User talk:Bealtainemí

Anyway, a belated welcome to Wikipedia, and if you have any questions or need an admin to do something, feel free to drop me a note on my talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also: re: your comment on personal attacks: it wasn’t one. You are an inexperienced account (not a bad thing) and you were fighting for what you thought was right (very common in this area). I was trying to point out to more experienced users some of the issues we’d face if we tried to establish a common style: these discussions tend to draw new accounts without much background experience on complicated Wikipedia disputes out of the woodwork and that tends to lead to fighting, incivility, and confusion. I’m glad you are editing Wikipedia, but you came on a bit strong and I was pointing that out. I’m glad we resolved our misunderstanding on the actual content, and as always, if you need any help, my talk page is open. I’d also appreciate it if you struck the “personal attack” bit, as I think it was a misunderstanding at worst, but I won’t make a fuss of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of my merely pointing out that a certain sui iuris particular church is called "the Latin Church", not the Roman, (and offering to show it by quoting sources), as aggressive, conducive to fighting, incivility and confusion, as ignoring a broader point, as the work merely of someone inexperienced in working on Wikipedia, someone unaware that the word "Roman" is used in many different senses, someone who imagines that other editors are making stuff up, someone ignorant of the complexity of Eastern Christianity matters ... and making all these comments while saying nothing directly of the proposed correction, Roman → Latin, does seem rather like a personal attack. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was all those things: you rushed in pretty quickly and without considering the context of the dispute or the question being asked. That’s not a personal attack. That’s a comment on the behaviour of another editor that is less than ideal but can easily be explained by experience. Especially considering that I explained why I made the remarks immediately after I made them: you were acting in a way that if you continued would cause you a lot of grief going forward on this project, but since then you’ve engaged in dialogue. That’s good. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I suggested that you rewrite "in India, there are three sui iuris churches in communion with the Holy See, all of which are Catholic but only one of which is Roman" to read "in India, there are three sui iuris churches in communion with the Holy See, all of which are Catholic but only one of which is Latin", you were offended. I don't see why. I also don't see where, immediately after calling that sui iuris particular church Roman, you say you explained why you did so. The USCCB (for instance) calls that sui iuris particular church the "Latin Church" (1, 2, 3, etc., etc.): it's the expression used not just by the Indian conference and the Holy See. Do you still insist on calling it Roman? I prefer to think, as I said on the discussion page of the article, that the fuss that at once followed (and is still following) my suggestion was due to a misunderstanding, one that regrettably seems to be persisting. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not offended: I don't get offended by things on Wikipedia. I was pointing out that the way you were charging in was non-ideal and were essentially insisting on the rightness of one POV on a very complex situation. We see this a lot in that area of the world, and if this discussion were to be expanded to the community of a whole it'd be very difficult to deal with. That was not a personal attack, but a comment on behaviour.

All that being said, I appreciate how you're engaging now and think you'll be a great contributor if you stick with Wikipedia, but critiques on the way people act are not personal attacks. I agree that it's a misunderstanding, and I'm not going to continue arguing over the Roman/Latin issue, which again has a lot of complexities that in part deals with Wikipedia's insistence on using common usage vs. precise language, and I really don't want to get into that conversation right now, so I'm not going pursue it further with you here. Anyway, I hope all is well with you and that you continue contributing TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken note that you consider it is just normal "comment on behaviour" to declare that the single brief edit on a talk page by which I suggested using for a certain sui iuris particular church the name "Latin Church", apparently the only name given to it in the abundant sources about it, amounted to "charging in", "rushing in pretty aggressively", "insisting on the rightness of my POV", and betrayed ignorance of the complexity of Eastern Christianity matters and an imagining that other editors were making stuff up. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Anglican Use shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at Talk:Anglican Use#Two definitions of Anglican Use: Liturgy and people, where the response was supported by another editor and tacitly accepted by the Wanderer. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see you have a history of this kind of thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bealtainemí. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have successfully petitioned

Thank you. For at least a week, that will stop the "persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content". By the way, are you perhaps Mina Tawfiq Amin? Bealtainemí (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your vigilant defense against the inclusion of non-catholic POV sources on the 'Tridentine Mass' article, as well as many others. May God repay your effort.

