Talk:1 Timothy 1

Problems

This article is plagued with problems. First, it appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to quote the "text of terror," verses 9-10, as indicated by the fact that only verse 10 receives commentary. Second, regarding that commentary, we may not copy-and-paste an extensive copyrighted text, let alone one that is unscholarly, web-based, not balanced, and biased. Third, verses 1 and 2 are trivial and inconsequential. Fourth, there are virtually no references for the article's various other claims, and what few there are are improper. Up-to-date, appropriate, scholarly sources are needed. Fifth, and lastly, verse 10 isn't exactly a verse one can quote without proper extensive commentary. There is no scholarly consensus for what the Greek term ἀρσενοκοίτης (lexical form) specifically means here. Very much ink has been spilled, with no end in sight. I would be inclined to replace verses 9 and 10 with a passage better expressing the point of the chapter as a whole, which goes largely unaddressed now. I will tackle some of this shortly. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also question the validity of having Wikipedia articles on individual chapters of books of the Bible. Chapters are often not coherent units of argument. Articles should be on individual books of the Bible, and we already have the First Epistle to Timothy. This is unhelpful and pointless at best. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not edit without proper references

Wikipedia is open to edit with proper references. One cannot delete a part without proper references. Instead of deleting, it is better to add different opinions. The references used for this part are highly reputable in the field. Do not use own research or personal opinions to edit. JohnThorne (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As I happen to hold a degree in biblical studies, among other disciplines, you'll have to excuse me if I remain unimpressed by your assessment of what a proper source is. In short, you're mistaken. Nineteenth-century and sectarian, non-neutral sources are inappropriate. Plagiarism (WP:PLAG) and copyright infringement (WP:C) are also inappropriate. I also find your claim that one must have sources to delete material patently absurd, if not outright unintelligible. If you wish your material to remain, you will have to address (finally!) the points I made in the previous section. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Also be advised that I plan at some point to start a discussion on an appropriate administrative forum regarding the deletion of all articles on individual chapters and even verses of books of the Bible. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone with a degree in biblical studies, you ought to present arguments with proper references, what is regarded as "sectarian", "non-neutral sources", and not just your personal opinions. Deleting without presenting referenced arguments is not appropriate. Those sources are in public domain. The editing of the articles does not depend on any user's judgment, without valid references, nor does it depend on addressing someone's own opinions (without references). Personal opinion is not a reference (WP:CAI; WP:NOR). Please stop using credentials to exert authority. It's not working in Wikipedia. JohnThorne (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your notion of sources in support of deletion is utterly unintelligible to me, as I find it theoretically impossible. It is material actually present that requires proper sourcing. You are plagiarizing your sources (see WP:PLAG). As nineteenth-century sources cannot be said to be up-to-date, they are inappropriate. The websites from which you copy-and-paste your sources are copyrighted, hence the copyright infringement. One or more of your sources frequently adopt moralizing tones when speaking in their own voice(s), hence problems with bias and neutral point of view. These are therefore inappropriate and sectarian sources. We need up-to-date, scholarly sources only. You must justify your sources, and your use of them. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's start by knowing what "plagiarism" is according to Wikipedia:

Plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's writing as your own, including their language and ideas, without providing adequate credit.

There are clear references in my edits, not taking credit for other people's writing as my own. The cited sources are still in use and well-respected by notable scholars in the field. If you think my sources are not up-to-date, you are free to add your sources to improve the article. For example, if you have valid sources to state that the words from Greek listed on the verses are not correct, just add that statement with proper references, instead of deleting the text, simply because you personally think it is not correct. We can work together to make this article better. JohnThorne (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Though you provide correct definitions of plagiarism, you fail both to understand what those definitions entail and to read your sources thoroughly and correctly. Had you perused WP:PLAG, you would have noted that copying and pasting blocks of source material with slight if any changes, without providing any inline attribution or quotation marks, constitutes plagiarism, no matter how many endnote citations you provide. You are still presenting others' words as your own. This kind of plagiarism falls under your Harvard source's "Inadequate paraphrase" section, though it isn't very clearly presented there. Furthermore, you will simply have to understand that it is improper scholarly practice to go about using nineteenth-century sources, and sectarian and frequently pastorally oriented ones at that, as your primary sources. I have faith you can grasp that concept. I really do. We need current, purely scholarly sources. Your old sources are not "still in use" among biblical scholars, no matter how many pastors and sectarians may use them. Using such sources as your primary (occasionally sole) sources raises issues regarding balance, neutral point of view, and bias. Further still, Wikipedia is not a Bible commentary, or a commentary of classical texts, or any other kind of commentary, understood as a genre. These kind of articles raise serious forking and reliability concerns. Any worthwhile content is better suited for articles regarding the relevant biblical book of for thematic articles addressing many kindred texts. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I mean, just, wow. You're really new to this whole idea of scholarly, expository writing, aren't you? A few points:

