User talk:Roy Brumback

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

Archive 1

Hi!

Your edits to Criticism of Christianity[edit]

I noticed you went ahead and deleted sourced content only to add 100% unsourced content. The article itself is garbage and adding uncited information isn't helping. Even worse, removing cited information without even a hint to which policy you were using. Perhaps you could use the talk page? Especially for the content that was sourced. I really don't care about the unsourced stuff other than it doesn't belong in the article which has many available sources which one could cite. --Quirex 19:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? I recall the only sourced info deleted was some psychologists opinion, and the only unsourced stuff put in was about Jesus' women followers, which is really common knowledge but I can give specific cites if you really wish. Roy Brumback 04:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, please cite what you add to that page. Your idea of common knowledge might be fine for those who are Christian but for over 2 billion people (India & China) this is not common knowledge. --Quirex 14:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


k thanks -ishmaelblues

Please be respectful[edit]

you deleted the "future of god" section which I put in, I will try to be the christian by accepting your action and politely asking you to atleast restore a brief remnant of what you deleted ie just enough for the information (which I think is reliable and relevant) to be presented accurately. Not showing humility or respect towards others violates what jesus asked of humanity through both his words and the example he set in his daily interaction with others.Esmehwp 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen you.[edit]

Christianity has the following templates:

Despite that you begrudge atheism and agnosticism having complete listing in a template? Is your faith really that weak, you feel so threatened by those that don't share it?

Here's another template you should consider.

Stop hand nuvola.svg

This is your last warning.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Belief_systems, you will be blocked from editing. ornis (t) 09:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

belief system template[edit]

Your last edit looks like a good compromise. Be well, Gregbard 06:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

U2 Roy Brumback 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark 16[edit]

Roy, you still haven't followed any of the internal links. NA27 or UBS4, either of them, just those 4 letters in either case, are the most authoritative citation possible. The whole manuscript evidence section is there because I'd be willing to remove the rest of the whole article if it wasn't in line with the reliable sources NA27 and UBS4.

I could try to explain to you what textual criticism is, and what the sources are, but it would take a long time, and there's no need for me to do it, because the links to all the information are already in articles at Wiki.

The manuscript evidence section IS the citation for the rest of the article, that's why I put it there, it's the authoritative list of thousands of documents that verify the claims made by others. You are asking for a citation for the citations made by a citation. That's fine, and it's possible, in fact it already exists.

I will continue to revert you unless you can actually state a claim that is made, where no source for that claim is given. Stop and think about it, I don't think you can even state clearly what claim is being made.

I appreciate your comment, because it shows how important it is that we have articles on textual criticism. These things are not well known among people outside certain academic circles, and it's important we explain them clearly and reliably. But I can't really know if we've succeeded if you haven't actually read what Wiki provides on the subject.

  • Can you tell me where we would look to know what John 21, for example, says?

