Talk:Scriptural reasoning

Minor matters

I have removed the deletion proposal. This is a legitimate, emerging movement among people of faith. Many of the participants are academics at this stage, but Scriptural Reasoning meetings are taking place in various locations with a wide variety of participants. I think that this article should remain -- although it needs some cleanup and elaboration (which I hope to do in due course). JayFout 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that the edit {22:40, 28 November 2008 86.53.37.13 (Talk) (10,102 bytes) (yet more fiddling, tidying up and reordering the final section)} was also by me, mahigton - I had forgotten that I had changed computers and not logged in.--mahigton (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have once again removed the following text:

Some approaches continue to give pre-eminence to the initial founders of Scriptural Reasoning and the precedents for SR practice generated by their writing. Others however, firmly reject any form of "fourth position" construct of authority outside the sacred laws and customs of the participating faiths alone, and insist that SR and its secondary literature remains at all times humbly subordinate to the autonomous authority and particularity of each faith, and the centuries-old practices of interreligious text study which long predate the term "Scriptural Reasoning".

This material violates Wikpedia guidelines, which state that all material must be 'NPOV' - neutral point of view. The 'fourth position' way of describing the original SR group practice and understandings of SR is not accepted by those groups; it is therefore a matter of non-neutral opinion. Similarly, the phrases about being 'humbly subordinate' and so on are far from neutral descriptions (because they imply a clear negative judgment on original SR). If the author of this material wishes these points to be made within the article, they would (a) need to be clearly presented as a matter of opinion, (b) need to be accompanied by references to appropriate external sources in which that opinion is expressed and explained, and (c) accompanied by description of the dissension from that opinion of a large number of practitioners of SR. We would also (d) need some discussion on this page about whether the opinion expressed here (i.e., the criticism of the original SR communities) is widespread enough within SR to deserve inclusion on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles are, after all, not a context for the conduct of debate about their subject matter, even though they should include report of significant and widespread debates that take place elsewhere about that subject matter. --mahigton (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to NPOV Dispute Raised by user mahigton

The NPOV statement by mahigton is invalid. The points which he has attempted to remove are explicitly cited in the reference to the Oxford Ethic, the Scriptural Reasoning Community Ethic attached in reference directly to the points raised. Article 3 of the "Community Ethic" states explicitly that:

Subordination and Subsidiarity: A cardinal and distinctive principle of the Scriptural Reasoning Society is our commitment to Scriptural Reasoning being a practice that is at all times derivative and subordinate to the participating faith traditions (in Abrahamic Scriptural Reasoning these being Judaism, Christianity and Islam). As a temporary tent of meeting, the practice of Scriptural Reasoning must at all times recognise its submissive and secondary status to the centuries-old autonomous faith traditions from which its participants derive, and must never attempt to establish “fourth position” structures or regulations which in any way might begin to form alternative sources of authority. Authority in Scriptural Reasoning therefore lies at all times primarily with the religious laws, churches and religious communities of the participant faiths alone. The practice of interfaith sacred text study pre-dates the term “Scriptural Reasoning” by many centuries, as do the traditional rules and customs of different faiths which are associated with it. Therefore Member Scriptural Reasoning Groups must at all times refer, defer and make all best efforts to respect the religious laws and customs of the participating faiths as the first and primary source of guidance for Scriptural Reasoning practice, and only thereafter look to secondary academic literature on Scriptural Reasoning as a subordinate source of guidance for Scriptural Reasoning practice.

For example: For many Jews and Muslims, religious authority in regard to the appropriate handling and reading of sacred texts is articulated through Jewish halachic law and Islamic shari‘ah law, while for many Christians the authorities of their churches provide the locus of religious teaching and authority. These sacred loci of authority should never be supplanted or even supplemented by any “fourth position” construct, such as a Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group.

For example: For Muslims, centuries-old Islamic shari‘ah rulings are clearly articulated in respect of practices of shared reading and interpretation of the Holy Quran and hadith together with members of other faiths, and the clear injunction is upheld that decisions regarding appropriate handling and treatment of Islamic sacred texts, their publication and ethical financing, are a matter for the Muslim community alone, and are never to be delegated to any Scriptural Reasoning group or Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group containing non-Muslims.

Arising from this reference:

1) A fundamental and factual valid difference between the two variant approaches towards Scriptural Reasoning in relation to what mahigton terms the "original" SR (maybe an NPOV issue in itself), is that the evidence clearly demonstrates that this approach to SR associated with the (National) Society for Scriptural Reasoning/Journal of Scriptural Reasoning and its partners in the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and elsewhere, continues to give considerable weight to SR rules and methodologies generated by some of the personalities who were founding members of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning. A cursory glance at the most recent issue of the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning January 2008 entitled in such flavour "Essays in Honour of David Ford" as well as ample evidence elsewhere in the literature continues to testify to the considerable import attached to the views of certain key founder personalities of Scriptural Reasoning as forming precedents for orthopraxy. By contrast, it is a matter of fact not opinion, that the Oxford Ethic expresses an significantly different viewpoint at variance with the above, namely that the primary soruce for Scriptural Reasoning praxis and its reference point at all times be the religious laws (such as Islamic sharia, Jewish halakah) and the Tradition of Christian churches and other faiths - and that any secondary material, such as that published in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning be at all times subordinate sources to the existing laws autonomously extant in different faith communities. This difference of view between the two approaches to SR in this regard is a matter of fact and not opinion, and has been recorded and properly referenced and documented.

2) Secondly, the "Fourth Position" construct here is clearly a fact of the "original" SR in the actual and real existence of a "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" which includes David Ford and Peter Ochs as founding elders of Scriptural Reasoning. This reality again represents a clear and factual point of difference from the principle cited in the Oxford Ethic that explicitly opposes any such authority or "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" as a "Fourth Position" structure - the Ethic insisting that the only permissible structures are those of the autonomous faith communities themselves. Furthermore, the Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning was issued in July 2007 in the context of explicit opposition to the "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" which it explicitly references, and the suggestion at the time that this new body containing non-Muslim elders of Scriptural Reasoning would make decisions in relation to the ethical permissibility of the publication or handling of Islamic sacred texts - which Islamic shari'a has for centuries forbidden to any other than Muslim juridical authorities alone. This difference of view between the two approaches to SR in this regard is again, a matter of fact and not opinion, and has been recorded and properly referenced and documented.

In relation to adding more detailed background of the context of these issues in the main article, there is no problem in principle to adding the material on the "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group", festschrifts in honour of founder personalites, and so forth. However, in order to avoid embarassment this has not been added here.

You will find in fact that while the Wikipedia article must accurately record the historical fact in SR of the disagreements which have led to the emergence of new schools of SR and are realities with documentary evidence in the public domain, this has in fact been done so (for the time being) with considerable discretion for the sake of the broader reputation of Scriptural Reasoning. The SR history contains serious disputes which are documented, pertaining to allegations around financial probity and management and impact on desecration of sacred texts -- none of which are (currently, for the time being) mentioned in the primary article for reason of discretion.

Any suggestion of unreferenced NPOV is therefore spurious. ---- --scripturalreasoning 03:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Scripturalreasoning misunderstands Mahigton's point. The existence of references for the material on "fourth position", etc, doesn't in itself qualify it as NPOV. It's still the case that this assessment of earlier SR groups is a matter of opinion and of debate (as the edit history of this page demonstrates), and needs to be presented as such - which is why I've suggested moving it to the Oxford School section, since the reference given is to the "Oxford Ethic

(Apologies first for not putting a note on my earlier edit - but I don't think that qualifies it as "vandalism"). -- Laysha101 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think you've understood the nature of the criticism. The material you had added read not as description but as advocacy of the Oxford Group position. The choice of words, the lack of acknowledgment that the descriptions provided (e.g., the 'fourth position' description) are not accepted by original SR participants, all made the article lean strongly towards Oxford SR and against Original SR. I hope we can find a way of describing the difference between the two which is more neutral.--mahigton (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to NPOV Dispute Raised by user mahigton (Supplement 1)

The references to "fourth position" constructs is a referent to an actual reality of a "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" of founding fathers which suggested oversight over certain SR matters, including handling and publication of sacred texts of other faiths - these have been referenced in the primary article. The concept of "fourth position" structures has been defined in terms of the existence of the "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" in the attached reference, though the fact disagreement between SR practitioners has been pointed out as being a point of clear divergence in SR theory and praxis between different approaches to SR.

The festschrift JSR issue contains some rather glowing and obsequious statements which clearly imply pre-eminence as has been stated, and there is no objection in principle to more detailed examples being referenced. In relation to authority being given to particular founding elders over others, both the existence of the SR Reference Group, and moreoever the Edit history and referencing confirms this.

