeah, the article in question in this case is Sennacherib. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
More duplicated text (including an irrelevant personal attack) here that I won't respond to because it's at my Talk page (which remains there only because there was an intervening response). However, I would mention that Gabby Merger's statement about "an atheist" using the form Jehovah is also misleading, because Daniel Dennett's subject is religion, and his book is not a scholarly work about the Ancient Near East. (Monty Python's use of Jehovah is just as useful as a 'precedent' for usage in articles about the ANE.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As I stated earlier in this thread, Gabby Merger's contention—that "WP should at least in some articles or some paragraphs" use the form Jehovah (in articles that are not directly related to groups that prefer that form)—is simply wrong. It is not necessary or appropriate to replace Yahweh with Jehovah in an entirely arbitrary selection of articles about the Ancient Near East. Articles should use the form Jehovah if the usage is supported by sources, and articles about the Ancient Near East should prefer the more common term in scholarly works, which is Yahweh.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Not gonna go around in circles forever with you on this. You're wrong, and I already took the time and explained and proved why. Those names are just samples...and it goes beyond just "Christian theologians". All types of writers and scholars have used and use the name. Long-established form. BOTH are widely used, even if "Yahweh" a bit more. But shouldn't WP reflect things the way they are? If it was 99 or 100% "Yahweh" by scholars, you and I wouldn't even be arguing. But it's not quite that way. You're stubborn and biased, and I'm tired of it. The form "Jehovah" is long-established widely-used and not just be "fringe" groups, but you keep moving the goal post, when names are provided, you say "they're just Christian theologians". When I give an example of an well-known Atheist scholar who also uses the term etc in his works, you find some fault or rationalize that away too, about "not Near East" or something, and really out of pride and stubbornness to just stick to your position, and not even be semi-flexible...per your human nature not wanting to budge from your uptight position. The point (again) is that WP should reflect both the forms "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" since both are widely used in scholarly circles, in various contexts and books and works. Even if "Yahweh" is used a bit more by certain scholars. The form "Jehovah" is still substantially written, uttered, and used enough to warrant at least occasional appearances on religious/biblical WP articles. Regardless of what you say or think...or like to bully or impose about. I'm tired of the merry-go-round with you, on this. Something that you could have theoretically left alone, if you were half-way cool and reasonable. You're not. Also your stalking, hounding, and trolling of me is enough to get you reverted just for being disrespectful and creepy. And as I said, if real consensus goes your way (the wrong way), on this matter, because it's not necessarily infallible, I'll still abide by it. But as it stands, your rude unwarranted uptight stalk-ish reverts will be reverted. I'm done. Bye. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Gabby Merger (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's funny how you go on about my alleged 'pride', and then conclude with a proud dogmatic assertion that any consensus that is not your preferred view is necessarily wrong. Ho hum. I'll see what John Carter says.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have already previously responded to your imagined claims of 'stalking'. If you edit articles that are on my watch list—which includes articles about Jehovah's Witnesses, religion in general, and various Near Eastern subjects associated with the chronology of the Old Testament—then I'm probably going to see your edits.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
And stop copying and pasting the same chunks of text into two separate Talk pages! The only reason any of your duplicated responses have been retained at my User Talk page is because John Carter responded there before I had a chance to clean up the duplication. I am not going to repeat the same conversation on two separate Talk pages.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I already explained how it's NOT "redundant" as it's NOT on your talk, so if you remove that you should remove all, and if you let remain the other comments, then this final one should also be left to remain...otherwise it's dishonest convenient suppression) Again, not really 'redundant' as it's NOT on this page at all...only on my own Talk page. So if you were to remove my final response, you should remove ALL of it there...not just conveniently what you don't want on it... I left all your junk on my Talk. Out of fairness. By the way, this is what you get for stalking me. I warned you against doing that. I wasn't kidding. I hope you enjoy the stress you're getting. You can deny that there was following around because of having those articles on your watchlist already, but I'm not an idiot. You already said you would do this foolish thing in following me around, despite my warnings against doing that. And thinking that I would be like others and put up with it and fold. Aint gonna happen. (I never do that to people.) I'll abide by consensus should it come, as I said. Even if I may not agree. That's life, and that's whatever. The problem is you're acting as if the form "Jehovah" is like an obscure form of fringe groups such as "Yehuah" or "Yahawah" or something, of some "Sacred Name" groups, who have various forms, depending on the group. "Jehovah" is so seen and visible in various books, articles, publications, past and present, by all types of authors, writers, and historians and scholars, of various beliefs and persuasions, in all kinds of contexts, it's not even debatable. There's a principle. You have this notion that your thinking is always flawless and infallible. It isn't. You seriously need to get off that nonsense already. This particular matter could have gone either way. The Anglicized form is TOO WELL-ESTABLISHED AND TOO WIDELY USED to be treated as some kind of "minor" thing that should not be used or reflected in WP articles dealing with ANY religious/biblical article etc at least sometimes. There's a principle. Even in the face of demonstrable examples and facts that you're wrong or at least not completely right, "Near East" whatever. You're not always wrong of course. But you're not always right. None of us is. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