1. You would need quotation marks. Whenever, whenever using the words of others, you absolutely must use quotation marks. As things now stand, the educated reader would conclude you are getting your ideas from your source(s) but are expressing them in your own words or proper paraphrase. But that's not quite the case here, is it? You're using, some would say stealing, whole blocks of text from your source(s). That's plagiarism, and of an egregious sort. There are two schools of thought. First, some would insist on quotation marks, note citation, and inline attribution. Second, others would insist merely on quotation marks and proper note citation, believing that provides clear and adequate attribution. I generally fall in the latter camp. Here, however, you're "borrowing" so much material that inline attribution may be required.
2. Now take a couple steps back and actually think. What would your material look like? You'd have huge blocks of text in quotation marks, mostly with citation to the same one or two nineteenth-century sectarian sources, interspersed with a few brief introductory attributive signals and Bible verses, themselves translations by others. What would be yours, other than those introductory signals and some bullet-point structuring? Where would Wikipedia's voice be? Where the objectivity and up-to-date, scholarly sourcing? Nothing and nowhere. This is not proper writing or research.
3. With regard to the propriety of your sources on Wikipedia, very carefully note WP:RS, WP:BIASED, WP:NPOV (Bias in sources), and WP:ONUS. The burden is on you.
4. Note that these problems plague other articles for which you are largely responsible. You'll need to fix those, too.
5. I'll save the propriety of these kinds of articles for another venue. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to add and improve as able. JohnThorne (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are unable or unwilling to address points (1) and (3), especially WP:ONUS, I will have to remove your plagiarized and improper sources. There is clearly no consensus here for their inclusion. I'll give you a day or two to justify yourself. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have given you an extra day, yet you still have nothing to add. As no consensus exists, I am removing the disputed material per WP:ONUS. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Very appreciate your time to edit Wikipedia articles. Just a reminder: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively", so there is no "you" and "me". This is a common misunderstanding for novice users. Please refer to the five pillars for clarity. We are happy when someone shows a certain background knowledge to improve certain parts of articles. Nobody is good enough to do it single-handedly. Wikipedia takes pride that all volunteers collectively develop articles. Therefore, do not focus on "deleting" but put more efforts on "improving". Another thing to understand is that nobody is on pay to edit the articles, so placing a deadline does not work. If you need to modify, do it right away. Your edit can be reverted anytime, but don't revert a page more than 2 times per day (and we are obliged to warn users who are at the point of doing that, to avoid being blocked). Hope this helps. JohnThorne (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Verses 1 and 2

I remain skeptical of including these verses. What is at all notable or interesting or confusing about them? I remain inclined to remove them. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Verse 1 and verse 2 happen to contain the identity of the writer and the addressee. Despite the debates among experts, the facts stand: there is a name of the writer and there is a name of the addressee in these two verses and they are often cited for discussions. The purpose is to use internal sources for citations elsewhere within Wikipedia, whereas these internal sources are taken from outside sources. For example: Articles citing "1 Timothy 1:1" should not refer to other websites, but can use [[1 Timothy 1:1]], which has an external link to the source. Hope this helps. JohnThorne (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what the verses can objectively be said to contain is a claim of authorship, a claim that, by definition, would have to be there if the letter is pseudepigraphical. That's a prerequisite to being pseudepigraphical. The presence of the claim simply does not go to the truth of the claim. Consequently, I see no point to presenting those verses here. You seem rather confused on that point. There is precious little "debate" among "experts" on the letter's authorship. Almost all scholars consider it pseudepigraphical, no matter how much pastors, priests, and sectarian "scholars" may flap their gums. I remain strongly inclined to remove these verses. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinions and views are equally respected as those of any Wikipedia users. The inclination to edit should not be of personal sentiments. These verses are there so they can be referred to internally from other articles, without the need to cite outside sources. It is nothing to do with the "debate" among "experts". Any opinion that "almost all" has to be supported by proper references. Hope this helps. JohnThorne (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop disengaging and avoiding the issues. It is unhelpful. I already provided references regarding authorship in the article. Remember? As for your "referred to internally," that's not how material gets added to Wikipedia articles. Any article can quote text as needed, directly, without forcing readers elsewhere, breaking the flow of argument and thought. The verses aren't needed here. They are actually quite irrelevant here. The primary place for an authorship discussion is actually in the article on the letter. I remain strongly inclined to remove the verses. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Authorship Discussion

Authorship discussion should be directed to the "First Epistle to Timothy" article. It is redundant to cover them here again. I suggest deleting the authorship discussion here. 66.215.220.110 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)