In short, I am not completely sure, and so if you want to remove mention of the Met Gala, I will not oppose you, even though I added it in to begin with. I am of the opinion that traditionalist Catholics were among those who criticized the Met Gala exhibit, and probably most non-traditionalist Catholics would be offended too. The main group supporting it would be the more liberal-aligning dissident Catholic groups. So in a way it falls into the typical traditionalist vs. more liberal paradigm of feuding issues. Removing it helps to simplify the article as it is a tertiary issue, but incorporating it broadens the traditionalist cause by pointing out one of their issues that many non-aligned Catholics would see as common sense. I looked for pictures of it on Wikimedia Commons, and couldn't find any. As for the picture you removed, some weeks back I read a traditionalist's writing on how the picture offended him, but as I didn't reference it, I understand why you removed it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on her talk page, resulting in its removal from the traditionalist Catholic article. Bealtainemí (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Words such as "separation" and "division" imply schism, as I noticed documented in {{

Thank you, Elizium23, for removing the remark informing me of a purported absence in Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology of "autonomous" Churches. Since the remark on the words "separation" and "division" remains, I must comment on it. You will by now have seen that the Holy See did use the verb "separate" in connection with the setting up of the Eritrean Catholic Church. When a diocese is divided to form two or even three, there is no schism. Thus the result of a separation, a division, can be particular Churches that are by no means in schism but are instead in full communion and harmony with each other. In Catholic ecclesiology, sui iuris does not mean precisely what is usually meant by the English terms "self-governing" and "autonomous", but I don't want to enter into that question and I let it pass. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to concede your correct assertion: the sources clearly and decisively depict the term "separation" as you used here. Unfortunately I had an irrational fear of this word's usage. I apologize for the dispute. I commend your diligence and civility in all these matters, and you are an asset to the encyclopedia project. Elizium23 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind. Thank you, Elizium23. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, when you get a chance, would you please take a look at your recent edit of Names and titles of God in the New Testament? There's a ref error I'm not sure how to fix. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bealtainemí, best regards. Before anything I want to thank you for your good work in Names and titles of God in the New Testament, I recognize that you have good writing skills. Recently You added: "There are also extant Jewish and possibly Jewish copies of the pre-Christian Bible from the late first or early second century and from the third century in which passages that in the Masoretic Text have the tetragrammaton have instead the complete word θεός or one of the nomina sacra κς and θς," referenced by this source Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (BRILL 2004), pp. 305−307. It is true that in this source there are 5 manuscripts from before the third century CE that have nomina sacra, but it is not specified that in replacement of the tetragrammaton. In the book of Esther it could not appear θεός in its complete form in place of tetragram, because this book does not have YHWH, except in acrostic. Thanks in advance, and apologize for my bad English. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is interesting. It is true that in the Hebrew Esther God is not mentioned at all, neither as יהוה nor as אלהים nor by any other name. Tov explicitly refers instead to the deuteronomic portions of the Septuagint's Esther, in Greek. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you, improving the psalms, hopefully together! Can you please put not so many changes in one edit, but one thing at a time, explaining that one thing? Makes it easier to follow, and - if needed - revert one thing. Do we have to differentiate editions of the Vulgate, perhaps, as we have Gotteslob (1975) and Gotteslob? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. The different Latin psalters are not editions of the Vulgate. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Learning, thank you! - Consistency is desirable but doesn't always work. Latin phrases which became part of English are not italic (Requiem, Magnificat, Nunc dimittis), but others are, as foreign language. Who decides about Sicut cervus? - In other psalm articles, the italic title is a well-known alternate name, because it became the title of many compositions, see De profundis. I doubt it here for both, but may be wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it to you. Logically all four incipits could be called titles, but with difficulty for the KJV phrase because of its length. I doubt if any of the four is used as the title of the psalm, rather than as title of a musical composition. If italics had not already been used for one of the two English incipits, one could easily defend reserving italics for those not in English. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Psalm 84, all beginnings are just in quotation marks. 150 articles by different authors over almost 10 years, - consistency is probably nothing we'll ever achieve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way forward here now that you have accepted that the article should not suppress the uses of Lucifer in the 1 Peter / hymn / bishop senses from the article is to restore the etymology section that you deleted and then fine-tune it. 16:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how I am in violation of treating wikipedia like a forum. I am genuinely writing true information about one of the biggest film producers. GriffinTGA (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GriffinTGA:, Wikipedia isn't for expressing our own ideas. For whatever statement you make on it you must be able to cite a reliable source that states the same idea. So no original research may be put in. Everything must be capable of being checked against a reliable source. We all make mistakes at the beginning. It would be good if you would read about the five pillars of Wikipedia, for you have the capability to be a really valuable contributor. Best wishes. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my idea, it is a person's life. I have cited my sources. GriffinTGA (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? @GriffinTGA:, I couldn't see and can't see what sources you cited for those statements of yours that I removed: "men are considered to 'marry' the Church", "many people believe Catholics to be rapists", etc. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apology! I was talking about something else I edited. I have not cited any sources, but I am Catholic and I know this is true. GriffinTGA (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bealtainemí, I noticed you made several edits today changing "Episcopal Church" to "Episcopal Church USA". The consensus on Wikipedia is that, despite the existence of the redirects, we don't normally use the abbreviation "USA", see