For someone who doesn't want to go round in circles, you're sure doing a lot of it. There is absolutely no reason why identical chunks of this discussion should be duplicated at my Talk page, and I have retained only enough at my Talk page to give context to John Carter's responses there that are not found at this page. Additional discussion copied from this page to my User Talk page is superfluous. This discussion is clearly linked from my User Talk page. Your comments about the 'stress you hope I am getting', based on your mistaken view that I am 'stalking' you, is confirmation of intentional tendentious editing, which will be reported if it continues. And you probably should give your spacebar a rest. You only need one space after a full stop (period). Breathe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't expecting that other editor to chime in like he did. My point was that if you left my OTHER comments remain in that thread on your page, why not the final one, that was making a specific point about "Atheist" and "Near East" etc. Anyway...as I said, the Anglicized form "Jehovah" is so seen and visible in various books, articles, publications, past and present, by all types of authors, writers, and historians and scholars, of various beliefs and persuasions, in all kinds of contexts, it's not even debatable. There's a principle. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The response you tried to restore at my User Talk page is identical to text already at this page, so there is no need to retain it at both locations. John Carter already knew about the discussion at this page, and it is also linked from my User Talk page. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the claim that Jehovah has equal footing with Yahweh in subjects not directly related to the relevant branch of Christianity. It is not the preferred form in scholarly contexts.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As far as usage, I clearly said that that it's NOT on "equal footing"...in the sense of use by scholars, etc. I admitted (more than once, and you know this), that the less-accurate two-syllable "Yahweh" is used more (wrongly, inconsistently, since they say "Jeremiah" and "Jacob" and "Judah" no problem, with English "J" sound...side-point), by scholars. That form "Yahweh" arguably seems to be used more so. I said that repeatedly. What I said though is that the Anglicized form "Jehovah" is also widely used, and long-established, and TOO widely used to ignore or treat as some minor-used term, like you're doing. You get stubborn even when confronted with a bunch of names (that is not even nearly exhaustive), but you go into this "relevant to the article" and "Near East" cop-out, when I already made the point that the form "Jehovah" is used A) not just by "Christian theologians", but B) also by NON-religious or NON-"Christian" scholars, and C) in VARIOUS contexts and discussions. Even if not as much as used as the form "Yahweh", the Latin/English form is too known and used to never be reflected at least sometimes in some WP articles...that deal with biblical characters and subjects. The problem is if you keep repeating your lines, it forces me (in a way) to go around in circles and repeat myself. The point is there. But it seems (and of course you'll never admit this) that you're not totally aware just how MUCH the Anglicized form "Jehovah" has been and still is presently used and written by various authors and scholars. It may be more than you have thought. Even if not quite as much as the form "Yahweh". Gabby Merger (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The name Jehovah already is used in Wikipedia articles where it is relevant to the subject and supported by sources. (Actually, a quick search of Wikipedia shows that Jehovah appears in 3205 articles, whereas Yahweh appears in 869, so there is clearly no effort to 'suppress' the form Jehovah, as falsely claimed by Gabby Merger.) There is no need for arbitrarily using it where there is no support in sources for the subject of a particular article. Instead of continuing to repeat yourself (which you said you weren't going to do, but apparently you lack self control), you should probably wait for John Carter's response.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
If you remember my exact words, I said that I was not gonna be going in circles with you "forever" on this. Meaning, at a certain point, I'm not gonna continue this. Also, if you remember, I said that the only reason I'm "repeating" myself, is because you keep repeating your lines. But I don't want this obviously. No one's perfect, but "self control" is a two street here. You keep giving the same arguments. But if you recall, you also said "only Christian theologians"...and I pointed out that that's not all that use the English form. Various types of authors and scholars etc use that form of the name. No matter what the context. As far as Mr Carter, and some others, that's fine. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you only meant not forever. Well I'm glad you'll stop before the heat death of the universe occurs. Hopefully sooner though. I've already seen your incorrect arguments, and I've already told you that at this point you should wait for a response from John Carter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