There is some irony in the assertions of this NPOV dispute that has been raised, in that the Edit history clearly demonstrates the deletion or displacement downwards in the article of material representing alternative viewpoints, by persons associated with the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and SR Theory Group at Cambridge. The expurgation of the Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning from another Wikipedia article by one of the other users rather obviously associated with the CIP, clearly indicates the vested interest in the deletion or downgrading of material from Wikipedia articles representing alternative viewpoints.

--scripturalreasoning 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No: the claim that Original SR's practice can be described as a 'fourth position' is not a straightforward, neutral factual claim. It involves particular contestable understandings of the nature of religious authority, particular contestable understandings of the status of SR practice, particular contestable understandings of the kind of governance involved in Original SR, and so on. By all means the article can include a description of this claim, as long as it also includes acknowledgment that it has been contested. As it stood before this editing exchange started, that contestable description was presented as if it were an unbiased matter of fact. That's what I (and, apparently, others) have been objecting to, and why we have been trying to edit the article. --mahigton (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One other point re. the 'displacement downwards' of alternative viewpoints that you mention. If it were the case that the material higher up the page clearly favoured Original SR, then the downwards movement would clearly not be a neutral matter. However, I think that the higher material is actually accepted by both Original- and Oxford-leaning contributors, so the downwards displacement simply leaves a structure that starts with agreed material, and then moves on to as balanced a picture of the more controversial material as we can manage.--mahigton (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

JSR

Incidentally, I would also suggest that judgements about the significance of issues of the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (e.g. the recent collection in honour of David Ford) need to be based on more than a "cursory glance". It's possible that references to that JSR issue would be relevant to this article, but they'd need to be quite specific. Producing a festschrift for a scholar doesn't mean that you accord him any particular authority over an ongoing practice.

Laysha101 (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt

Clearly, there is controversy about SR. It seems sensible, therefore, to start the article with what all participants agree on - whatever their 'School'. So, I've tried to make sure that the header and first section are uncontroversial. I've then tried to put as fair a description (drawing on, I think, everything user scripturalreasoning has said) of the controversial matters in the later section of the article. I hope that description now describes both sides (and the controversial nature of their claims) clealy.--mahigton (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)--mahigton (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to NPOV Dispute Raised by user mahigton (Supplement 2)

mahigton writes, "Clearly there is controversy about SR". Good - we can work with this, and I see this as progress with the editing of this article. We might one day even get there with a final mutually acceptable draft.

I am entirely happy for the fact of there being disagreement on both sides as to the nature of "fourth position" structures to be recorded in the article, and it would have absolutely been fine to express in the article that the Cambridge Interfaith Programme/its partners contests this allegation, as it does about other controversial matters. That there are matters which are disputed in SR is something to be recorded in this encyclopaedic entry as it is an inescapable fact of the practice of Scriptural Reasoning.

However, what mahigton Laysha101 did instead was cut out the relevant section entirely, or physically downgrade it to a lower part of the document. That is not fine, but instead smacks of what we have been facing so long in SR in the UK, of every kind of political censorship from certain folk the Cambridge Interfaith Programme-and-its-immediate-partners to suppress debate within Scriptural Reasoning -- making a hollow lie of "not consensus but friendship".

The deletion by nsa1001 of the record of the Islamic SR fatwa on another Wikipedia article, immediately rang alarm bells of the experience we have had of certain non-Muslim Anglican Scriptural Reasoners in the UK attempting to suppress knowledge of or interfere with Islamic rulings for Muslims in relation to Scriptural Reasoning.

It is thus appropriate that this encyclopaedic entry records with integrity the facts of disputes around fundamental principles in Scriptural Reasoning theory and practice - and to do so in as balanced a way as we can. What you need to do now in the editing process is accept the fact that these debates are relevant to Scriptural Reasoning and not just to The Oxford School. There is not a practice of "Real/One-True-Apostolic-and-Catholic Scriptural Reasoning" and "Oxford Heretical Scriptural Reasoning" - there is simply Scriptural Reasoning where at least 50% or more of the folk who come to meetings of members SR groups of the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") have also been involved or continue to be involved in some way with other SR groups in the UK. We have very good friends in Cambridge who have privately expressed longstanding private concerns about some of the issues which have been debated, before they were ever raised by the "Oxford School", and significantly if you look on the Cambridge Interfaith Programme's http://www.scripturalreasoning.org/ website you will find texts now with Traditionist commentaries appearing to give increasing regard to autonomous traditions of reading within Islam, Judaism and Christianity, while the controversies around appropriate handling of Quranic texts raised in the fatwa find there way into SR guideline documents on that site, written after the fatwa.

Like it or not, these controveries around the way all Scriptural Reasoning is conceived and practiced, while particularly championed by some within the Scriptural Reasoning Society, continue to influence other Scriptural Reasoning groups, while concurrently the debate and disagreement within the SR world continues. This ability to promote better quality disagreement is marketed as what Scriptural Reasoning is supposed to be about.

1. It is therefore not acceptable in the editing process of this article to pretend that the fact of these disagreements around matters of Scriptural Reasoning theory and praxis should be relegated and confined to a fenced section entitled "The Oxford Group - that other separate lot". The fact of there having been disagreement between different SR practioners (which we all are) around certain principles of SR theory and practice must be fairly and in a balanced way recorded in the first section on Aspects of SR theory and practice.

2. In relation to the historical section, it is also not acceptable to pretend that there is a separate "Oxford Group" history -- there is only one history, the history of Scriptural Reasoning of which the events in the UK over the last few years, and the emergence of new Schools of SR form an integral part. For common sense reasons of chronology, the story begins with antecedents to practices of shared text study, continues to the founding of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning ("Princeton School"), and naturally the foundation of the Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") come later on in the narrative.

3. What needs firmly to be rejected is any suggestion that there is an "official" or "original" SR, versus the "other" SR. I wonder how Anglican theologians like yourselves would respond to a Wikipedia article, In the beginning was Original Christianity in Rome with direct and legitimate apostolic lineage from Jesus Christ and the Twelve, and then along came this schismatic "Wittenberg Christianity" which is not the real thing and which has no legitimate right to claim that it actually looks backward to the 1st Century faith of the the early Christians. These are all contested matters and need to recorded as such.

The current drafting of the article is not satisfactory, and I am quite aware that I am in conversation with users who are directly connected with the SR Cambridge/CIP group and have vested political interests with them. However, the discussion on this Discussion page appears actually more positive and progressed in thinking than the Editing of the main article itself, in that mahigton states his wish to find a way forward agreeable to both sides, which statement is a view I share.

--scripturalreasoning 04:16, 01 December 2008 (UTC)

Good

(NB - the following comment from Laysha101 was made whilst a typo in scripturalreasoning's comment immediately above (now corrected) left it saying that the then current version of the article was acceptable.--mahigton (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. This is all really positive. I suppose - you (scripturalreasoning) were quite reasonably offended when you thought you were being accused of being a heretical/fringe group of SR & that deliberate efforts were being made to silence debate; and I (not presuming to speak for anyone else here) was offended when I thought I was being accused of following the edicts of three High Priests rather than respecting the faith traditions & good process, and of using my very limited spare time to vandalise wikipedia articles in order to do other people down. (Happily, I'm not quite so offended at being accused of being an Anglican :-) ). But if we can recognise that both/all parties act in good faith and are really aiming at NPOV in this article, we can probably get somewhere.

Laysha101 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Fatwa

A quick clarification and correction. There's a claim that user nsa1001 (me) was responsible for the deletion of a section of the Fatwa article. This is untrue. I moved the section in question so that it appeared in between other fatawa issued around the same time - thus putting it in an appropriate chronological place. The relevant part was not deleted. This change was reversed, so - following normal wikipedia practice - I put an entry on Fatwa's talk page, suggesting that 'Some Contemporary Fatwa' should be arranged in chronological or reverse chronological order. I'm sure other editors of that entry will have views on that - so far no views have been expressed (as of 1 December 2008). Nsa1001 (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Can I, then, suggest two different possibilities?

Possibility A: after the 'Aspects of the Practice of SR' section, an 'Origins, History... etc' section which had subsections: (1) Historical precursors; (2) Society for Scriptural Reasoning; (3) Emergence of controversy in the UK; (4)Oxford School?

Possibility B: after the 'Aspects of the Practice of SR' section, an 'Origins, History... etc' section which had subsections: (1) Historical precursors; (2) Society for Scriptural Reasoning; (3) Oxford School; then a new 'Controversies' subsection?

The main difficulty I foresee in heading in the B direction would be avoiding the article becoming the place where the controversy is conducted rather than reported.

--mahigton (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous responses

Hmm... what a difference a "not" makes (see Mahigton's clarification added to my earlier comment, above). Will leave the earlier comment there, in a hopeful spirit.

That apart: one point to be considered is whether this whole discussion as it stands is too UK-dominated to give a fair picture of SR worldwide. Not something those of us who have posted so far can do much about.

