User talk:Jpacobb

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


Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Good to have knowledgeable editors. The general requirement for editing is "a heartbeat and a modem", so in your case actual knowledge is welcomed. History2007 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Matthew 5:17-48[edit]

Hi, any comments on Talk:Expounding_of_the_Law#AfD.3F? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeking your opinion[edit]

Hi, I have looked at God in Christianity and I think it can at best be described as "neglected". Although that has the fortunate implication that there is no contention or debate, the page seems to be suffering from pure neglect - images and templates thrown around at random, unsourced sections - and it is anyone's guess how correct the content may be.

Of course God's page gets viewed only 12,000 times a month (compared to over 600,000 for Johnny Depp) but that is still a key page for WikiProject Christianity and should be in much better shape. I have started a discussion on the talk page there, and your comments will be appreciated. I have also asked Esoglou and StAnselm to comment so if you could discuss the issues together and suggest improvements, or even better improve the page that would be great. Thanks History2007 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


I removed the only citation on the page earlier today because it was a Wikipedia mirror, and when I noticed that someone had edited the page after I did, I wondered if someone disagreed and had restored it. What a change! I'm looking forward to your planned improvements; have you considered doing a DYK of it? Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


Christian Barnstar.png The Christianity Barnstar
Jpaccob, I award you The Christianity Barnstar for all your hard work in WikiProject Christianity related articles! Keep up the good work! Your efforts are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 02:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Perpetual curate[edit]

Hi, from over the water due east of you. I thought a copy edit involved improving presentation of the content rather than wholesale slaughter of the content! I'm going to write to you on the talk page there. By the way I think you may remove those dablink notifications but not the other correspondence on here except you may sweep it 'under a carpet' into an archive where it is less prominent. I don't know how to do that, it was organised for me and so happens (to mine) automatically. Eddaido (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For apology + response see Talk:Perpetual curate#History
I get fuzzier. I'm west of you in NZ! I'm aware you know much more of the general subject than I do, please would you bear with me while we sort out the text? Thanks and regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


Merry Christmas!
History2007 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian monism[edit]

Hi Jpacobb. I noticed you received a Christmas-greeting from History2007; good company. Would you be able to rwrite the section on Christian monism? (I hope I'm not offending you in case you wrote those esctions!) They are ver specific, and hard to comprehend, while they contain little information on the "common" point of view of Christianity on monism. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Perichoresis TOC changes[edit]

You propose an alternate nesting? How would it preserve topic content without proliferating unnecessary new articles? There are linkages that can be made to perfectly acceptable existing material, ie "if it aint broken, don't fix it" (see agreement to Trinity article linkage, that's an article in need of tidying up)MrsKrishan (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Responding To Your Message To Me, Concerning List Of Religious Founders[edit]

I am not the one who wrote "Blood right of religious inheritance" in the article on the list of religious founders. I have never even heard of such expression. I included many religious figures & the religions that they founded, such as Moses being the Founder of Judaism.--Splashen (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did reintroduce Abraham, Moses, & St. John the Baptist, because of their significance in founding certain faiths. Abraham is the Father Figure of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, & Baha'i. Moses is the Prophet that is largely responsible for the Founding of Judaism, & St. John the Baptist is considered the the founder of Mandaeism.--Splashen (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum[edit]

It's certainly time to close the discussion. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment say it can be closed by "any uninvolved registered user", but this explicitly exclude me as the re-assessment nominator. StAnselm (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Title = "Authorized or King James Version"?[edit]

I am contacting you because you seem to be a long-running contributor to the Authorized King James Version article and I'd like your opinion before going any further with my idea of changing the title. I see no point in starting a long-running "edit-wrangle" if the odds are stacked against a change. My basic concern is that the current title is what might be politely called a "theoretical hybrid" (it does seem to be used by one or more publishers possibly to save printing different editions for each side of the Atlantic) but standard usage seems to be either AV or KJV (largely the latter to judge from Yahoo search results). My basic concerns are that the current title is inaccurate, and therefore unencyclopaedic, and has also produced some improper linking (see for example, Middle_English_Bible_translations and Godhead_in_Christianity). You might also be interested in the following conversation [User_talk:Johnbod#AV_vs_KJV] which touches on this and other concerns about the article. Jpacobb (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""