yes, that's correct. Your cute sarcasm notwithstanding, I was saying that obviously this continue forever. I hope you can be ok with this obviously, but you seem to be stuck on this thing that because the two-syllable Y-form "Yahweh" is used more generally by scholars etc, a bit more than the established Anglicized form, that therefore WP articles about Bible characters etc should only always solely always use the form "Yahweh". My point is that it's not necessarily so black and white like that, given the fact that the three-syllable J-form "Jehovah" is demonstrably written and used by many scholars and writers as well, past and present. Even if probably a bit less than "Yahweh". And I said already that it's fine about John Carter, etc...though it should be more than just one other editor. Hence why I said real consensus. That I always respect, if not always agree with necessarily. By the way, something I noticed, and meant to ask you... Why did you put wiki links around all the names that I provided in that list of scholars and writer and theologians who use or prefer the name "Jehovah"? It's ok that you did that...there's nothing wrong with that. But I was just wondering why you did. That would take some time and effort to do it to each name, since there were quite a few in a way. Why wikilink all of them? Nice that you did, I guess...but why? What was the point of that necessarily? Gabby Merger (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't actually intend to retain the Wikilinks. I linked them while editing my response to make it easier for me to look them up to confirm my suspicion that pretty much all of them were not really 'scholars' per se, but rather, Christian theologians. Aside from that, you keep going on about the "two syllable form" and making a false claim that I insist on it in all cases (or as you eloquently put it, "only always solely always"). Actually, there's a bunch of articles where Jehovah is used in describing the etymology of other names, and that usage is fairly well established. However, in the case at Sennacherib (who is not merely a "Bible character"), there is no etymological justification whatsoever, and you are dogmatically rejecting the form preferred by scholars with no basis from any source. Linking to the article about the name Jehovah is actually unhelpful when the context of the link is about the deity described in the article Yahweh. Further, there's no reason at all (other than to assert a POV) to change the display name of the target article Angel of the Lord, which is the way it appears in most Bible translations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I notice that more than once now you referred to them as only "Christian theologians" and somehow saying that they are NOT "scholars". So let me get this straight...your view is that they are not "scholars" simply because they're also professed Christian theologians??? Huh??!? You're saying that any professed Christian minister, theologian, or writer, can't also be a "scholar"? If so, that's wrong and warped and a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT on so many levels. Most if not all of these guys have doctorates and things. What is your criteria as to what even makes as "scholar"? An Atheist or Agnostic or maybe a NON-Christian writer like that goofball Muslim "Reza Aslan" or something?? I consider him a scholar" even though I mostly if not totally disagree with just about everything he says or is about. I still try to remain objective at least, as far as terms. Seriously, why would you think think or say (now I KNOW you should be reverted all the time big time on this particular matter) that just because they're "Christian theologians" that that means automatically they're not "scholars"? I noticed that nonsense from you last night but didn't directly get into it. Why would you insist that? But even after I provided you an example of a non-"Cristian theologian", an actual Atheist scholar, who uses or prefers the form "Jehovah", you find some corny alibi why that doesn't apply, because of "Near East" or whatever. When the point is that it's a fact that writer and scholars of all types and stripes have used that form, still used that form of the name, in various contexts. As a widely established form.
But again, I'm trying to understand you. You're actually saying with a straight face (and still trying to give the notion that you're neutral and unbiased) that because someone is a "Christian theologian" he can't be a "scholar"? Meanwhile the very article Sennacherib in question has some professed "Christians theologians" in some of the refs. No...ALL the names I provided are "scholars". They've all been noted as that, some more than others. Robert Morey, of example, has been known to use BOTH forms "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" in a positive sense, in various contexts, in his books. And also in his debates and speeches. He's not perfect, and of course in no way do I totally agree with him on everything, but I would not say that he's not technically (at least in some important aspects) a "scholar". Is the term "scholar" that subjective then, that it means whatever you want it to mean, conveniently, or can only mean people who are not "Christian theologians"? Seems a bit circular and arbitrary to me. These names are not joe schmoes down the street who own a pizza place, and slapped some self-published blogs together in their basement or something. They're in the field of these studies. And those are just samples. Sennacherib IS a "Bible character". Not sure what you mean by "not merely". I've seen Bible archeology magazines that deal with Bible people such as Sennacherib where the form "Jehovah" has appeared, as well as of course the form "Yahweh". Even if "Yahweh" lately seems to be used more. But again, "Christian theologians" can still be "scholars". Not where where or how you get the idea that they can't be. But (again) it's more than just professed Christians who use or utter the Anglicized form of the name in their words and works. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you want to play more wordgames. I have made it clear throughout this discussion that they are not scholars more broadly (not that they are not scholars at all), but I understand that you will gleefully leap on any instance where I've used some shorthand to point out that the reason they prefer Jehovah is because they are Christian theologians (more accurately, a subset of Christian theologians). Whether they are also 'scholars' (though not all of them are) is beside the point, and you probably know that already. Stop being obstreperous. Oh, and you couldn't help making a personal attack on a Muslim scholar while you're at it?! Well done, you. Sigh. And if you don't understand why I said that Sennacherib is "not merely" a "Bible character", you probably need a dictionary. He is not merely a Bible character because he is a historical figures known outside of the Bible. Of course, you've completely (conveniently) ignored the fact that your preferred link to an article about a name rather than the deity is entirely unhelpful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well that's why I ASKED...because I wanted to make 100% sure and clear what was going on with that. But even your explanation doesn't really hold well, because those "Christian theologians" are still scholars in general too, at least in some aspects, and also given that this article "Sennacherib" is mainly a Bible character, it's relevant. And also there are many "Christian theologians" who prefer the form "Yahweh". And I'm sure you would accept them, in that regard. Also, again why I said I wasn't sure what you meant by "not merely a Bible character". But so what that Sennacherib is known outside of the Bible? So are other people too. Like Darius or Cyrus the Persian. When did I say that Sennacherib was ONLY known in the Bible? So your "not merely" point was not even necessary...as I never implied or said that Sennacherib was solely a Bible name only known from the Biblical record. Again though, as far as those names I provided, I was simply proving and demonstrating that the form "Jehovah" is used outside of a religious group, by various scholars and writers, in various contexts. And I even provided a name (and there are others besides) of an Atheist scholar who uses that form of the name. IN GENERAL. As far as me making a personal attack on a Muslim scholar...namely Reza Aslan...I was using him as an example of someone you'd probably (sighs) consider "ok" to use, since he's not a "Christian theologian"...and yes, sorry, the guy is a joke and a half, on so many levels it's not funny. I said "goofball" in passing... But you notice what I also said about him, that you seem to conveniently forget? I said that I would STILL consider him a scholar!!!!! Even though I can't stand him and disagree with most if not all that he puts forth. You kind of missed that point, which was a big point of mine in even bringing him up. Again, though, I was trying to understand why you seemed to be saying that those names being "Christian theologians" somehow negates them being "scholars" at least pertinent to this matter. And I don't agree with your explanation or rationale on it. They're scholars is the point, and the factual point is that the Anglicized form is used extensively throughout, even if not quite as much as the "Yawheh" form. Even by NON-Christian writers and situations. Liberals and agnostics have used the form "Jehovah" sometimes, in dealing with historical and/or biblical figures. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you include televangelists (actually, a young Earth creationist imprisoned for tax fraud) in your list of 'scholars', it's ever so kind of you to include a Muslim scholar in your definition of scholar. (And clearly Aslan must be a "goofball" for asserting something so outlandish that Jesus was actually a normal human rather than a magical space Jew.) But you're still completely dodging the point with all this circumlocutory about your preferred definition of 'scholar' (and apparently a poor understanding of set theory). The fact remains that there is absolutely no benefit in linking a Hebrew deity to an article about a variant name. And no, Sennacherib is not "mainly a Bible character", and only three paragraphs of the article are related to the Bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, you might consider making your responses more concise. Much of what you're typing, you could just say in your head and leave it there. Because you've already said most of it (usually misrepresenting my position), and if I didn't agree with you the first time, you can probably assume that hasn't changed. And I probably don't need to know your opinion of Aslan at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why you're so fixated on the Reza Aslan thing, but it must be because you're a fan or something. I said what I said about him in quick passing, and you jumped on it. My main reason for my thinking he's a goofball is not so much his notions on Jesus being a "normal human being" (which of course is your view we know), as that's the view of many people too, but because this sad pathetic loser thinks and says that "Islam is a religion of peace". (Eyeroll)...and goes desperately on news programs to try to justify that failed and corny and notion and lie. Again, I was not intending on getting deep into that guy. But again, I see it must be because you're a fan of that cornball, and it struck a nerve. Not necessary, since (again) I said that I still consider EVEN HIM a "scholar". Though he's a Muslim and a loser on so many levels. Finally get it? Also, as for the YEC fanatic named "Kent Hovind"...his being convicted on fraud does not mean he's not a writer or scholar or established. If I could say that Reza (who I can't stand at all) is a scholar, that shows I'm objective in that a "scholar" does NOT mean someone you like or agree with. Then it becomes childish and subjective and arbitrary.
Of course Hovind is a scholar...and he has degrees and books and lectures, etc. I disagree with Hovind on many things, on theology, history, politics, etc. So? The point is he's an example of someone who uses the Anglicized form. There are plenty of people who use the "Yahweh" form who also have skeletons and problems and imperfections. But I doubt you'll negate them because of it, since they use (or prefer) the "Yahweh" form. Even with my ad hom against Aslan, I still consider him a scholar. I'm that objective...I try to be. So your thing with Hovind is ad hom period. And is a logical fallacy. Hovind, warts and all, because nothing is totally black and white, is still a "scholar" in many ways. Now, to try be objective, even with someone like you, you may have a little bit of a point about Sennacherib not being "mainly a Bible character" but ONLY in the Wikipedia article context. Sure. But again, there are Time Magazine articles dealing with people such as Sennacherib or Cyrus, where I've seen both the "Yahweh" form and the "Jehovah" form. I've seen the Anglicized "Jehovah" in secular articles and works over the years. But when have you ever seen the really obscure form "Yehuwah" used by the Nubians or some "Sacred Name" groups who use other variant forms like that? Never really. The only two forms of the name ever really used in general are "Jehovah" and "Yahweh". Not "Yahawah" or "Yehuwah" etc. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
