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

Does the host site matter or the book?[edit]

Recently the article was revert because of not the reference but the website host. Do we really need to know who the ISP is and the host credentials? It is silly to say and think this. Johanneum (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

New sections go at the bottom.
Thank you for correcting that for me. Johanneum (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
99% of citations to are self-published and non-reviewed papers, not an author uploading his own book, hence the reflexive revert. However, I'm having trouble verifying that the book is not self-published. The Campbell Publishing responsible for this book is in Newton Mearns. Searching for "Newton Mearns" "Campbell Publishing" only pulls up books by Mitchell. It appears to be a vanity press by and for him, which would make this a self-published source. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It appears you are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of focusing on the information you question the media. Yes one might need to be cautiousbut the weight of evidence is not on what company published a publication or what website hosts it but on what it contains. David has many peer reviewed articles in leading Biblical journals. Thus why is a Bible scholar reverted? Because someone doesn't like the company that printed the publication? That is nonsense. Here are some of his writings: [1] Again, the emphasis should be on the argumentation not on whether the paper in it is blue or red or the cover of the book was printing in the USA or made with ink from Germany. What does that have to do with the words spoken by a Bible scholar?
As far as peer review, I would encourage you read the Foreword written by John Barton. Barton is famous and is an authority. Just because you might not like the quotation does not give you the right to delete it. Please provide a solid reason to change or delete it. Not based on the website, publisher, color of ink, font, thickness of paper or anything else that has nothing to do with the argumentation by a scholar. [2] And no I did not just create Barton's page so as to have peer review support. This whole thing is so silly my head is spinning. Johanneum (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC) 21:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
You might also wish to read the back page with endorsements from Oxford. Johanneum (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The PDF source provided appears to be an extract comprising only the front matter and the relevant appendix. The word "hybrid" is not mentioned at all in the extract, and does not appear to directly support the statement that Mitchell disputes Jehovah being a "hybrid form" (and certainly not that he "disputes the [sic] Jehovah is a hybrid form"). Hence, if retained, the supported statement needs to be reworded. I'm also not entirely convinced that Barton's comments on Mitchell's study of the Psalms necessarily equates to acceptance of all of Mitchell's views about the name Jehovah.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Johanneum: A book's publisher is one of the standards used to determine the reliability of a source. Any monkey on a type-writer can self-publish, as Mitchell appears to have done, which is why we rarely use such sources. You are dishonestly sticking words in my mouth. The blurb is not an endorsement from Oxford but from two people who happen to work there. A foreward is not full peer-review. Mitchell's own website is self-published. The blue links in my posts are not decoration: they link to relevant site policies and guidelines that you should read and pay attention to. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The Queen James Bible[edit]

Mentions added to multiple articles including this one and Jah. Is it notable enough for mention? The current sentence also appears to have no significance (this would only mean that they keep the 4 Jehovah mentions)? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems like a bit of a 'gimmick translation'. The writeup on Amazon for this translation asserts logical fallacies like 'King James was bisexual' (pro hominem) and 'thousands of verses say nothing about homosexuality' (red herring).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes when I later investigated if an article could be written about it (the editor also promoted it elsewhere and WP:WTAF was in order), I found out that it was an exact copy of the King James translation with a few altered verses only. It appears non-notable, although one instance was left in a relevant enough list-class article. I forgot about this since, thanks for the followup. —PaleoNeonate – 09:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jehovah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Name of God[edit]

The name of G-d is YaHoVaH. Scholarly and ancient sources can not be added to wiki. JStack (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@JStack: Please note that this is not a general discussion forum (WP:NOTFORUM) but to suggest specific improvements. The material must be a summary of reliable sources (WP:RS). Please suggest more specific changes and suggest specific sources. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)