Re Mahigton's suggestions, especially B (which on balance I prefer): Maybe a matter of taste, but I find Wikipedia articles that try to describe controversies at length, "some argue..." "others argue...", hard to read and less than helpful. It's not what this particular medium is best at. Could we attempt a "controversies" subsection that had fairly short descriptions of areas of controversy (rather than substantive accounts) and then plenty of good external references?

Laysha101 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Another round of disagreement

I am grateful for some of the constructive changes that user scripturalreasoning has made: the non-controversial aspects of the article are becoming richer and more informative thanks in part to his or her work. However, to echo his or her own words describing an earlier version: 'The current drafting of the article is not satisfactory'. Specifically, it is not acceptable to have the description of the controversies over governance to the status of a third main point within the 'Aspects of the Practice of SR' section. I have heard SR described in many different contexts in the UK and the US, and know of descriptions from elsewhere, and (as a simple matter of fact) the questions raised in that bullet point have not played and do not play a significant role in the vast majority of those descriptions and ensuing discussions. It is, therefore, simply not acceptable - again, I echo scripturalreasoning's terminology - to pretend that those controversies are anything other than a localised matter, taken seriously by a minority of SR practitioners, and in a minority of contexts where SR is done. scripturalreasoning may wish that they were taken seriously by a majority of SR practitioners - but wishing does not make it so, and the fact is that (rightly or wrongly) they are not yet. It therefore creates a serious distortion in the basic description of SR if the article elevates this local debate (however passionate its participants may be about it, and however much the subject-matter of that debate - rather than the field of those who participate in it - might be SR as a whole) to the status of a major component of the description of all SR. Unless someone can convince me that a majority of SR practitioners worldwide would at present recognise this third bullet point as an exposition of a topic that plays a significant role in their own experience and discussion of SR, I will demote it to its proper place: a subsection lower down on controversies in which a minority of SR practitioners have become involved. --mahigton (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I take it from the silence that this is an acceptable plan, then?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If this plan is part of a process whose goal is an encyclopedia article whose broad body reflects the fact that SR is an international practice where internal controversies are few, then I support this. But I'd like to hear some more views from others who have familiarity with scriptural reasoning in a variety of contexts. The claim by mahigton that this supposed controversy is not significant in the wider picture of SR would be more persuasive if corroborated by practitioners of SR from a variety of contexts. I don't think one or two voices can plausibly adjudicate the international or even national significance of something. If a significant number of UK voices say that there is a big controversy, that's probably worth taking seriously; ditto for voices from around the world. If just one voice says there is a big controversy, I'm inclined to be a bit sceptical (unless there are solid objective references to support that claim - see below). Nsa1001 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As a scholar, practitioner and teacher of SR in the States, I can attest that the controversy is, in fact, non-existent in the US. Not only are practitioners unaware of the UK debates, it is not relevant as fatwas do not have the same weight in the US that they seem to have in the UK. The idea of studying with non-Muslims with printed sacred texts has not raised serious objections from any major US Muslim organization.The maulana (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am a practitioner of SR in the States (I was a member of the CTI group for three years). I was only marginally aware of this controversy which played no role whatsoever in any of the meetings I participated in. Frankly, I was surprised to see it as one of the central principles of SR. Ar2yeh (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested removal of unverifiable claims

Proposed method of discussion

There are several passages which are unverifiable. This is particularly significant in the light of the disagreements expressed on this page. I suggest that NPOV concerns are best served by adopting an appropriate prose style combined with claims (especially contested ones) being substantiated with appropriate references. An appropriate reference is one that substantiates the claim being referenced. If the claim is 'Tony Blair met George Bush', the reference should substantiate that claim. If the claim is 'Tony Blair said "It's a nice day"', the reference should show that he did, indeed, say it. If the claim is 'What Tony Blair said was true', then the reference should substantiate that. NB the latter case is, rightly, hard to substantiate, and NPOV articles tend to avoid them. The following is a list of passages with requests for referencing, or suggestions for deletion where claims are unverifiable. This article currently does not sufficiently adopt Wikipedia good practice, where contested claims need to be verifiable. I have listed the passages, with remarks to aid anyone who might wish to repair the passage in question. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have an interest in this, as I practise SR and work for an organisation that (among other things) conducts research into SR. I wish to aid other editors in producing an excellent NPOV encyclopedia article. Following Wikipedia guidelines, I have been careful about my own edits. Where my contributions have elicited complaint or been reversed, I have contributed to this page rather than simply repeat the edit. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

1

SR does not assume any consensus between the participants as to how they understand the nature, authority or proper interpretation of the texts in front of them. It simply relies on each participant being willing to discuss with the other participants his or her own readings of the texts from his or her own tradition, and in turn to discuss with others their reading of their own texts. The participants discuss in detail the content of the respective religious texts; they discuss the variety of ways in which their religious communities have worked with them and continue to work with them; and they discuss the ways in which those texts might shape their understanding of and engagement with a range of contemporary issues.

No references. Suggest deletion finding references, and perhaps shorten. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC).

I did not write this, but I think many visitors to the article would fine it helpful and I believe it is uncontroversial to most SR practioners. Deletion proposal unhelpful. scripturalreasoning

We should be able to find references for all this. The basic non-consensus point is one we've already referenced (under 'not consensus but friendship'), though we haven't tied it down in detail to the specific matters mentioned here. In fact, I am aware of some slight variation of opinion amongst SR practitioners on these matters, with some seeming to lean towards seeing closer analogies between the three religions' attitudes to and practices with their scriptures, and others looser analogies. I suspect that disagreement is too much a matter of detail for this article, though. Incidentally, it is worth noting that Adrian Thatcher's new book, The Savage Text, contains a brief aside about SR, in which he assumes that the practice relies on a shared concept of scriptural authority - in particular, he clearly (and wrongly) believes that SR involves the erroneous claim that the Bible functions in Christianity in the same way that the Qur'an functions in Islam and Torah in Christianity. Would it be overkill if, when we reference this paragraph, we include a footnote rebutting Thatcher with reference to any accessible source we've found stating the opposite? The book is selling rather well, so his claim will probably reach a fairly wide public. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm normally in favour of shortening the article, but I think this bit would actually become clearer for non-experts if we named names - if we say in as many words "to do SR, you do not have believe that the Bible functions in Christianity in the same way that the Qur'an functions in Islam and TaNaKh in Judaism". Has anyone written that in as many words? Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Laysha101's comment is helpful. If she makes this change, I will archive this section if there are no objections. Nsa1001 (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Done it - go ahead and archive.Laysha101 (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

2

Unlike some forms of inter-religious dialogues, SR is not a form of encounter between faith traditions in which the participants are asked to focus upon those areas in which they are most nearly in agreement, or to bracket their commitments to the deepest sources of their traditions' particular identities. SR allows participants to speak about, and remain passionately faithful to, the deepest identity-forming practices of their religious communities, and provides a context in which the participants can acknowledge and discuss those commitments. SR sessions therefore often explore and highlight differences and disagreements, and give rise to serious argument. Indeed, those explorations and arguments allow SR participants to become more self-aware about their deepest commitments, and about the way they differ from the commitments of others.

No references. Suggest deletion finding some. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not write this, but as above. Deletion proposal unhelpful. scripturalreasoning

Again, I think we ought to be able to find references for this. I'd be interested in hearing, though, from any other SR practitioners in other contexts whether these notes are ones that are struck in the descriptions of SR that are live in their contexts?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This claim is not disputed, it seems, so I'll archive this section if there are no objections. Nsa1001 (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

3

The key to Scriptural Reasoning is not consensus, but the growth of friendship among the participants:

This claim has a footnote, but the reference does not substantiate the claim about scriptural reasoning. It might substantiate a claim about medieval textual study. There thus needs to be a claim, substantiated in the right way, about the continuity between scriptural reasoning and medieval textual study. There needs to be more than similarity (there might be text study in China five thousand years ago based on friendship, but that doesn't mean there is continuity with scriptural reasoning). And there needs to be a reference. Suggest deletion Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The current footnote 7 gives references for the 'not consensus but friendship' claim. Agreed that the medieval reference does not really belong here. If we end up with an historical precursors section, it can go there.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Substance point follows. The journal 'Modern Theology' devoted an issue to SR in its July 2006 issue. One of the essays, by a Christian, makes 'friendship rather than consensus' one of its key points. It is notable, however, that the theme of friendship does not play much of a role in the articles by Jews and Muslims (or by most of the other Christians). I wonder if this claim is appropriate in a claim about 'The key to SR'. How about the following: "If Scriptural Reasoning has a goal, it is understanding rather than agreement or consensus." This claim is better attested in writings on SR from all three traditions, and goes better with the "high quality disagreement" point made earlier too. Comments, anyone? Nsa1001 (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

4

This portion archived at /Archive1

5

Rather, they think of the places they do meet as a Biblical "tent of meeting", drawing on imagery from Genesis 28.[3] As a result, the context for the meetings should be one of mutual hospitality and strict parity of leadership and control between the three faiths, as each participant is both host and guest.