More tangential nonsense. Pointing out your irrelevant personal attack on Aslan does not mean I'm a 'fan'—typical black and white thinking. (Also, all of Hovind's degrees are from unaccredited colleges.) And then you continue with another personal attack on me (or 'someone like me'). Again... just say this nonsense in your head and leave it there. Just because you only know about Sennacherib from 'Bible-based publications', it doesn't change the fact that Sennacherib is in reality—not just "ONLY in the Wikipedia article context"—a well-established historical figure. You can stop prattling on about the "Anglicized "Jehovah"" too, because it doesn't change the fact that the linked article for the Hebrew deity should direct to the article about the deity, not the other article about the other name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You asked why I called him a "goofball", or asserted as to the reason. And his views on Jesus is NOT the main reason I thought that. I simply was explaining and clarifying (since you were assuming the reason) why mainly I said that of him. His soap-box on trying to defend Islam, as somehow peaceful etc. That's it. But I still consider him a "scholar", I said from the beginning. Just like you should consider characters like Hovind a scholar too, regardless of their problems or slip-ups or crimes or stupidities in various ways. And no, you don't read or listen well...I said that I've seen things on Sennacherib and such like in NON-'Bible-based publications'. What part of "Time Magazine" (as just an example) and "secular writings" etc didn't you get? And if you absorbed my whole previous comment, I said (trying to be objective, unlike you with me apparently) that you may have a point about Sennacherib not being "mainly" a Bible character, in the WP context. But instead you harped on my phrase "even with someone like you". Touchy huh? You tend to do that I notice. A bit over-sensitive, instead of focusing on the MAIN POINT of the statement. Anyway, I don't like Reza because he's extremely unlikeable as even CNN reporters know that, but I still consider him a "scholar" anyway. I also consider the Young Earth fanatic and gun-lover "Hovind" a scholar, though I can't stand him in many ways either. That was my point. Even "Christian theologians" (in whatever context, even more secular historical ones like this one maybe). And also even if the Dennett book deals primarily with a specific subject, you can't believe that if Dennett were talking about "Sennacherib", that he would change from using the form "Jehovah". He uses that form in GENERAL, is the point. For the DEITY. And he's an Atheist scholar. 03:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You're just repeating the same irrelevant tangents. I don't care about your opinion of Aslan; the fact remains he is an accredited scholar and Hovind quite definitely is not—Hovind has diploma mill degrees from unaccredited institutions. And I only mentioned Hovind's background to demonstrated your loose definition of 'scholar'. And Hovind isn't the only theologian you listed who isn't actually a scholar either. Sennacherib isn't "mainly a Bible character". Not in the WP context, and not in any other context. He is a well-established historical figure known from Assyrian sources. The Sennacherib article contains a link referring to the Hebrew deity, and that link should direct to the article about the Hebrew deity. That article is Yahweh. There is a separate article about Jehovah, but it is about an alternative name of the deity. You are completely ignoring the context of the linked term with regard to the content of the target article, simply because you think the name Jehovah should arbitrarily appear in more articles. But now that you've repeated every possible tangent ad nauseum, why don't you be quiet for a while and wait for John Carter to respond.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I did say that there are some people who are obviously more "reputable" (in terms of degrees, institutions, training, credits, etc) than others. But even though Hovind's education on a secular level is definitely not up to par as some others I listed, or to Reza's in that sense, we can't totally discount Hovind (who again I made clear I actually DON'T like in many ways) is accomplished, an author, writer, researcher, written books, etc. There are some people more scholarly than others though, no doubt. I only threw in Hovind since he's a well-known figure and author who happens to also prefer (really because he's a King James Only cultist) the form "Jehovah". If he preferred the form "Yahweh" for some reason, despite his convictions and less-than-up-to-par educational background, it would be whatever. Again, though, Dennett (to repeat) is a secular scholar, uses the form "Jehovah" in any context, obviously, and would do so in a Sennacherib discussion. True that we don't have that in references IN the Sennacherib article on Wikipedia...but for some reason the "Jehovah" article on WP is about the NAME-FORM, and the "Yahweh" article is about the "Deity". Which is simply a Wikipedia arguably flaw, but it is what it is. Because unfortunately most Wikipedians wrongly think like you. Doesn't make it right or logical. These same Wikipedians say "Jeremiah" no problem, "Jacob" no problem...with the "J" sound...but for some inconsistent dumb reason the less-accurate two-syllable form "Yahweh" with the "Y" sound is the preferred form for the uh "Deity"...on Wikipedia....instead of the better longer-established ENGLISH/LATIN form "Jehovah". And also, please lose the impolite jerky condescending arrogance about "don't write what you think". Save the glib nonsense on that, please, because you could take your own advice on that, if that's the case. Again, Jeffro, you'll lie and deny it, but you stalking and trolling and hounding me is ENOUGH of a reason to revert you. I warned you to stay away from me a couple of months ago. But it's neurotic and it seems can't help yourself obviously when it comes to following people around. Hence why my respect for you is around zero. Wiki:hounding is against WP policy regardless of the whole "Yahweh/Jehovah" debate and issue. You were NEVER on these articles before I was....so don't give me the old front lie of "you follow religious articles". Funny how you were never editing these articles before I did. Only afterwards did you some how show up on them. That's stalking and following. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