Also, if you are changing instances like these: [1] [2], that had "The" capitalized mid-sentence, and included in the link, could you fix them in accordance with

By the way, some of your edits didn't accomplish anything, because they only changed the hidden target of the link, which was a redirect to the same article, e.g.: [4], [5], [6].

I also noticed in a couple of cases you make mistakes that damaged the article: [7], [8]. I've fixed those, but haven't changed the other edits. If you agree, maybe you could change those? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU:, thanks. That is helpful. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution & Canons of the denomination use the name

Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, which I think would be best to link as it looks neater than the parenthetical. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk

Thanks, @Anupam:. The edits that drew a comment from IamNotU were in reality due to utter confusion on my part. I had noticed in those that I touched on yesterday the defect referred to in my edit summary, but had then tried to apply the remedy instead to a set of articles that did not suffer from the defect! Perhaps tomorrow I'll do some more, and perhaps apply to them your remedy. That's for tomorrow (or later). Bealtainemí (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Bealtainemí, thank you for your kind message. I'm sorry you were not able to receive my message, which did contain an Easter greeting, as well as a question about your thoughts on the above discussion (I noticed that you had changed this wikilink). Although I did not include this therein, I wish to ask you if you have more information about the indult granted to the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest to use the pre-1955 missal for Holy Week? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I have no knowledge of the question other than what I have picked up as a result especially of your question. One would think that something more definite should come soon, since the I understand the indult was to hold only until this year when COVID-19 must have prevented its use. I hope that at least it will not be the cause or occasion of discord, especially within the institute itself. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So IPs from Brazil have been spamming "Sacred Catholic Church of the East of the Chaldeans" into innumerable articles lately, including anything related to East Syriac liturgy and monarchy/military commanders. Every once in a while an article on my watchlist pops up. Or I search for that exact term in quotes, because they keep choosing different articles. Right now, 2804:1B2:182:B099:15D9:460A:6CE5:8255 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is blocked, of course they are coming from random IPs so that's not helping much. Elizium23 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: Thanks for your good work. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. In an effort to catalog the abuse and centralize the reporting, I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2804:7F3:8280:6789:929:3B80:30E1:BDF8. Enjoy. Elizium23 (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not "fix" or skip redirects which are not broken.