This is an especially important claim: it needs a reference. Suggest deletion. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Kepnes reference now works for 'tent of meeting'. I'll try to remember to edit it to point specifically to para.2. It should be possible to get references for the hospitality point. I'm less sure about the 'strict parity of leadership and control', though: my own, fairly extensive experiences of SR don't easily lend themselves to accounts of who the leaders are, or where control lies. I'd prefer to stick to SR's internal language of hosts/guests.

I wonder if anyone who hadn't been involved in SR for a while would understand the relationship between the Genesis text and "strict parity of leadership and control" or even "mutual hospitality". And actually I've never thought of SR locations as tents of meeting - I thought the idea was that SR itself is/establishes tent of meeting. But if the previous sentence re location goes, a reference to tent of meeting here will work better. Should we be vaguer - "image of mutual & reciprocal hospitality"? Laysha101 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

6

A significant characteristic of Scriptural Reasoning is the fact of there not being a single authority or "official" locus for the practice, but rather an honest debate and creative disagreement between different practitioners over matters of SR theory and praxis, particularly in relation to the question of where the sources of authority lie for the governance and conduct of SR.

The deletion proposal of itself pretends a non-neutral point of view, and in order for this proposal - namely that there is an "official" locus for the practice and there is not debate and disagreement between different SR practitioners about SR, the onus is on you to substantiate that claim. Because a common sense reading of the whole article clearly shows that there are groups which do not look to the same authority for Scriptural Reasoning as others, and that are in disagreement and debate with others. Are you really suggesting that only one organisation or another has "legal franchise" or "monopoly" over the use of the name "Scriptural Reasoning"? If so, I think you will find that to be entirely not the case. In irritation scripturalreasoning

No references. Suggest deletion Agree with Mahigton below. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggest that's overkill; as scripturalreasoning implies, providing sufficient evidence for a negative (no single authority) is hard, so references may not exist - & the claim is uncontroversial. but could delete evaluations of the debate (which sound like advertising material for SR, not NPOV - see scripturalreasoning's response re UK bias, below).

Laysha101 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, Laysha. I think the reason for deleting or reworking this is not that there is no proof that there are multiple authorities or official loci - but rather that I am not convinced that these terms are the appropriate ones. If someone were to ask me, 'Is there a single authority in SR, or multiple authorities?' I'd have to say, 'Well, neither'... It might be better to speak about there being multiple SR groups which overlap in all sorts of ways - sometimes more, sometimes less. All may have spread, one way or another, from the first SR group, but they now make up a rich and complex patchwork - and where informal patterns of friendship and collegiality form the main types of glue that keep the whole thing together. Can we find a way to say this concisely and non-puffily?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

7

There are debates over understandings of the "particular" dimension of Scriptural Reasoning -- namely of it being a "temporary tent of meeting" between Jews, Christians, Muslims and others, the participants being members of ancient autonomous faith traditions each with their own well-established religious laws, rules and customs around shared text reading, as articulated in Islamic sharia, Jewish halakha. There are debates as to the relative importance of these "particular" or autonomous sources of authority within different faith communities relative to the the precedents and guidelines for SR practice generated by the teaching and writing of some of the founder personalities of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning".[4]

Two 'there are debates' claims. No references. Suggest deletion. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC).

I am not going to waste time commenting further on the suggestion that "there are no debates". scripturalreasoning

As to the first 'debate', every SR member I've ever encountered assumes that participants are and remain (in their various different ways) faithful members of their respective religious 'houses', each of which has a range of well-established practices for working with its sacred texts. Of course, precise ideas about what those practices are, and precise levels and understandings of individual faithfulness to them, differ as much in SR as they do in the 'houses' themselves - but I haven't heard anyone suggesting that SR inherently involves practitioners in any journey away from faithfulness to their house tradition.

So is there really a debate about this? It's an SR truism - and assumed in everything that has been said in the article so far.

On the second 'debate', I am not aware of any SR practitioner who has suggested that the faithfulness of SR practitioners to their respective house traditions should be superseded or qualified or overridden by 'the precepts and guidelines' of established SR practice, however generated. So: agreed - delete this. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim 'there are debates' is contested. In such cases inclusion should be decided by its verifiability. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia articles is verifiability, not truth. The claim 'there are debates' is unverifiable, and one editor proposes to support the claim by reference to unpublished correspondence, which remains unverifiable and violates Wikipedia:No original research. I propose to delete this claim unless it is made verifiable, and would welcome any other comments from editors. Nsa1001 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In my experience in and around SR (several years' worth) I have never been privy to the "authority debates." Ar2yeh (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

8

There is disagreement between different SR practitioners in relation to applying these relative emphases, some arguing that SR and its secondary literature, such as that published in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning, be at all times unequivocally subordinate to the autonomous authority and particularity of each faith's traditional rules governing interfaith study,[5] while others dispute these views as misunderstandings of the nature of SR, with some of the initial founder SR practioners discouraging the official seeking of traditional Islamic sharia or Jewish halakha sanction for the practice of SR.

The claim is 'there is disagreement'. The one reference would support a claim about subordination and subsidiarity; it does not support the claim that there is disagreement. No appropriate reference. Suggest deletion. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - see my comment to the previous deletion proposal.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Have reversed the censoring edit of the article and its supporting reference by Laysha101. Nonsense. We have had considerable experience of attempts to oppose and stifle the existence of the fatwa, endless political games from the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and its partners, opposition in person (to our faces) from certain leading figures from the CIP to the very idea of obtaining traditional rulings in relation to SR, and the notion tendered that what is needed is SR "elders" to exercise "oversight" over the practice of SR. Your hypocritical idea of circular referencing -- namely using the SSR's Journal of Scriptural Reasoning to support SSR positions, and censorship of other viewpoints not written up in that SSR Fanzine, has been repeated enough times. Have tried to accommodate, but when I realise I am dealing with the brick wall of a hypocritical censorship political motivation, or folk who are in one or two cases on the Cambridge Interfaith Programme payroll, then that is the point where one stops listening or engaging further. This whole diatribe has nothing to do with good quality academic referencing, nor representation of real events. Rather it is about stifling the existence of debate that is politically embarassing.scripturalreasoning 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User scripturalreasoning: please note that personal attacks are a serious breach of Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks). --mahigton (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bought some ice-cream. Strange choice for December, but hey. Now what? Maybe have an attempt at getting back to the point, viz.: this is a wikipedia article, so we're aiming for verifiability. The deleted bit isn't verifiable (whether or not it's true). Laysha101 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Have examined the relevant reference, and I believe you may be referring to the clause, "Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense". Well, I have not outed any of you by name or in person, though I have as a group and in general pointed out the conflict of interest issue arising in your (pl.) censoring editing of the material written or referenced by another editor (me), which is motivated by the fact that some of you (pl.) are likely to have an institutional conflict of interest to conceal, or censor such material because is institutionally embarassing - and I have a reasonable confidence as to the relevant conflict of interest connection of one or more of you with the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, though I have not said whom. Insofar therefore, as this is entirely relevant to the hypocritical discourse going on here where you (pl.) are engaging in conflict of interest-motivated censoring editing of the writing of another Wiki editor, and under the pretence of "referencing", promoting the requirement for a circular referencing system via the SSR's own Journal of Scriptural Reasoning, this is quite pertinent to bring to attention. As to the verifiability of these assertions in this last paragraph, am happy to add an unpublished correspondence footnote and expansion of David Ford's comments and advice against seeking faith authority sanction, if that will keep you happy (the record will show that I have attempted not to personalise this article by excessive reference to David Ford's statements, unless and until I have been forced by you to add the verifying footnotes). Given that there is a line of communication to the CIP here, I am sure they will quite happily take legal action on anything which libellous, but when there is a written correspondence record and witnesses to events, there is no way they can. scripturalreasoning 14:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The allegations of Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest are baseless. Wikipedia good practice is for editors to attend carefully to Wikipedia: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia: Verifiability, especially if there is possible conflict of interest. To claim that NPOV and Verifiability requirements are instances of conflict of interest is meaningless. Either material is NPOV or it is not. Either material is verifiable or it is not. Removal of material that demonstrably fails to be NPOV, or removal of non-verifiable content, is not censorship. It's common-sense Wikipedia practice, especially if it is accompanied by rationale on the talk page. Unpublished correspondence is not verifiable, and in any case violates Wikipedia:No original research requirements. Personal attacks contravene Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and unwarranted claims about Wikipedia:Vandalism are not acceptable (I refer to some article history edit remarks). Nsa1001 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Am happy to publish online unpublished private correspondence and remarks by David Ford and others, and publish them up on the internet (however embarassing it may be to the Cambridge Interfaith Programme). Thereafter happy to reference those published points in the main Wiki article (no different to referencing an academically mediocre and non-peer reviewed magazine like the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning). Perhaps you can pick up the phone and ask if he and your other colleagues are happy with that. scripturalreasoning 18:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User scripturalreasoning has claimed that I can 'collect [my] cheque from the CiP'. In other words he or she has either claimed that my edits and arguments here are motivated by financial gain, or that I am in some way being paid or rewarded for my edits. These allegations are wholly without foundation. I am not in any way paid by CIP; I am not a member of CIP. These accusations constitute an attack on my personal integrity - and therefore a direct violation of Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks) - and I expect them to be withdrawn. --mahigton (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't get my icecream (or anything else) from CIP either, and would like the accusation in scripturalreasoning's comment on my last edit to be withdrawn. I would further note that scripturalreasoning has accused me and various others of other breaches of professional as well as personal integrity - e.g. engaging in "censorship" not only on this page but elsewhere.Laysha101 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If any of the claims referenced to the online Journal of Scriptural Reasoning are disputed, they should be identified as 'disputed and unverifiable' claims on this talk page. None of those claims has, as yet, been disputed, and they have been up for some time. Non-contentious claims do not require the same level of verifiability as disputed claims. Nsa1001 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to waste further time on this -- or get drawn into the political game that is being played here. mahigton and Laysha101, I did not specify who among the various users on this page is or is not affiliated with the Cambridge Interfaith Programme -- read what I wrote in the discussion edit above. So I certainly don't have to clarify that further, nor of course have I outed anybody as an individual. I do have good grounds to believe that at least one or more of those who have been involved recently in hostile edits and censorship of the writing of another user (me) are associated with the Society for Scriptural Reasoning/SR Theory Group in Cambridge/have collegial connections to it, and have vested political interests in wishing to suppress viewpoints in this article which conflict with their political view and connections -- and so I maintain clearly that there is a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issue here, and the editing history demonstrates this. (I do also have reason to believe that one of the users on this page is indeed affiliated with the CIP - but I haven't specified) The hostile editing of this article and removal of materialm written and referenced by me, by some other users on this article is not based on a desire for academic integrity, but is based on a circular referencing system focusing on the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning - which is an online publication controlled by the SSR, and not an independent academic journal with the usual standards of independent peer review. This is hypocritical and a political ruse. To systematically remove material written by another Wiki editor representing an alternative viewpoint, while not declaring a conflict of interest due to your connection with another body as the SSR/SR Cambridge Theory Group/collegial connections to these groups, is censorship and does lack integrity. For the record, by contrast I have not removed critiques of the Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School) when they have been added to the article by other users -- because I have more integrity than to do that. Finally, as for remarks about ice-cream money, for heaven's sake -- it's almost Christmas so do please have the wit to accept a figure of speech, and not be anally retentive. However, as I know you already understand this full well, and that this is all about political manoevring and not common sense, I have removed the "offending" ice-cream remark from my edit above ((shakes head in disbelief)). scripturalreasoning 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