As you will have guessed, there have been repeated discussions on this subject on the talk page - though you may need to go back through a lot of archive material to find all the relevant opionions. In principle one might say that, as the article refers to a 'British' subject, so the title should reflect 'British' published scholarly usage; which until recently would strongly favour the form 'Authorized Version'. However, this Bible version has also a major (and independent) history in the United States; and internet search would certainly find 'King James Bible' as prediminating in scholarship there. It is noticeable that the recent 400 years celebrations - though UK centred - used the latter form.
On the other hand, specificity is important for encyclopaedic usage; this Bible has a 'standard' form, and that is the Oxford text originating in 1769. It is the Oxford standard text that is found in Wikisource; and that text is published bu OUP with the title 'Authorized King James Version'. If you go into a bookshop, or on the internet, and search for an 'Authorized King James Version' Bible, you can be sure of getting the primary text to which the article and Wikisource refers.
There is the added problem that if - on the contrary - you search for a complete 'King James Bible'; or 'King James Version', you almost certainly will not get the text discussed in the article. A few years ago (in pursuit of just this matter) I checked in a local Christian bookshop, and not one of the books sold as the 'King James Bible' included the books of the Apocrypha - although most of them claimed to be 'complete'. Indeed, I suspect that the vast majority of 'King James Bible' references that you find in an internet search denote this shorter text. We might perhaps have two articles; one called 'Authorized Version' for the English Bible including the Apocrypha; and one called 'King James Bible' for the English Bible without Apocrypha. But personally, I think the current arrangement is more specific, more accurate and less confusing. Hope this helps TomHennell (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for a prompt reply on my user-talk-page: very clear and to the point! It seems that the current title is probably the least unacceptable option. Jpacobb (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
When a titling issue has been knocked around some time ago, it is often worth revisiting it, just to check whether the current solution remains valid. It is certainly the case that 'King James Bible' is increasing in usage in UK scholarship to denote this Bible. However (and checking my local bookshop again) the form 'Authorized King James Version'is also achieving wider currency. For instance, the Collins 400 anniversary edition of the 'King James Bible' has on its title page a note that the text used is that of the 'Authorised King James Version'. I found a CUP edition of the 'KJV Apocrypha' which had a similar title page note. It seems that the form 'Authorized (or Authorised) King James Version' is now becoming standard form for denoting a bible presenting the 1769 Oxford Standard Text; as distinct from other AV/KJV texts; such as that found in the Caambridge Paragraph Bible. TomHennell (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Perpetual curate again[edit]

A comment and a question. Comment "stipendiary priest is a dead link". Qn. Do you have a good source for "stipendiary priest, whose employment could be terminated at will by their patron"? While it may depend on the definition of stipendiary priest, if not a perpetual curate, a s.p. would presumably be an assistant curate and as such licensed an incumbent and subject to dismissal by him rather than a patron (whether clerical or lay). Jpacobb (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I was intending to contrast the position of a perpetual curate with that of a stipendiary priest in a proprietary chapel - perhaps a good idea to be more specific. Ministers in proprietary chapels had no constitutional rights versus their patron at all, who could dismiss them at will. Their license could also be terminated at will by the diocesan. The incumbent's permission was needed for the license to be issued; but so far as I am aware, the incumbent would not thereafter be able to secure the stipendiary priest's dismissal by withdrawing that permission.
Alternatively, I suppose, the pereptual curate might be contrasted with an assistant curate serving a non-resident incumbent (or, I suppose, serving a dpendent chapelry before the 19th century). I presume that is more the case that you are thinking of.
Eiether way, the point is that perpetual curates had secure tenure, even before they were recognised with a formal benefice. TomHennell (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree that perpetual cs. had security of tenure. My question concerned the possibility of a patron dismissing a priest. So far as proprietary chapels are concerned, I don't think they had a legal patron at all. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, proprietary chapels had no constitutional existence and therefore presumably no patron in the accepted legal sense of the word. Their ministers were episcopally licensed (but the bishop had to get the incumbent of the parish to agree to its being issued) and the bishop could revoke it at will. Private chapels in schools, hospitals etc. (at least since 1871) are independent of the parochial incumbent so far as the cure-of-souls of the inmates is concerned but the minister must be episcopally licensed. A quick check on patronage makes me think that legally only benefices had patrons, since patronage is "the right to appoint to a benefice". I hope this helps. Jpacobb (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In a proprietary chapel, the proprieter is the patron; it is they who present the priest to the bishop for licensing. In parishes, the 'right to nominate to a benefice' is only a residual component of once much more extensive powers that patrons could exercise of those churches - 'eigenkirchen' - that they owned. TomHennell (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Please see my discussion re your cogent comments and my proposal at Talk:Chronology of the Bible#Threaded Discussionmy discussion begins with the words, "The generic title...". I would welcome your opinion. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi Jpacobb, you added a couple of templates to the Monism article. The section on "stuff monism" & "thing monism" was in the article since March and not added by me. This distinction is already explained in the Strawson reference (footnote 3). I just added the SEP-reference (footnote 4) because of your "citation needed" tag and because I figured it would be helpful to have a more detailed introduction to "thing monism" in the sense of Strawson.

Although the distinction is important and common, Strawson's terminology of "stuff monism" & "thing monism" is less established and we do not have to use it. For example, the referenced SEP-article makes the same distinction in terms of "substance monism" vs. "existence monism". --David Ludwig (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments. I have no problems with the material supported by note 3 (giving Strawson as the source) However the rest of the paragraph makes specific claims which are apparently unsourced (although the Strawson reference may cover them.) I agree the SEP article is interesting and instructive, but it does not make the specific link to "stuff" and "thing" monism and therefore it seems to me that using it as a source at this particuar point involves a questionable degree of interpretive synthesis. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess the best thing would be to rewrite the entire introduction. The distinction between two types of monism is important for the introduction because "monism" really has two distinct meanings in contemporary metaphysics. Anyway, the terminology "stuff monism" vs. "thing monism" is not very common and mostly used by Strawson. Also, the introduction should mention materialism, idealism, and neutral monism as the three major variants of "stuff monism". --David Ludwig (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Silrbq[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Silrbq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

About deleting my article in Reina Valera[edit]

Hello, I am new in wikipedia and I am not an English speaker, sorry if I don´t write very well.

