Even people with similar general understanding and the utmost good will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a creed, or a lede paragraph.
In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now, and many of the nastier of the debates have involved single words--in one case, a single letter. As this is what the intellectual and spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is no reason to expect anything other than that here, unless we are all too ignorant to know about the controversies or totally indifferent to the issues. The main advantage we have over the RW is that it is not possible to spill real blood over the internet. On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:59 PM, S <[email protected]> wrote: >> I understand your concern. But your understanding of what happened is not >> accurate. The edits in question today - the object of the reverts - was >> never dealt with in substance on talk. SLR's response today dealt with the >> issue I raised yesterday, namely the issue of Yeshua as Jesus' actual >> Hebrew name in life. This issue is certainly debatable, and I give >> thoughtful consideration to everything SLR has to say on that subject. But >> it was not the subject of the edits I made today. >> >> The issue today had to do with how the lede paragraph dealt largely with >> the concept of Jesus being an "incarnation of God". Not all Christians >> agree with this, and in reality this needs qualification, as being a >> Nicene Creed concept not a concept belonging to all of Christianity. I >> simply clarified this issue. I also separated Islam from the lede to the >> second paragraph. As Islam does not regard Jesus as the object of its >> religion, it needs separate treatment. >> >> SLR responded to neither of these issues, and gave no explanation for his >> reverts. I don't know why? Did he just assume that I was re-adding the >> material we were dealing with yesterday? Reverting without explanation - I >> think this kind of action to be ninja behavior, not wikipedian behavior. >> >> Stevertigo > > This is an article that has had -- literally -- tens of thousands of > edits on it. It has 106 talk-page archives. On the talk-page, I count > a full browser-page of templates informing me of the controversial > nature of the article (one of which says "Discussions here have > repeatedly involved the same arguments and views. Please review the > archives"). > > And you suppose there's never been a thorough discussion of the > divinity of Jesus and his role in Islam? > > If you choose to edit an article like that in that way, *you're going > to get reverted*. That's just how it is. If you want to make a > substantive change to the lede, you're going to have to battle it out > in the talk-page. You cannot expect people just to listen to your side > and be convinced. If you want to make such a change, you have to find > consensus among your fellow editors. Maybe work together to get a > compromise. Or maybe you'll find that the consensus disagrees with > you, and want to keep it the way it is. It's tough cookies, but then > you'll have to swallow the edits as they stand. > > In my (admittedly cursory) overview of the situation, I don't see any > improper behaviour. I just see several people editing a high-profile > article, and the behaviour that is to be expected when that happens. > > --Oskar > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