When retracting or substantially modifying text on the talk page please use strikethrough or placeholders, as recommended on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Nsa1001 (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning is considered a disreputable source, this should be stated explicitly on this talk page. Those with responsibility for it (it's based in Virginia, USA) can answer for it. If any claims supported by reference to this journal are disputed, those claims should be identified clearly on this talk page. So far, none of the claims referenced to that journal has been disputed. There seems little reason for anxiety about a source if the claims are considered sound. It is the disputed claims that require a higher standard of verifiability - this is explicit Wikipedia policy for NPOV. Nsa1001 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning is associated with the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, and in practice is not editorially independent from the influence of some of the leading persons in that organisation. This is a matter of fact, in practice. (I suppose an acid test would be to see how willingly the JSR publishes or rejects papers offering a critique of the some of things that have gone badly wrong to Scriptural Reasoning, that led to the emergence of newer schools) For this reason, the idea that the JSR constitutes some kind of absolute impartial, independent and authoritative reference point for the whole practice of SR, and for the purposes of referencing this Wiki article is inaccurate. Therefore, for the purposes of referencing the Wiki article, the JSR is no different from any other website on the internet, under ownership of various organisation or persons, and containing variably biased information about Scriptural Reasoning, Premiership football, heavy metal music, or anything else. In addition to the above, and separate from the facts concerning the JSR editorial ownership, I also submit a personal viewpoint from my reading of some of the material on the JSR - some of it is of fine academic quality, other good but unoriginal and recycled, and some of it at about the level of a high school student writing a term paper on comparative religion - not the consistency of a good and independently peer reviewed academic journal. But that is just my own personal viewpoint and doubtless others will find the JSR a stellar read. scripturalreasoning 00:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Which claims in the article referenced to JSR are contested? Nsa1001 (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to this thread more fully in a new section at the bottom of the page. --mahigton (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

9

Unlike some forms of inter-religious dialogues, SR is not a form of encounter between faith traditions in which the participants are asked to focus upon those areas in which they are most nearly in agreement, or to bracket their commitments to the deepest sources of their traditions' particular identities. SR allows participants to speak about, and remain passionately faithful to, the deepest identity-forming practices of their religious communities, and provides a context in which the participants can acknowledge and discuss those commitments. SR sessions therefore often explore and highlight differences and disagreements, and give rise to serious argument. Indeed, those explorations and arguments allow SR participants to become more self-aware about their deepest commitments, and about the way they differ from the commitments of others.

No references. Suggest deletion. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this a straight repeat from one of the extracts above?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

10

This portion moved to its own section below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scriptural_Reasoning#Scriptural_Reasoning_Reference_Group Nsa1001 (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

11

There is disagreement between different SR practitioners in relation to applying these relative emphases, some arguing that SR and its secondary literature, such as that published in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning, be at all times unequivocally subordinate to the autonomous authority and particularity of each faith's traditional rules governing interfaith study,[5] while others dispute these views as misunderstandings of the nature of SR, with some of the initial founder SR practioners discouraging the official seeking of traditional Islamic sharia or Jewish halakha sanction for the practice of SR.

There is no reference for the claim that there is disagreement. For there to be disagreement there must be stated positions on both sides. I can see no evidence that there is a debate about the issue of subordination. There is also no reference for the claim about initial founder SR practitioners. I suggest this section be deleted. Nsa1001 (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on every point here, because it is time wasting. If you are really proposing that some of the earlier founders did not discourage the idea that Scriptural Reasoning should not seek a "seal of approval" from traditional legal authorities, and they are actually supportive of such things as the issuing of the Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning, go and ask them scripturalreasoning

That's not enough. We would need to be able to establish that these or other actions, statements or opinions were clearly grounded in a belief by the SR practitioners in question that the established practices and descriptions of SR had some kind of autonomous authority over against the particular faith traditions involved. No SR practitioner known to me believes such a thing. There is no debate of the form described in this paragraph. I agree with the deletion proposal.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

12

many participants come from both Orthodox and Progressive streams of Judaism, the Court of the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth, the London Beth Din maintains a cautious approach to Scriptural Reasoning, on grounds of the classical position in halakha that the practice of Jewish study of the New Testament with Christians remains problematic.

There is no reference for the claim that anyone is maintaining a cautious approach, nor that anyone has made claims about halakha and scriptural reasoning. I suggest this section be deleted, but would especially welcome views of editors familiar with Jewish approaches to scriptural reasoning. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

13

While there appears to remain less halakhic difficulty in regard to Jewish text-based study with Muslims, the London Beth Din has nonetheless confined its advice to matters of the appropriate handling of Jewish sacred materials in SR in order to avoid desecration of the Holy Name[8] explicitly without implying sanction for Orthodox Jewish interreligous reading of the sacred texts of other religions.

There is no reference to the advice given by the London Beth Din. The lack of any sanction does not seem significant; if there were a sanction against it, that should go in (with a reference) to the article. I suggest this section be deleted. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

14

The Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks makes the distinction between "side by side" interfaith dialogue for common social action over and against "face-to-face" forms of theological interreligious engagement such as Scriptural Reasoning, with the latter category of activity being viewed with greater reservation by Orthodox halakhic authorities.

There is no reference for Sacks' comments. There needs to be a reference, and the reference needs to be explicitly about scriptural reasoning. Without such a reference, I suggest this section be deleted. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The advice of members of the London Beth Din in relation to the handling of sacred texts in SR is referenced on the Scriptural Reasoning Society website, and that reference could in fact be expanded to say precisely that they do not wish to imply a sanction for SR in the process. The halakhic material around Jewish study fo the New Testament, could also be added duly. Jonathan Sacks statements about face-to-face and side-by-side are widely discussed, and the idea that Wikipedia articles be limited by what the Google search engine can come up with is silly. In relation to explicit reference to "Scriptural Reasoning" are you proposing that SR is a practice sui generis that is not a practice of reading Hebrew and Arabic sacred texts?scripturalreasoning 03:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is discussion of this point further down the page.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

15

some Islamic religious authorities have expressed a concern that disparities in political power and control of a Scriptural Reasoning group between the Christian, Jewish and Muslim participants can adversely affect the sensitive process of shared interpretation of sacred texts.

