User talk:Jcbos/arc05-1

Bible vs. Christian Bible

Hi Jcbos. I've reverted your modifications of "Christian Bible" to "Bible". "Christian Bible" is necessary to distinguish it from other Bibles, primarily the Hebrew Bible, which does not contain the New Testament. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

We discussed this cause at the Dutch wikipedia and we came to a consensus as follows:

Only one Bible exists. Jews have the 'tenach', Musulmans have the 'Quran', Christians have the 'Bible'.

'Hebrew Bible' has sometimes been used to indicate the Hebrew part of the Bible. This term does not mean that the 'Hebrwe Bible' is a Bible itself. Jcbos 10:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jcbos, consensus on the Dutch Wikipedia does not automatically apply here. Many Jews speak of the "Bible" while they are in fact referring to the Old Testament (or, really, Tanakh - as they would not include the apocrypha). JFW | T@lk 12:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's just like you already added between the brackets, jews use the name 'Tanakh', they do not use the name 'bible' when they mean 'tanakh'. Jcbos 13:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also your own definition in the bible-artikle: "The Bible is the sacred scripture of Christianity." Jcbos 13:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See the American Heritage Dictionary definition:

dictionary.comgives the following definition for Bible

1. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
2. The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.

This has already been pointed out to you by other editors; your comeback of "that's ridiculous" did not really solve the problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As Jfdwolff says, consensus in Dutch Wikipedia is not consensus here, and people here use the term "Bible" to refer to various different Bibles, including the Jewish Bible, the Catholic Bible, the Protestant Bible, the Orthodox Bible. Other things are called Bibles, including the Guru Granth Sahib (or Adi Granth), though the Qur'an is typically not. In any event, assuming that one Bible is the real "Bible", and others are not, is very Christian-centric. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If that's your opinion, how do you explain the definition in the Bible-article, which is correct? It's patent nonsense to state that Jews call their Tanakh 'Bible'. Can you explain the contrast between p.e. Protestant Bible and Christian Bible? As far as I know a Bible is a Bible, the only thing is that there are editions of the Bible that include some addictional books. Jcbos 16:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Bible article was incorrect, and has been fixed; thanks for bringing it to my attention. There are many different Bibles, and the articles you have been unilaterally often takes pains to distinguish between them. Please do not undo that necessary work. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, "Christian Bible" is a common English phrase, which gets 265,000 Google hits. As well, your edit comment at New Testament was highly deceptive; you not only removed the word "Christian", but removed its alternative name, Greek Scriptures. This kind of edit frankly calls your motivation into question. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you take my motivation into question you spoil te communication, so you'd better talk about content instead of people. The case that you want to keep a pleonasm is quite strange, but your last changes in de Bible article were pure lies, that NEED to be reverted. Jcbos 21:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your deceptive edit summary raised questions about motivations; if you want to avoid those kinds of questions, use accurate edit summaries instead. And the fact that you want to remove a common English phrase and disambiguation is even more strange; a number of the articles you edited became quite confusing as a result. As for my changes, they were entirely accurate. The terms "Sikh Bible" and "Muslim Bible" get tens of thousands of Google hits, they are quite common. The other edits were entirely accurate as well; "pure lies" is a very emotional phrase, probably best avoided. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jcbos - you are trying to enforce a concensus that is not there. Both Jayjg and myself have now given you numerous examples why "Christian Bible" is not a pleonasm. You have no monopoly over the word "Bible", especially in the context where different Bibles are discussed.

If you want, we can request community opinion from other Wikipedia users in this matter. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A request community opinion seems more reasonable then the POV-pushing and reverting of Jayjg. Jcbos 23:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it does, you should have tried that first before pushing your POV here. And the fact that you have been reverted by at least 4 different Wikipedia editors should have told you the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who exactly is pushing his POV when you just revert my edits all of them without even waiting for the results of a discussion? Jcbos 23:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You've already had a discussion, in which several editors have told you you are wrong, yet you insist on pushing in your edits anyway. Obviously you are pushing your POV. A non-POV pusher would have proposed the change first, waited for the outcome, rather than pushing in the edits and then reverting them several times in many articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Others have told him the same thing, for example [1]. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As added information, I live in a largely Jewish community in Pittsburgh, PA, and once dated a Jewish girl. My familiarity with her family, the local community, and other Jewish people I've known have shown me that the term "bible" is not used exclusively in Christianity, instead also covering a collection of Jewish religious works. That you've managed to get a consensus on other Wikipediae is unfortunate in my eyes, and it's important to note that said consensus bears no weight here. The term "bible" should be disambiguated. --Improv 17:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jcbos writes, "Who exactly is pushing his POV when you just revert my edits all of them without even waiting for the results of a discussion?" but he has it backwards. He is trying, singlehandedly and without any discussion, to change articles that are the result of much discussion and collaboration. If he wants to make this change, he can start a discussion and see where it goes. But if he is singlehandedly going to make changes that go against the consensus here, he should not be surprised that his changes are reverted. Neither Jayjg nor anyone else has to start a discussion before reverting your changes -- it is you who must initiate a discussion. That said, I have to tell you you won't get very far. English-speaking Jews commonly refer to the Tanach as the "Hebrew Bible" to distinguish it from the Christian Bible. Your claim that there is only one Bible is a factual claim and you are simply wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Response re: vandal

When you first encountered resistance from several editors to your unilateral changes, you should have stopped and reconsidered, and tried to build consensus; that is the Wiki way. Instead you went ahead and re-did your edits, and continued making changes and reverting to them on many other articles, in the face of spontaneous opposition from at least 5 editors [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], while referring to other editors edits as "vandalism".[7] This was not long after you joined Wikipedia, and after you had made only 15 other edits. Furthermore, when people brought dictionary definitions showing your understanding of the usage of the word Bible in English was incorrect,[8] you said it was "patent nonsense",[9] and when they mentioned other usages of the word "Bible", you said those changes "NEED" to be reverted because they were "pure lies".[10] You also used deceptive edit summaries,[11] and admitted to reverting my edits just to annoy me.[12] You may not be a vandal, but there was no way of telling that from your edits and behaviour. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)