I hope this is where I must answer about my article, deleted by you.

The original version is without copyright or other rights, it´s from 1602. In that time the castillian (Spanish) was with old characters and difficult to understand. I only revised these characters and published my work in and amazon. In I chose the lowest price because I don´t want to gain money with this work, that´s why the price of my work is so cheap. You can take a look at these screenshots I have made in

Then, pass the work to amazon and amazon has its royalties, but I don´t gain money at all.

I don´t know if you deleted my work for this reason. Please excuse me but I am new here and it has been very difficult even to answer you, and I am not sure if this is the right place. You can also contact me in the email of my website (a free website, I don´t pay domain or hosting).

You must know that this is the FIRST Reina Valera (like KJV in Spanish language, in fact even KJV team used it) and nobody has made these changes to modern letters, it´s like our KJV but most people read new versions and they have never read this old, first and original version of the first Spanish New Testament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinavalera1602 (talkcontribs) 07:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and God bless you. Jose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinavalera1602 (talkcontribs) 07:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Le agradezco su respuesta tan cortés. Las enciclopedias Wikipedia tienen normas específicas en cuanto a la información que se considera aceptable. He intentado encontrar explicaciones de ellas en español pero hago notar que éstas no son traducciones directas del inglés. A mi juicio, lo que usted agregó no cumplió con varios requisitos:
1) Al ser cuestionado cualquier dato debe ser respaldado por una fuente fiable véase [1]);
2) Wikipedia no es una colección de meras informaciones, veáse [2] Los datos tienen que ser de suficiente peso para figurar en fuentes fiables;
3) No se permita incluir algo que resulta ser un intento de hacer propaganda en favor de un producto.
Reconozco sus buenas intenciones, pero considero objectivamente que su trabajo no ha conseguido todavia suficiente difusión ni recoocimiento para ser mencionado en Wikipedia: no cuenta con fuentes de respaldo adecuadas y hay matices (tal vez, no intencionales) de promoción.
Espero que estos comentarios le ayuden a comprender las razones por las cuales decidí remover la inserción del artículo. — Jpacobb (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

En mi defensa a estos 3 puntos debo decir:

1.- Sería ilógico dar una muestra fiable en un artículo de wikipedia que trata precisamente sobre Reina Valera sobre cual es la primera versión de Reina Valera, que es la versión 1602 y todos conocen y disponible en cualquier lugar de internet, incluso en este mismo artículo de Reina Valera.
2.- Creo que es de suficiente peso para un artículo de Reina y Valera el decir a quien esté interesado que alguien está "por fin" publicando la primera y original Reina Valera para cualquiera que pueda leerla en letra moderna, evitando leer castellano antiguo en un facsímil. Y "gratis" del todo en mi web, de ahí el enlace.
3.- No es propaganda en absoluto sino mi deseo de que cualquier cristiano pueda leer y comprobar los cambios que se han producido desde la primera y original Reina Valera hasta las siguientes versiones disponibles hasta hoy y pueda gustarle mi trabajo o no y salir enriquecido de ello. He hecho mucho esfuerzo para ponerla a disposición de cualquier cristiano interesado y sin ganar un céntimo, por lo tanto no veo sentido a la propaganda, sino al bien e interés común y es a lo que Dios me ha llamado. En cambio veo que muchas otras personas publican sus obras con las que ganarán dinero y se aprueban.
Por lo tanto no estoy conforme con esta decisión. Pero si no se está de acuerdo con mis buenas y honestas intenciones no voy a discutir esto y siento que muchas personas no puedan leer la primera Reina Valera, la primera y original, en un artículo que trata precisamente sobre la Reina Valera (lo veo totalmente ilógico) y no se me permite contribuir en nada para otros que pueda interesarles. Es como no permitirle a alguien que publique la versión primera de King James y se le digan estos 3 puntos. Me parece increíble algo así pero si no se permite mi artículo pues abandono esta wikipedia sin problemas, lo siento por los cristianos que pudiera interesarles. Bendiciones. Jose.


It's a dead link fixing. You will see the URL with the original domain no longer works.

Please check my contribution history and the edit summaries. (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Be sure you know policy[edit]

In the future, please make a valid deletion rationale per WP:DEL. You didn't do that here and no admin will find a consensus for deletion no matter how anyone else !votes. AfD and CSD both have specific criteria for deletion and you can be rebuked for making a nomination without those criterion being met. Each of your deletion nominations is logged so you don't want to build a history of failed nominations. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)