More tangential rhetoric, more ad hominem, and more incorrect assumptions. I already told you the range of articles that are on my watch list (literally hundreds of articles, not all of which I actively edit), and I have no interest in indulging your conspiracy theory. Funny how 'most Wikipedians wrongly think like me' and only Gabby Merger knows better.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please save the corny "range of articles on your watch list" alibi, as from the history you were NEVER on these specific articles that I was editing. Also, interesting how you never refuted or addressed the point of why the same Wikipedians inconsistently use "Jacob", "Jeremiah", "Judah", no problem, with the "J" sound, but for some silly reason have a hang-up against the "J" sound in the form "Jehovah", which (despite what some may say against it) is long-time established, as the Anglicized form. "Jeremiah" was NOT the actual way his name was pronounced either, yet nobody has an uptight issue against using that Anglicized form for that prophet. Also, it's not just Gabby Merger who thinks like Gabby Merger on this specific issue, as I know you can see from the very "Jehovah" article itself, with its references, etc. And as far as "tangential rhetoric", what do you call your words "just say this nonsense in your head and leave it there" and "why don't you be quiet for a while" and "I have no interest in indulging your conspiracy theory". That's cool, civil, mannerly "rhetoric"? That's not "tangential" at all? I guess it isn't when you do it. Or you won't look at it that way. Human nature. But you're such a pot-kettle-black type, who only sees flaws in other people (real or imagined), but NEVER sees them in himself. Though more glaring. I wrote you off a long time ago. Whether I agree with a lot of your edits or not. You're too arrogant to take seriously. And a quintessential WP stalker, bully, and harasser, and disrespecter. Big time. And again... Wiki:hounding is against WP policy regardless of the whole "Yahweh/Jehovah" debate and issue. You were NEVER on these articles before I was....so don't give me the old front lie of "you follow religious articles". Funny how you were never editing these articles before I did. Only afterwards did you some how show up on them. That's not just a "conspiracy theory", but simply an observed and checkable fact. Despite your alibis and desperate cop-outs. You even admitted a couple of months ago that you would neurotically follow me around. Compulsions run-amok with you. Which is why your arrogant words of "stop for a while" etc is something YOU should be taking even more so. You violated wiki:hound whether you admit it or not. And you're too dishonest to admit it, we know. But fact remains. That's stalking and following. And hence one big reason you're reverted. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I realise it's probably more exciting to imagine that your edits are so important to me that I must track every one. It's simply not the case. Occasionally I notice you've edited something on my watch list, and I take a look. It's not a matter of national security and I'm not peeking in your windows. Perhaps you don't realise that it is not necessary to edit an article in order to watch it. Or maybe you just like to maintain conflict. Who knows.
Aside from that, you don't seem to understand how language works. Languages evolve in such a way that words don't always follow the same consistent rules. It's the way it is. You can complain about how common names like "Jacob" and "Jeremiah" have a J in them all day long. It won't change the fact that the preferred term among scholars for the Hebrew deity is Yahweh, and that Yahweh is the relevant article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Your claim that I "admitted a couple of months ago" that I would "neurotically follow" you is also a lie. Actually, last time you tried this lie, I told you, "I advised you that I will be more likely to review your edits because you have demonstrated not only that you add extraneous POV content that constitutes undue weight, but also that you are argumentative. In the past, it has been necessary to monitor the edits of editors who have acted in a similar way not only in view of article content, but also in regard to frivolous reports about alleged behaviour. I didn't say I would definitely review all your edits or that I would 'follow' you." To my knowledge, you haven't made any frivolous reports about me, so it has not been necessary to monitor your edits to the degree you seem to imagine. 'Reviewing your edits' does not mean 'checking every single one of your edits' or 'following you' (neurotically or otherwise). It means that when I see something in my watch list that might be of concern, I might also check your recent edits at that time, only after some new concern has appeared. (This is not 'special' treatment accorded only to you; I will review the recent edit history of any problematic editor at the time that problematic edits are made, time permitting.) Beyond that, I don't care what fantasy is going on inside your mind.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if I've ever seen a worse instance of endless repetition than in the above. Also, at some point, Gabby, you should learn that we don't double space after periods here.