Jonathunder, I would say that the inclusion of the definite article "The" is highly unusual for our manual of style and disambiguation guidelines, and it certainly shocked me that "Episcopal Church" and "The Episcopal Church" went to different articles. Elizium23 (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopal Church is a disambiguation page because many churches have "Episcopal" as part of their names, but only one is widely called "The Episcopal Church" (or TEC) and has formally adopted that as an official name (see the article on the subject in its own online glossary). As far as using the definite article in upper case, some other bodies do, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Kind regards. Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Elizium23 is right about the choice of title in Wikipedia, which is not exclusively American. In Scotland, "the Episcopal Church" is not the American one. I think Wikipedia correctly calls the American one Episcopal Church (United States). The source cited indicates that the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is otherwise known, by those for whom the cited (American) publication was composed, as "The" Episcopal Church. I can't believe that it is recognized by the other members of the Anglican communion as "The" Episcopal Church. Is it, Jonathunder? Bealtainemí (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Anglican Communion's website, they recognize "The Scottish Episcopal Church" and "The Episcopal Church" as such. Jonathunder (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Interesting. I prefer the Wikipedia choice. Of course, without thinking of imposing it on you. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct the the episcopal church of north america is simply known as The Episcopal Church Spmunshi (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His grammar seems remarkably precise when contributing large chunks of text to articles, but not so much when he posts on talk pages. Do you have access to these books he's citing? I'd check for plagiarism. Elizium23 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23:: In the Bibliography that he added to the article, the second entry is in Google Books, but his account of it is too unintelligible to be direct plagiarism. I can't find the first book. If there is plagiarism, it can be from a book or other source that cited the books he cites. He is not just a newcomer to the English Wikipedia, as I at first presumed. He is quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia procedures and must have had experience in one or more language versions under another name or names: see his extremely recent global account information. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I translated this text from feature Russian Wikipedia article. Vorov (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That explains. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vorov, attribution is required by Wikipedia's own license. If you do not attribute your text then it is considered a copyright violation. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catholicos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted your most recent edit re: the Didache. If you care to take the matter up with me then please do so on the talk page section titled: "Doxology in the Didache: Early or Earliest?" I won't be watching this page. Thanks.--Mox La Push (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did right to take it to discussion. Thank you. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bealtenemí, I considered it necessary to request a third opinion due to our active talk. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Names and titles of God in the New Testament. Thank you.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suits me. Thanks. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ad orientem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin Buchanan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have never edited the article about the

Thank you for your interest in me. I'm sorry you don't want me to make edits on an article that you have taken an interest in. Thank you for allowing my two edits on it to remain, making only slight retouches to them. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Bealtainemí, of course, I do not mind when constructive changes are made; I thank you for changing the heading to "Different breviaries" for example. I just don't want you to reword every little thing I write and appreciate that you will let those paragraphs stand. Thanks and happy editing, Anupam^Talk 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked again, but still don't understand what the fuss is about. No matter. If you insist on putting together the Armenian and Syrian Orthodox "breviaries" simply as "Oriental Orthodox" in spite of the radical difference of main content (hymns/psalms), and if you want to refer to what Wikipedia calls the

Malankara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church), I will just stand aside and will in no way retouch your retouches. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I preferred to ignore your personal attack, but on second thoughts I hereby categorically deny your gratuitous accusation of unethical behaviour. I still let pass the retouches you insist on here, but I will leave a short comment on the article's Talk page, and I will make some slight edits in the article to indicate that I do not accept your ownership of it. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you happened to land about the article about the