There is no reference for the claim that religious authorities have expressed a concern. The London fatwa has instructions for how to do scriptural reasoning: it is matter-of-fact in tone, and this needs to be reflected in this article. I suggest deletion of this section. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to waste further time with this one or the next section because I am getting bored now and cross scripturalreasoning

The statement as it stands does rather suggest that there are disparities in political power and control. Despite what I have said above about the language of 'control' not being very indigenous to SR practice, all forms of SR that I have ever encountered agree that no one of our traditions has the upper hand. The fatwa could perhaps be used as one reference to back up some of the claims discussed above that talk about the mutuality of SR practice: it is one more source that advocates such mutuality. It should not be used, as here, to suggest that there are forms of SR that do not advocate such mutuality.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

16

Some historical precursors to the modern practice of Scriptural Reasoning may be found in the Late Medieval period in parts of Western Europe, notably in Muslim Spain and in medieval France and Italy. Text-based discussion and debate between Christians, Jews and Muslims formed a substantial part of the genre of interfaith polemics in the Middle Ages which gave rise to sefer nizzahon Jewish apologetic discourse and Islamic radd literature around Christian interpretations of the Bible. The Sirah Rasul Allah, the Prophetic Biography by Ibn Hisham, records the meeting and Biblical-Qur'anic discussions of the Prophet Muhammad with the Christian Delegation of Najran, while the Andalusian jurist and theologian Ibn Hazm sets out in his treatise Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa' wa al-Nihal sharia regulations in relation to Muslim participation in dialogue, study and debate with Christians and Jews.

The historical claim is entirely unreferenced. The implied claim that there is a connection between these practices and scriptural reasoning are entirely unreferenced - it currently reads purely as an opinion. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We might at least want to qualify 'precursors', even if we do find references to all this. Do we mean that there was conscious emulation of these medieval practices on the part of SR founders, or that there is substantial such emulation amongst SR practitioners today? Do we simply mean that people have spotted accidental resemblances? How strong are those resemblances?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

17

The founding participants of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" include David F. Ford, Daniel W. Hardy, and Peter Ochs. Its origins lie in a related practice, "Textual Reasoning" ("TR"), which described Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics. Peter Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning. When he and Daniel Hardy met as members of Princeton's Center of Theological Inquiry, and included David Ford in their study together, the idea for a mode of reasoning across traditions was developed. Peter Ochs was involved in an Islamic study group, through one of his doctoral students, Basit Koshul. Gradually, the practice of reasoning in the light of texts from the three Abrahamic traditions became established.

All claims here are entirely unreferenced. I suggest deletion of this section. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not write this section (I think one of you did!), and the comments are factually accurate. Deletion proposal as absurd as the one executed in regard to the Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group.scripturalreasoning

I think Nsa1001 wrote it himself. At least he's being even-handed! But yes, we can get references to all this, I think.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now added references to some of this: the founding participants line, the TR line, the Ochs as leading participant line. I've not managed yet to reference the Princeton CTI link, the claim that about Ochs and Koshul, or the claim that three-tradition SR emerged gradually.--mahigton (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

18

With the growth of Scriptural Reasoning in the United States and transatlantic collaboration, under the auspices of the Cambridge Inter-faith ProgrammeDavid Ford introduced SR to Great Britain, where there were already pre-existing and long established practices of Jewish-Christian-Muslim scripture study such as those developed by British and German scholars at the annual Jewish-Christian-Muslim Conference[10], the Al-Nisa Society, Leo Baeck College and the Centre for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations in Birmingham.

In the course of the development of Scriptural Reasoning in the UK, discussion and disagreement began to emerge among SR practitioners as to the direction and governance of SR.

There is one reference to the British and German scholars - so this could maybe stay (although it is of minimal significance on its own). No other references: I suggest deletion. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - either it should go, or should be slightly expanded so that it says something substantive about the relationship of SR to those practices - if, for instance, we can establish that they influenced it in any direct way. But perhaps there could simply be, in the list of resources at the end, some links to similar-but-unrelated interfaith practices?--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

19

Some of these discussions and criticisms centred on the question of accepting "asymmetries of hospitality",[11] namely conceding that particular practical circumstances that may lead to one faith tradition acting as host and exercising a leadership role in a multi-faith SR group.

There is a footnote, but it contains no reference. If the claim is unsubstantiated, it should be removed. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to tell from the phrase cited quite what was being envisaged - and, in particular, impossible to tell what relationship it might have had to questions of leadership, or anything about the permanence or rationale of the asymmetries mentioned. That makes it impossible to discuss properly, to confirm or qualify or rebut.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

20

Some SR practitioners argued that this development did not correspond to their understanding of the academic literature of Scriptural Reasoning to date, which they understood consistently to uphold principles of strict parity between the participating communities - while other SR practitioners disagreed with this reading, and contested that Society for Scriptural Reasoning has tended to assume that parity between the religious traditions involved can be maintained in informal ways.

'some...argue' is a form classified as 'weasel words' in Wikipedia articles. Also no references. Suggest deletion. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was responsible for some (though not all) of this paragraph - but, on reflection, I agree that it's rather flimsy. I would go ahead and delete.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

21

In addition, discussion revolved around the alleged "instrumentalising" in the UK of the practice of SR interfaith study of sacred texts in particular, and some kinds of interfaith activity in general, with concern expressed that Scriptural Reasoning in the UK risked being "commodified" in order to attract sponsorship from UK government and Home Office-financed agendas in relation to the Muslim community, and the alleged closeness of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and its partners to such state-sponsored activity[12]. Members of the original Society for Scriptural Reasoning have not accepted that such instrumentalising or commodification has taken place, and argue that the allegations of the critics are a misreading of their practice.

The claims 'discussion revolved', 'concern was expressed', are unreferenced. The implied claim that there are governmental agendas is unreferenced (this is hard to reference; it would be better to claim that 'X said there are governmental agendas' and reference that). The one reference would support a claim about Tony Blair; it does not support a claim about the University of Cambridge. It also does not name the partners. There is no reference substantiating the claim about the members of the original SSR, nor their not accepting or arguing anything. Suggest deletion Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This is at too many removes from SR itself.--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

22

While members of "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" in the UK continues to evolve in ways shaped in part by the continued involvement of the founding participants, and their friends from all three traditions who had been involved in SR since its earliest years, these discussions and controversies around inclusivity, parity, governance and issues of Islamic sharia and Jewish halakha in the study of sacred scriptures, gave birth to new Scriptural Reasoning "schools" as some SR practitioners, including those involved in the pre-existing forms of Jewish-Christian-Muslim text study at the JCM Conference, founded the "The Scriptural Reasoning Society" or "Oxford School" tradition of Scriptural Reasoning.

Entirely unreferenced. Suggest deletion Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

23

The Scriptural Reasoning Society, a registered charity, was founded as a network of local Scriptural Reasoning groups formed by a collaboration of academic institutions and diverse places of worship. The Scriptural Reasoning Society places greater emphasis in its written "Community Ethic" on SR as an egalitarian practice, with parity between the participants, and the principle that the religious laws and teachings of the participating faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam alone are the sole sources of authority in Scriptural Reasoning. The Oxford School also emphasises the role of "Scripture, Tradition and Reason" as equally important determinants of the textual scholarship and religious life of faith communities -- hence "Scriptural-Traditional-Reasoning" which respects traditional methods of reading of Scripture by Jews, Muslims and others using oral tradition and classical commentaries.

The reference supports the claim that there is a Scriptural Reasoning Society, and that it has a Community Ethic with certain characteristics. However, 'greater emphasis' is a comparative statement, and it is not clear what the other comparator is; there is certainly no reference to another comparator, and no supporting evidence for the comparison. Suggest it be substituted with claims that are substantiated by the existing footnote. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

24

There is now a Journal of Scriptural Reasoning (formerly the National Society for Scriptural Reasoning) based in the USA and a scriptural reasoning network of active local groups based in Great Britain which together continue to produce a shared web-based resource of Scriptural Reasoning texts formatted in both original language and translation. In the UK, there is a web-based contact site managed by the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme in communication with its partners in the US and UK, and also local groups of friends who simply informally meet to study sacred scriptures as independent groups.

Suggest developments and resources need different sections. Developments is a narrative thing, with claims. Resources is a list of stuff. Suggest reworking. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the inaccurate claim that the site scripturalreasoning.org is managed by the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme. I believe it is owned and managed independently. Nsa1001 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't we need some exact chapter and verse reference to some paper in the JSR to confirm this latest edit...((shakes head and sighs))? Also, the original claim was not entirely inaccurate - the site scripturalreasoning.org was in fact managed by the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme for a time, and I understand the domain name scripturalreasoning.org is still in the name of the IT guy for the Cambridge Divinity Faculty - though I am informed its management has since been passed on to a third party. scripturalreasoning 00:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

25

Some Scriptural Reasoning groups in the United Kingdom have started to develop this academic practice in a civic setting among faith communities as a "Faith and Citizenship Programme", among young people as "Tools for Trialogue", and as part of training programmes to support the Jewish and other communities in confronting religious intolerance and antisemitism, "Scriptures in Dialogue". The practice of online Scriptural Reasoning texts discussion is being piloted.