The answers to that is on the page we are discussing, and on many others. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good answer Roy. But you don't have to look through the whole edition, you go to Mark 16 and the critical apparatus tells you what the edition thinks. Actually, page numbers are not particularly helpful, since the decisions of these books have not changed their opinions on Mark 16 since they were first published. Mark 16 is on different pages of NA24, NA25, NA26 and NA27, but they don't cite different evidence. Mark 16 is a very easy passage, and the consensus on it was established long ago.
In New Testament scholarship, Mark 16, John 8, John 21 and the Comma Johanneum are very uncontentious. There is a very, very small group of vocal Americans who support the King James Version against everyone else. It's arguably WP:UNDUE to suggest there is any issue regarding these passages. Three of them are simply not part of the original text, one of them certainly is.
I've added the manuscript evidence section so that people can see why the King James Only movement are right out on a limb. Together with other editors, we have written articles on a number of important manuscripts regularly cited by all scholars, so ordinary readers can see dates of composition, additional references (like the editio princeps) and even photoreproductions where available.
The point of writing all these articles (and there are many, many more to go) is so that Wiki can ultimately provide such manuscript evidence (including pictures) in cases where there text critical decisions are genuinely difficult. UBS editions provide ratings { A } to { D } and, although there are many "almost certain" { A } class decisions, there are just as many or more { D } class ratings, which are highly uncertain.
This last factor addresses your comment about the claim. In the short lead to the section I not only name UBS, but quote its definition of the meaning of { A }. NA editions do not give ratings, but they do chose their opinion of what was original. By the way, NA and UBS have had identical text for several editions now, in other words, there is no disagreement about the most likely NT text. There is probably disagreement about liklihood at various points, but that's a much more subtle issue. In any case, UBS is the edition that gives the liklihood rating, not NA27, so we don't have to quote two POVs.
All you are asking for, it would seem, is a page number. Actually, this will not do you much good, since the information is "coded", it uses sigla. Vaticanus is "B", Alexandrinus is "A" and so on. In order to make things easier for readers, I've expanded the codes into normal text and linked them to articles that describe them where possible. How do you know I've faithfully decoded? Well, you can check the dozens of pages that give the code and the dates. But, better than that, there are literally thousands of theological students at Wiki who know all this stuff. If I make a mistake (and I will), others can correct it. Am I cheating? No. I've been putting this kind of stuff on Wiki for two years. The people who know the stuff congratulate me, they don't expose me.
If I gave you a page number, you'd still need expert help to see it was all fair. What matters is I've quoted the widely available most reliable sources. Thousands of people can confirm this, who know what they're doing. Every seminarian owns a copy of NA27 or UBS4.
The point of all of this is that I've spent two years providing content to Wiki to make basic, reliable text critical resources available to readers in ordinary language. If I simply quoted stuff off a page, you wouldn't understand it. With other editors, we are making it possible for you to do much better than check we're quoting NA27 accurately, we're actually making it possible for you to check NA27 itself, against its own sources -- you can actually download Vaticanus from the link at the Wiki page, and check to see if NA27 got it right.
A page number will not help you, because it will not give you enough info to verify the text. Also, there are many online textual apparatuses for the NT, these are a much more realistic way to verify the Wiki text, but Mark 16 indexes them, not a page number.
The bottom line is that I have not quoted either NA27 or UBS4, except the almost certain definition and that is on a totally different page to Mark 16. I am not quoting text, I am attributing and referencing a source of information. It is perfectly proper. Good on you for being sceptical, but following the links as I suggested would have explained much of what I've described above. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

sources for life/existence of Jesus[edit]

Dear Roy, regarding the edit on the sources of the life/existence of Jesus, I think the article should be clear and concise and that means sometimes stating the obvious. My edit was made to accommodate outsiders who know nothing about Christianity and need basic information. When writing about the historicity of Jesus, the first thing to note is that there are no independent sources. In all fairness, that should be the opening line, but I think neutrality is served when it is moved down a little bit as well. However, it is not served when left implicit. Zwart (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You again[edit]

Roy, Thanks for the additional help with the Cave Map post. I communicated with Vsmith and he sent me links with the posting guidelines. My apologies... I did not realize I was breaking/bending any rules. My intention was to post good resources and enhance articles on outdoor sports. It seemed like a win win because it helped my website and it helped Wikipedia. I will read the articles and adjust my approach for the future. Thanks for your help in these matters. LaurenceColletti (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

PS... Did I pick the proper way to communicate with you?

Thank You[edit]

Roy... I hope I am doing this right... I am new at Wikipedia. Thanks for sticking up for posts on the Spring Cave. I actually made those links and thought they would be helpful for anyone wishing to explore Spring Cave. It is true that they come from my website... but my website is a free resource for anyone wishing to have fun in the outdoors. Its like an encyclopedia for outdoor activities. Sorry I forgot the LaurenceColletti (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I am not not sure what these mean ---Laurence---

I'm not sure what all the rules for declaring something spam are but I thought your maps were really good. They've been pared down to one, which is I guess acceptable. Thank you. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your help and support... I appreciate it. LaurenceColletti (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sagan and the List of nontheists[edit]

Hello. Some time in the past few months, you've contributed to a discussion about whether Sagan should be included in the List of nontheists. I'm taking a straw poll to see where people are at currently with regard to this issue. Your input on the matter would be very helpful. Please see the discussion here to contribute your viewpoint. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus[edit]

Don't worry, I've no intention of hijacking the article for fringey purposes. I've pretty much finished working on Christ myth theory (it's on the verge of being listed as a "Good Article") and I'm looking for something new. An admin (dbachmann) accused the article of being a content fork of a bunch of other articles; I disagree, but I understand his concern. So I'm hoping to tighten the focus of the related articles. That's all. Eugene (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roy. I noticed you restored some of the material I cut from the "historicity of Jesus" page. I cut the material since early beliefs regarding Jesus' essential divinity aren't immediately relevant to his historical reality--which is the subject of the page. What's the rational for keeping these points? Eugene (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

They are Paul directly saying he was a real human being. Feel free to remove Paul also saying he was God, I didn't have the time for a detailed edit. Paul saying he was a Jewish minister is certainly germane. Roy Brumback (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)