following my edits; thank you for clarifying that you were not doing so. I do not magically show up articles that you enjoy editing (e.g. Names and titles of God in the New Testament, Tetragrammaton, etc.) and reword each of your contributions and I expect the same from you; I'm sure you can understand that one would find that to be annoying. I thus appreciate that you will "still let pass the retouches". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You said you "would like to", but you didn't. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Bealtainemí is a troll and he is basically a nestorian who basically alters each and everyone's information so Anupam just ignore him Spmunshi (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle Bartholomew preached on goa, Maharashtra and karnataka then why remove that part inspite of reference being submitted Spmunshi (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better talk of this on the Talk page of the article. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, check the talk page for Alqosh. 3Oh Hexelon (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chaldean Catholics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assyrian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC) A footnote drawing attention to the existence of the disambiguation. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chaldean Catholics; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I've reverted back to your version, solely because it was the last stable version Ghinga7 (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have already, some hours ago, made the request at a noticeboard in view of the lack of progress on the article's discussion page. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, but I figured if I warned the other user I ought to warn you, just as a heads-up. In any case, thanks for not continuing to edit war as that makes it so much easier to get things done around here. Ghinga7 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bealtainemi; you raise some good questions 'bout this. I think Gesenius' use of multi is not too dissimilar to plerique as both words do mean "many" as opposed to a significant difference between most/many. I also don't think Gesenius completely dismisses the arguments of those who were favouring Jehovah as opposed to the other two. His section on Yaho/Yahweh (576 II. - 578) is also just a repetition of the arguments found in the Reland book as well. Gesenius looks to be in his last Thesaurus to be joining the many more commentators of his time who were starting to favour Yaho/Yahweh over Jehovah, but I don't find anything where he specifically states that he personally favoured/preferred/supported one over the other, at least not when it came to Yaho/Yahweh. Preferably next year I'd like to translate this section from Gesenius' Thesaurus to get a better picture. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Bealtainemi; thanks for your responding and thorough comment. I agree with your assessment of those words by Gesenius. What are you thinking the two pages in question (I'm guessing Tetragrammaton and the page on Gesenius himself?) should have to reflect this? Essentially we need a reliable second source which notes Gesenius' changing opinion on how to vocalise YHWH, as at the moment this is all original research based on the primary sources (Gesenius' own writings), of which the main one (Thesaurus) hasn't received an English translation (Tregelles' was of the Lexicon Manuale). Good work on this though :) Stephen Walch (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again Bealtainemi: it comes down to following Wikipedia's guidelines on using primary sources, specifically this line:

However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.

Can we honestly say that this is true in this case, when the primary source is in Latin? Pretty sure knowing Latin is a "specialist knowledge", hence why in the Gesenius talk page we have warshy asking specifically for sources in English rather than Latin. A secondary source for Gesenius' opinion on this matter is preferable. However will certainly look at the best way to add this information for Gesenius without giving ammo to those of a certain persuasion who think Gesenius made up Yahweh based on some sort of relation between Yahweh and Jupiter. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bealtainemi; yes that's fair enough. I'll add a section to the Tetra page, but does this need to be mentioned on Gesenius' main page as well? Not quite sure why one section of his Thesaurus has to be highlighted there too (another reason why I removed the original reference taken from BDB), as it's not germane to anything about him personally. Stephen Walch (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent addition there, Bealtainemi. Especially good work in finding the Edward Robinson translation of the Lexicon. That is the exact sort of secondary source (of sorts) needed. I hope others are also satisfied with your contribution there. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bealtainemi; I'm not disappointed at all! We finally have a section for Gesenius on the Tetra page that isn't based on people's misreading of Tregelles' translation of Gesenius' Lexicon Manuale, which was one of the main reasons why the original section which mentioned Gesenius was removed. Thanks very much for finally getting to what exactly Gesenius thought on the matter. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only way I know how to add Hebrew is to type it in MS word using a Hebrew keyboard Layout with niqqud abilities, then copy and paste into Wiki using {{Hebrew|יְהוָֺה}}. You can type it directly into Wiki, but I find it easier to see using a proper font on MS word. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]