Suggest separating narrative 'started to develop' from resources. If there is a 'Developments' section, this can go there, with lists of groups, sites, in a resources section. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Another good idea. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

26

An important future progression in the development of Scriptural Reasoning is the inclusion of other faith communities and the study of Vedic and other scriptures outside the Jewish-Christian-Muslim family, which is being pioneered by various independent groups.

No references - suggest deletion Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to NPOV Dispute Raised by user Nsa1001

Some of this may be helpful, in ensuring we obtain better referencing over time. A lot of it however, is frankly rather silly.

What is signficant is that Nsa1001 is himself exercising personal selectivity in these deletion suggestions, and the effect would be to make the article for any reader rather valueless. The comments also display a clear political agenda in regard to these deletions requests.

Much of the earlier general description has been on this article for a long time, prepared by earlier editors and other authors, and mahigton has added some good descriptive material as well. I have less comment to make about them, but the general descriptions of Scriptural Reasoning I find to be broadly a rather good and a synopsis of various material in the literature. Maybe additional referencing for particular points may be added from the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning over time, but to a new visitor who wants to have a sense of what SR is about, I think it is helpful.

Because of the nature of the practice of SR, a lot of these things evolve in the course of the activity itself, and while I did not write much of the upper half material now proposed for deletion, I agree the content to be helpful for a new visitor. What is being proposed is level of referencing something that is NOT the case with other Wikipedia.

Many points may well benefit from additional referencing, but when we are all busy with our work, being expected to find in "a few days" an online reference for the precise original statement by the Chief Rabbi about a particular phrase which is in the public domain, copied from the Chief Rav and cited in government documents and national conferences of religious leaders such as the one recently published by the Home Office under the name of aFace to Face and Side by Side Framework for Inter-faith Dialogue and Social Action, and known to large numbers of educated people, is demanding something that is emphatically not the case with the great majority of Wikipedia articles.

Agree that the face-to-face/side-by-side distinction is very easy to find references for (& probably doesn't even need references); but less clear that it's directly relevant enough to SR to come into a Wikipedia article - other than perhaps as a footnote. If we went too far down this road, surely we'd have to reference everything any Jewish, Christian or Muslim leader, in any country in which SR is practised, had said about interfaith relations in general.

Laysha101 (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Other written statements, such as David Ford's WRITTEN statement about "asymmetries of hospitality" which were made in publicly circulated correspondence by him among a large group of SR people would normally cited in academic papers as "private correspondence" or "unpublished correspondence". I am happy to add the date or time of any written or electronic correspondence that is publicly circulated, though this is again getting to a level that is emphatically not the case with the great majority of Wikipedia articles or indeed academic writing.

In regard to other matters such as the "existence" of the Scriptural Reasoning Society as a charity or a collaboration of various instititions, this is more a comment on the ignorance or inability of the critics to verify otherwise. There is no more evidence for the "existence" of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, than the Scriptural Reasoning Society in the UK. Nonsense. I am also citing again for enlightenment another of your deletion proposals and my comment:

The founding participants of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" include David F. Ford, Daniel W. Hardy, and Peter Ochs. Its origins lie in a related practice, "Textual Reasoning" ("TR"), which described Jewish philosophers reading Talmud in conversation with scholars of rabbinics. Peter Ochs was one of the leading participants in Textual Reasoning. When he and Daniel Hardy met as members of Princeton's Center of Theological Inquiry, and included David Ford in their study together, the idea for a mode of reasoning across traditions was developed. Peter Ochs was involved in an Islamic study group, through one of his doctoral students, Basit Koshul. Gradually, the practice of reasoning in the light of texts from the three Abrahamic traditions became established.

All claims here are entirely unreferenced. I suggest deletion of this section. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not write this section (I think one of you did!), and the comments are factually accurate. Deletion proposal as absurd as the one executed in regard to the Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group.scripturalreasoning

There was a broad notion of trying to draft an article which was reasonably balanced and gave expression to arguments on both sides of the debate, even-handedly. What is being proposed is not the presentation of different points of view on either side of the argument - but rather what we have been used to in the past - politically-motivated censorship of the existence of any such debate (under the pretext here of "referencing"). That I am not going to tolerate, and is tiresomely likely to lead to an editing war again.

I hope we can disregard this "blip" and get back on track again, as I thought things were moving in a positive and common sense direction.

I have added other comments in the body of the statement by Nsa1001. --scripturalreasoning 13:34, 03 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. The really laughable part of this whole thing is that if you look at some of the academic papers cited for the article, and indeed a lot of the review material published in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning and elsewhere, is that the referencing is rather sparse, and contain vast tracts of entirely unreferenced descriptions of Scriptural Reasoning events, history and practice.

User Nsa1001 has set up a process which is ridiculously over the top - and, yes, rather silly in places - but which, actually, might just work. I take it that his concern for referencing is not based on a (mis-)interpretation of normal Wikipedia standards, but is rather a response to the debates on this talk page: an attempt to make sure that the article gets cleaned of misrepresentations on both sides. Because there is no agreement on what in the article ‘’is’’ a misrepresentation, he has marked everything that (as he sees it) has not been demonstrated to be a directly-supportable factual claim (whether it is controversial or uncontroversial, whether it favours the Oxford Group or SSR). Let’s use that process, however over the top it may be, to hammer out what we do agree on and what still divides us, and to dig into the issues that do still divide us in order to separate the genuinely controversial issues from the misrepresentations. --mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was making the following point. It is not enough for there to be a claim and then a reference. The reference must support the claim in the article, and not some other claim. I am astonished that the claim 'there is disagreement' is supported by a reference to only one side of the supposed disagreement, for two reasons. (1) the claim is vague: just how significant or widespread is this disagreement? If the claim is that it is widespread, that needs a reference - not least because I believe the vast majority of scriptural reasoners would not recognise the validity of this claim; (2) there needs to be a reference that shows that the supposed 'other side' acknowledges there is disagreement, and has entered into it. If the claim is 'I think there is a disagreement, but the other side refuses to acknowledge that it exists', that is a different matter entirely. As to where the onus or burden of proof falls here, I suggest it's a matter of what the majority of people think is prima facie the more plausible claim, based on their experience of scriptural reasoning as a practice. I was also making the point that it is not acceptable to have a fact plus an interpretation of the fact, with a reference that supports only the fact and not the interpretation. For example, there is a London fatwa that anyone can read. The link to that fatwa supports the claim, 'there is a fatwa and it says x'. It does not support the claim 'some Islamic religious authorities have expressed a concern'. There is no expression of concern in the fatwa; just some quite straightforward advice. I'd like to see less opinion and more fact on this kind of thing. Nsa1001 (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

UK Bias in the Article

I think the article is too biased toward UK issues. I am a practicing Muslim in the US who have participated in various SR events for the past six years and we do not have such issues here like the ones in the UK. It is not fair for the article to talk so much about intra-UK debates, they should be cut down substantially. Otherwise, it gives the wrong impression that the whole SR activity is divided along UK lines. There are many SR activities going on in different parts of the US and we have no such issues at all! Please keep local issues more local.Sakina08 (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to echo a point made earlier by Laysha101. I suggest the following. The first section (however structured) should *describe* Scriptural Reasoning, in a way that applies to any practice, in any place. Nsa1001 (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that Scriptural Reasoning is an expanding practice taking place in various parts of the world. There is no objection to adding additional material on events in the US and elsewhere to reflect this. However, the fact that some important debates have taken place must be recorded. The fact that they happen to have taken place in the UK is not merely a "local" issue as they raise questions and have generated material which are suggested to be applicable to SR practice anywhere in the world -- whether or not you agree with these suggestions -- hence the debate (eg. Islamic juridical documents discussing the conduct of SR, Rules of Scriptual Reasoning by Peter Ochs, Oxford Ethic by the SR Society, etc). The fact that there are guidelines for Scriptural Reasoning generated by folk in the US does not imply that these are merely "local" in impact either. This Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a Public Relations promo to promote Scriptural Reasoning, that we all love each other and the sun shines all day, and you really should come to our meetings. Like other Wiki articles, it is a dynamic and not always flattering description of particular facts or phenomena, with disagreements contained on both sides. Just take a look at other contentious religious articles in Wikipedia scripturalreasoning 13:06, 03 December 2008 (UTC)

