| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scriptural reasoning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scriptural reasoning. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scriptural reasoning at the Reference desk. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
@Havruta Many of the edits you have repeatedly made to this article are biased, unsupported/unverified in the literature, inflammatory and defamatory in nature. You deliberately misdescribe Scriptural Reasoning and the individuals and institutions involved in the development of its practice. You propagate disinformation about the practice of SR and the individuals and organisations who promote it.
Kindly desist from your vandalism of historic contributions made in good faith. Desist making unsupported and highly biased claims which seek to discredit the practice of SR and the reputations of the academics, practitioners and institutions involved with its development. Desist from misrepresenting others' intellectual property to promote religious bias, intolerance and discord between religions. Please desist from posting links to websites which fraudulently publish materials under the assumed identities of individuals and institutions which have not given permission to do so.
If you continue to publish unverifiable and biased material about Scriptural Reasoning I will pursue a dispute resolution. Hands Frei (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter of the article Scriptural reasoning is highly contentious and controversial, with articles and books published in high quality reliable sources WP:RS on different sides of the argument - some writers tending to support and promote Scriptural Reasoning, and other academics strongly criticising aspects of Scriptural Reasoning.
Scriptural Reasoning in the real world has also been the subject of very large and lucrative monetary funding, career advantage for its promoters, and engagement with political power - in ways that have developed strong vested interests WP:COI who are keen to protect Scriptural Reasoning from criticism.
Wikipedia WP:NPOV policies mean that "all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing...all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Wikipedia WP:RS policies require reliable sources cited in articles to meet WP:INDEPENDENCE standards, which is stated by policy, "Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion WP:PROMOTION advertising or marketing WP:NOTADVERT, personal financial benefit, and other abuses".
WP:INDEPENDENCE means that, "In determining the type of source...Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?"
None of the reliable sources WP:RS listed in the Scriptural reasoning Wikipedia article "References" section and written by Christian, Muslim and other academics who CRITICISE Scriptural Reasoning and aspects of its historical conduct are published by publishers (all of them respected academic publishers and independent newspapers) whose editorial boards or newspaper editors have any connection to Scriptural Reasoning.
However, a significant number of the sources listed in the "References" section of the Wikipedia article Scriptural reasoning and which are written by those who SUPPORT or PROMOTE Scriptural Reasoning are published in published sources that appear to fail to meet the standard of editorial independence WP:INDEPENDENCE.
For example, there are repeated citations in this Wikipedia article from Modern Theology which while an independent and respected WP:RS on other theological topics is certainly not an independent Wikipedia source for Scriptural Reasoning - David Ford, Peter Ochs and other leaders and promoters of Scriptural Reasoning are members of the Modern Theology Editorial Board, and many of its articles on the subject of Scriptural Reasoning are written by authors connected to them. Likewise, the so-called "Journal of Scriptural Reasoning" and "Journal of Textual Reasoning" are in fact websites run largely by the same group of persons who are involved in the promotion of Scriptural Reasoning.
Notably the published vehicles, Modern Theology, "The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning", "The Journal of Textual Reasoning" have never once published a single article that has ever been critical of Scriptural Reasoning as originated and strongly promoted by David Ford and Peter Ochs, rather the Festschrifts and writings by the same old SR names again and again tell the opposite story, with the same authors citing each other over again in their essays and papers.
Rather a case of "Circular Reasoning".
In conclusion, the content of the Wikipedia Scriptural reasoning article that tends positively to support Ford-Ochs Scriptural Reasoning much exceeds in size the content which is critical of Scriptural Reasoning and which cites Wikipedia-standard independent reliable sources WP:RS .
Notwithstanding this, the recent incidents of disruptive editing which targeted published academic and journalistic references and other content that was critical of Scriptural Reasoning, highlight the financial and other vested SR interests WP:COI which have impacted upon the article - and the need for independent-unconnected administrator eyes to ensure that WP:NPOV is maintained through the inclusion of criticism of Scriptural Reasoning. Havruta (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