Gabby's contention that we should use multiple names for, apparently, no reason other than the fact that multiple names are used in "the real world" is flat-out wrong. We are writing here for the reader, and it does not serve the purpose of the reader to add unnecessary complications to the text of our articles, and variant forms of names are an obvious example of unnecessary complications, particularly if the reader comes from a background where they know that the same entity is referred to by multiple names. Our policy page WP:NAME#Treatment of alternative names, which I suggest Gabby reads, address this point directly. It says, and I quote directly here, "There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article." The important point being where it is more appropriate. It would certainly be possible to use the name "Jehovah" when referring to the concept of God the Father in the Jehovah's Witnesses. Actually, if there were sufficient independent reliably sourced information on the subject as well as clearly established notability, it might not be unreasonable to have an entirely separate article on the concept of God in the Jehovah's Witnesses and related groups. But the simple fact that a scholar uses a variant name at perhaps random in his academic work is not sufficient cause for us to use a variant name. This argument has been made, and lost, in the context of the Eastern Catholic churches, which tend to use Greek terms not used in the Latin Rite church. Individuals who are members of the Eastern Catholic churches have argued that the word "theotokos" be used in the articles on a more or less random or alternating basis because it is used by Eastern Catholic churches, and that argument has been rejected. It is certainly appropriate to use the word when referring specifically to the (slightly variant) conceptions of Mary in the Eastern churches, because the article Theotokos here contains or should contain that information in it. In general usage, the term is not familiar enough to all audiences to make it necessarily readily identifiable. And it does not serve our purposes to make the content harder for readers to understand. Repetition can, and sometimes does, come across as boring. That is unfortunate, but it is better to be boring and clear to all than artistic appealing and less clear to all. I strongly suggest that Gabby read WP:NAME and other related pages in the style guide at WP:MOS, because if s/he does I think s/he will realize that using variant names simply for the sake of variety is counterproductive. Also, for the most part, using names used in original texts can and sometimes does complicate and confuse things here just as badly. In general, we use in article texts the most commonly used name or description most readily accessible to the greatest number of readers for the purposes of clarity. So, while it might be possible to include in the text of an article on a given book by an academic something to the effect of "he says God the Father, whom he refers to as Jehovah," in the text of the article, for the purposes of clarity, that is probably about as far as we should go. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
John, if you had actually read what I wrote (though you complain about "repetition") you would have seen the fact and point that the form "Jehovah" is used plenty OUTSIDE of "Jehovah's witnesses". Long-established. That's proven and documented. Not sure what part of that is so hard to understand or believe. The Anglicized form "Jehovah" is used TONS in various contexts, by various types "scholars". I "repeat" myself, because A) Jeffro did too, over and over again, and B) now you're saying more or less the same less-than-accurate stuff he did, in a way. Again, the term "Jehovah" is widely-used enough (past and present), by various scholars, both "secular" and "religious", both "Atheist" and "Theist" (and those in between), in a wide array of contexts, to warrant at least some general usage for the "DEITY", in at least some WP articles, arguably. It's not some obscure thing belonging to just one sect or denomination. Not even close. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not you heard what John Carter said, his response indicates that there is no consensus for your change.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I did read what you wrote, What you seem to have not read are the guidelines and polciies. All you are doing, at this point, Gandy, is repeating yourself over and over. The question is not, as you seem to be insisting on, whether a word is used or not. The question is about whether the use of a word furthers the interests of the project, which is providing a useful encyclopedic source for its readers. The fact that a word may be "widely used" is not sufficient cause to increase the complexity of the content. I am sorry that you, as an apparently newer editor, are not capable of realizing that. Your own arguments, Gandy, so far as I can tell, are basiclly simply saying "we have to do what the popular press does." That is, ultimately, an incompetent argument. We are here to provide a service for the readers who are seeking information. Adding unnecessary levels of complexity, by using multiple, potentially confusing, words, does not serve those purposes. Also, as Jeffro has already pointed out to you, it is, ultimately, counterproductive to post on multiple pages. At this point, having read your arguments, I have to say that they strike me as being basically contrary to policies and guidelines, and if you wish to change those guidelines, your best option would be to read thoroughly through the manual of style at WP:MOS, and our other policies, and find the specific instances which seem to run contrary to your belief that we have to use a variety of words, not because doing so in any way furthers our purposes as an encyclopedia, but simply because one synonym among many is used in the popular press. Then, propose changes to those pages to support your argument. I wish you a great deal of luck in that, because, honestly, I think the response you get there would be the same as you have gotten here. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
John, if you did read and understand and accept what was said before, you should not have said that the form "Jehovah" is somehow something just with Jehovah's witnesses or certain groups like that, or bring up "Theotokos" with the Greek Orthodox Church. You wrote: "It would certainly be possible to use the name "Jehovah" when referring to the concept of God the Father in the Jehovah's Witnesses." That argument is flawed for the reasons I gave. Because (why I have to repeat, sighs) the form "Jehovah" is proven to be used and uttered and written plenty beyond just "Jehovah's witnesses" or beyond King James Onlyists. But even by secular writers and scholars etc, in various contexts, FOR the "Deity". (I never said it was "popular press" by the way, which shows you don't really get what I said, as I made it clear that the more "popular press" is actually to use the form "Yahweh"...though not exclusively. The "popular press" has and still does use both. Probably "Yahweh" a bit more though.) And you also wrote: "Individuals who are members of the Eastern Catholic churches have argued that the word "theotokos" be used in the articles on a more or less random or alternating basis because it is used by Eastern Catholic churches, and that argument has been rejected." And that comparison doesn't hold. As the form "Jehovah" is NOT (to repeat) just a "Jehovah's witness" thing. It's used by various theologians, scholars, secular and religious. In various contexts. For the "Deity" too. And YOU are saying that it's "added complexity to the content"...but that's just your opinion. Why should it? What's the big deal? If "Jehovah" was a rarely used and obscure form of the name, you might have a point. But it isn't. It's widely-used and established, hence no big "confusion" or "complexity". And the reason (again) I say to you "widely-used" is to address your wrong view (which you wrote in your first comment here) that the form "Jehovah" is only a "Jehovah's witness" thing or something, even though it definitely is not. If you didn't say what you said (the inaccurate thing you said), then I would not have "repeated" myself, and reminded you that it's "widely-used" BEYOND groups like "Jehovah's witnesses". Anyway, I just (as a little compromise in a sense) have the link to "Yahweh". It could go either way, given the Wikipedia context, is my point. Even though Wikipedia has "Yahweh" as the "Deity" article, and "Jehovah" as the "NAME" of the Deity article, again, the fact stands that the form "Jehovah" is used for the "Deity" in various works, of various backgrounds. And arguably Wikipedia should reflect THAT aspect...the "Deity" aspect...instead of obscuring or suppressing it, and giving the (wrong) impression that the form "Jehovah" is never used for the Deity by scholars, but is somehow only used in discussing the "name". That just isn't the case. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This conversation is as far as I am concerned over. Please refrain from any further additions to my user talk page regarding this matter. If you wish to raise this issue in a way which would be productive, may I suggest that you read the relevant policies and guidelines and, as I said, raise the issue on the talk page of the relevant policy or guideline. And, once again, it would definitely be to your advantage to not so clearly show how completely new to the site here you are by stopping your habit of double spacing after sentences. It is something only done by the newest of the new around here. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
John, not sure why you're being uncivil and evasive to the specifics. You don't absorb anything of what I pointed and proved, but for some reason have been rude and abrasive on my page and assuming about my being "new" condescending nonsense etc, assume things, misunderstand things, and are evasive to the specific points and whine about "repetition", which you warrant by the things you yourself said, and yes the discussion is over, given the fact that you don't listen, and have flawed arguments and flawed comparisons, and mis-represent (or misunderstand) what I've said and say. You seemed a bit nicer or cooler on Jeffro's talk page days ago but seem different and weird on me here. Not sure why. But I was merely addressing your flawed arguments, and showed why they were flawed. Your words provoked the "repetition" that you complained about. YOU are the one who said what you said about "Jehovah's witnesses" AS IF it was just a JW type form of the term. And I pointed out the fact that the form "Jehovah" is proven to be used and uttered and written plenty beyond just "Jehovah's witnesses" or beyond King James Onlyists. But even by secular writers and scholars etc, in various contexts, for the "Deity". YOU are the one who brought "Theotokos" and "Eastern Rite Catholics" or whatever, which is not a good comparison, for the clear reasons I gave and have proven. I merely addressed that and showed (in a civil manner) why those arguments don't hold. You get flustered though for some reason, about it. And your unwillingness to take correction or facts on this matter, (which are not just mere assertions on my part but checkable facts), shows you can't be reasoned with. Which of course is no surprise.
And then somehow thinking that this form "adds complexity to content" when that's just your opinion, and I explained why it shouldn't have to it doesn't necessarily. And your silly condescending nonsense assertions that I'm 'new' or something, discounting all my valid facts and arguments, with silly lame-atudes like that. And you whine about stuff like "double spacing after sentences" and remark that that's something done "by the newest of the new"? Not even really sure what you're referring to with that, but talk about trivial pettiness. Which makes no real sense anyway. Jeffro, can you please get another editor who is at least half-way civil, sane, and substantive? At least you brought up some valid arguments here and there. John Carter only mis-represented the facts and what I said, and gripes about "double space" or whatever, and "new", and dodges left and right. At least you, Jeffro, actually addressed what I said overall. Carter has issues, and I'm NOT just saying that because he disagrees with me on this. For real. It goes beyond that. He's rude and non-substantive with lame irrelevance, and is not really civil. And no, Jeffro, I said REAL "consensus", not just a 2-1 thing, where one of the editors is vapid like John.
Also, it's another pot-kettle-black situation as far as "not getting the point"...because you think Johnny has gotten the point about "the form 'Jehovah' is widely used OUTSIDE of Jehovah's witnesses"?? When he said that inaccurate stuff he said above? But you don't call him out on that stuff, in typical human nature bias, simply because he's in your camp on this issue overall. Even if he puts forth weak or poor arguments for it. That not even you totally agree with. But you'll let his inaccurate comparisons and junk slide and put the onus on me, as "not getting the point"...when John hardly has, but has proven stubborn against it. Try to remain objective, even though you don't like me. John HARDLY has gotten the "point", but now evades it stubbornly. His comparison of "Theotokos" and how Eastern Catholic editors wanting that specific term on random WP articles is weak and lame on its face, since how many scholars and secular writers use that term in the same way and frequency that they use the form "Jehovah", past and present, in various contexts? Why would John Carter write what he wrote about "Jehovah's witnesses name for God the Father" AS IF only JWs use that form of the name, unless JOHN was "not getting the point"? And no, he and you hardly constitute real "consensus". Anyway, John, given your rudeness, whininess, pettiness, and evasiveness, seriously...you're irrelevant. Plus also your uptightness and rudeness now about my merely writing a QUICK "hi I responded back" message on your page is not cool either. So yeah, your vapidness on this shows the discussion is going nowhere. I tried to be at least semi-civil with you, unlike you. So that's it. Don't write on MY page either. And I'll do the same for you. Ciao. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solomon's Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idols (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)