Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

User talk:Wabansia

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Wabansia!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Grad students are the absolute worst. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Wabansia (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to substantially alter the tone of an article...[edit]'ll want to start a discussion on the relevant talk page first. Also, "Nobody can read Greek, Latin, or Hebrew" is the stupidest comment I have read in days. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

At least say why it's stupid if you're going to declare it as stupid. Nobody learns from statements without explanation attached and this person is here to learn. Besides, the phrase is just missing the point. The phrase "nobody can read..." assumes the article is saying something about people who read convenient translations, when it's really not. The article is trying to say something about problems with translation. Nullahnung (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've met Father Vivian. In my little corner of the world there is a fellow who went to seminary to become a Lutheran pastor. He studied Greek and Hebrew. I myself can say "good day" in Greek, and "I don't know" in Hebrew, but I can barely spell out words in Greek, and not read Hebrew at all. I know plenty of kids who do read b'Ivrit though... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
What I changed didn't seem like "substantially altering" the tone of an article. I was correcting a misstatement. Fair enough about "nobody reads". The point is that very few people read Greek, Hebrew, or Latin, so they're using "convenient" translations. The section didn't explain what the "problems with translation" are. It only mentioned KJV literalists, who are in the extreme minority. Mainstream literalists which this section paints as fringe too do exactly what I said which the section misrepresented. Wabansia (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Your objections seem like they are worth discussing. At least I agree that the section did not explain the problems with translation clearly enough (which are probably that if you translate something, you are forced into loss of information from the original by the merciless laws of language conversion, and that loss of information is going to throw off people to varying degrees when they want to adhere to the original). Take it to the talk page. Nullahnung (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
What Father removed went too far. If he has a problem with "nobody can read" then he should fix it and not remove everything. Wabansia (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, MAYBE "stupid" was a little over-the-top, and for that I begrudgingly apologise. But lots of people who take the Bible serioulsy learn to read Greek and Hebrew, and lots of people who are serious scholars of biblical thought and criticism read Latin. Do you know who else reads Hebrew? Jews. Anyway, take your concerns on the article to its talk page, though I doubt that your argument about the bible's author's being "inspired by the Holy Spirit" or whatever it was you wrote will get you very far with this crowd. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I almost read the text as outright containing the position of "authors inspired by the Holy Spirit" as well on my first skim through, but actually you are misreading what he/she wrote. The statement was merely that "Biblical literalism thinks the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit", not that they actually are, a subtle but important difference. Nullahnung (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It is what literalists believe. Are you going to describe their position correctly or misrepresent it? The original description was false. I'm not going to fight with you. I already gave you my concerns so I don't see what else there is to discuss. Wabansia (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
You gave him your concerns, but bureaucracy, nay, common sense demands that you put your concerns in the right place, which is the talk page of the article, which may be found here:
Please use the 'Add topic' button on that page, for clean formatting. Nullahnung (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
No thanks. He personally insulted me from the start and removed the entire edit when he seemed to only have a problem with part of it. Why bother. Wabansia (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
He apologized (begrudgingly, but hey, at least he did) for the insult in his latest post here and obviously he is not confident about the rest of your edit either, nor am I. Your concerns seem worth discussing, but if you don't want to, then whatever. Nullahnung (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

please sign.[edit]

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC) I've never once been told to sign my posts when I forgot to in 5+ years of editing Wikipedia. Thanks for making me feel very welcome. Wabansia (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The rollback[edit]

I'm sorry I rolled back your edits. All I saw was some slap at RW (because it's our fault that Matthew 13:13 exists?), but you're not the first bitter editor we had. I'm in the wrong and I'll leave you be. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)