I made some suggestions about this local/non-local discussion above - see the comment headed 'Another Round of Disagreement', at the end of the first long section of this talk page (the multiply-indented one, just before Nsa1001's long deletion proposal selection).--mahigton (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Sakina08 that this is a local issue. This is not because it's a significant issue for SR as a whole, but because I'm not convinced it is even a 'UK' issue (I'm in the UK). If there are (were?) some intra-UK debates, how widespread are/were they? It's hard to tell from the references (see above). There are dozens of SR groups around the world. If each group were to claim that their discussions were 'very important' or 'highly significant' this would become a bizarre article. For the experiences of one group to merit discussion in an encyclopedia article, (a) it would have to be a tremendously important group and (b) others, not in that group, would have to acknowledge its importance too. A group, and a fortiori one of its members, should not presume to determine its own significance. If an editor contributing to this article was involved in a particular group, and wants its importance recognised, he/she might consider asking for someone independent to comment. If something is important, there will surely be plenty of people to say so. Nsa1001 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion of adding referencing where such referencing is available is unobjectionable, and additions have been made by me, by mahigton and others, and clearly enrichen and add pointers to the article for further research. However, the circular suggestion that referencing via the SSR Fanzine The Journal of Scriptural Reasoning somehow constitutes unbiased academic referencing is rather silly. Unlike a properly peer-reviewed academic journal, do you really think articles on SR developments submitted to the JSR by the SRS Oxford School, or academic articles from its members (or in fact anyone who has fallen out of favour with the SSR "Elders") are ever going to get past the the Control of some of the SSR leading figures? If Nsa1001 and others who work for the Cambridge Interfaith Programme are seriously suggesting this as neutral "academic referencing" then it warrants some unpacking. scripturalreasoning 23:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars of the history of the Oxford school, so I do not dispute the validity of what is written in this article. However, the bulk of what is written here with regard to the historical justification for its existence seems to me to be irrelevant and uninteresting to SR as a practice for audiences outside the UK. I think its existence and emphasis on the "tradition" warrants mention, but certainly not with the detail provided. The maulana (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To echo some of the earlier comments, this article does seem far too skewed towards UK-based issues. To begin with, I question the relevance of including the opinions of the Chief Rabbi of England and the London Beth Din on the practice of SR. Although Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is a well respected man and highly regarded in Orthodox circles, his position on any matter is hardly authoritative for world-wide Jewry, and his statement would not affect the practice of more progressive Jews, even inside England, one way or another. If one wants to speak to traditional Jewish approaches to interfaith scripture study, one need look no further than the Talmud to find them. (See for example BT Sanhedrin 59a, Hagigah 13a, or Avodah Zara 26a).

Furthermore, I have been doing SR for several years now in Toronto, Canada, and the issues around governance and parity which led to the development of the Oxford school do not remotely reflect our experiences here. In fact, prior to reading this entry, I was not even aware of the existence of the Oxford school! The article prompted me to speak to some colleague here who are also veterans of the practice with connections to other SR groups in both the US and Britian, and they had not heard of it either. This seems to be a description of a small, UK-based, break-away group (how many members are there???) that has been given a disproportionate amount of airtime on a page which is purporting to describe a world-wide phenomenon. I agree with the comments above, that perhaps its existence is noteworthy and that the questions it raises about the nature of authority are worth some consideration, but perhaps a short sentence pertaining to "emerging approaches" in the Resources and New Developments in SR section and a link to the group's Community Ethic document would suffice.Lavdavka (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. A perusal of the article will demonstrate that the actual description of the "Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School)" occupies a single paragraph of a few lines at the bottom of the section which carries its name. The bulk of the material in the section under that heading which carries the title "Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School)" is an account not of the latter organisation, but rather directly an account of the circumstances and events in which the behaviour of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme which hosts the SR Theory Group and all the other Society for Scriptural Reasoning structures, with which you and your colleagues will be aware, is drawn out. This critique of how SR has gone disastrously wrong is important, because it relates to the behaviour of Scriptural Reasoning structures (in this case as it happens in the UK) vis a vis faith communities -- and must be a salutary tale for SR groups everywhere, for the future - and so that same mistakes are not repeated. If it is the case that SR in the United States and Canada and elsewhere has not been involved in money-grabbing, instrumentalising and commodification of the sacred practice of Jews, Christians and Muslims reading their sacred texts together, then wonderful that these behaviours have never been extant there. However, this Wikipedia article is not here to provide a marketing platform for how great SR is, but rather to represent things that have happened, even if they are politically embarassing to some of those who have very successfully suppressed and whitewashed out the story. scripturalreasoning 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group

The establishment of a "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" of referential oversight comprising some SSR founder members, led to a debate over whether or not such structural developments in Scriptural Reasoning constituted a "Fourth Position" (i.e. structures beyond the positions of the three participating faith communities), with contested viewpoints expressed on both sides of the conversation, and practitioners in the original Society for Scriptural Reasoning have not accepted that their practice can aptly be described as a "Fourth Position".

There is no reference supporting the claim that there is a 'Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group'. Unless this claim can be substantiated, I suggest it is removed. Google returns only one site in response to a search for 'Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group', and that is the 'Oxford Ethic' self-description page which repeats, but does not substantiate, the claim that there is such a group. Nsa1001 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. --mahigton (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

deleted. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: this deletion was immediately reversed by scripturalreasoning

In specific regard first of all to the reference over the "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group", the fact that Nsa1001 can't find a reference on "Google" doesn't mean it doesn't exist! This is extraordinarily absurd. The members of the Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group includes David Ford and Peter Ochs founder members of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, and why don't you go and ask them? The existence of this group was a catalyst for signficant events including the issuing of the Fatwa and referencing in the Oxford Ethic The deletion is clearly politically motivated, and frankly nonsense. --scripturalreasoning

Trying to find a polite way to say this: Is scripturalreasoning suggesting that the SR Reference Group is a secret society? I can't see any other way of interpreting his/her position. After all, as far as I know, there is no mention of it in the writings of Ford or Ochs on the subject of SR. This is odd, if it really forms an important part of how they think SR ought to work. Laysha101 (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" was proposed first in Spring 2007 in meetings and written correspondence, as a structure of "oversight" comprising Scriptural Reasoning "elders", in the first instance David Ford and Peter Ochs (I believe someone else too). There is written correspondence in discussion of this proposal, and one of the SR Reference Group members thereafter has stated its existence in person in more than one meeting with various people -- ie. there are witnesses, and it is extremely unlikely that any of the SR Reference Group's eponymous members would deny that it exists/existed, so go and ask them. At the time of the proposal, part of the context and rationale for the bringing into existence of such a body was the idea of a group of founders to exercise "gentle oversight" in the precise words of one of its members over SR, including in relation to a serious controversy going on at the time and since, regarding the appropriate handling of sacred texts (including Quranic Arabic texts) in the original languages on a website and matters of their desecration (I am not going to elaborate further than this as this is a very bitter issue). The idea that a multifaith group containing non-Muslims might begin to make judgements as to what is or what is not appropriate in regard to the treatment of Quranic and hadith texts was something that led to shall we say, some unhappiness. The Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning restated the traditional position in Islamic law in regard to reservation of all such authority to the Muslim community alone. What status such SR Reference Group has as of today, how far the project went, whether the group continues to exist or has petered out, I have no idea - given that the fatwa and the Oxford Ethic have expressed particular views in opposition to the notion of such a project. The entry in the Wikipedia article, simply records the facts that these events took place -- They did. There are witnesses. People met and talked. There was stuff written back and forth about it (in writing). And so the Wiki entry simply records that this issue arose, and it was a catalyst for significant disagreements which have generated significant documents since. I think it is overdue that there was an article in the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning detailing these and other debates from **both** points of view, but somehow I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon. --scripturalreasoning 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am not in a position to argue about who said what to whom when. This whole thing passed me by (which, since I've been actively involved in SR since well before 2007, itself says something about the scope & impact of any Reference Group "project"). But the article as it stands gives (IMHO) the impression that the reference group exists now, and it now appears that nobody's claiming that (your claim, if I read you right, is that an attempt was made to set it up & at least one person has in the past claimed to be part of it; you specifically deny up-to-date knowledge). From your account it also appears that the reference-group issue arose within a larger "serious controversy". In that case I suggest that the article should refer to the larger controversy that's ongoing, and not to the reference group that, as far as anyone knows, isn't. PS I am typing onehanded & it's hard for me to move text blocks - could someone please move this section of the discussion to a separate heading? thanks. Laysha101 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Nsa1001 (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that this contested claim still appears in the article, now in a footnote. Contested, unverifiable claims are no more acceptable in footnotes than in the main body of text. I suggest it be deleted, but would welcome the views of other editors, please. Nsa1001 (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial conflict, accusations of censorship, and NPOV

User scripturalreasoning has persistently claimed that several of those who have disagreed with him or her on this talk page are engaged in politically-motivated censorship. (See earlier discussions on this talk page for numerous examples.) He or she has attempted to justify those claims by drawing attention to a particular disagreement in which he or she was involved. It seems that some longstanding practitioners of Scriptural Reasoning, including members from what appears to be the user’s own religious tradition, disagreed with user scripturalreasoning about the conditions under which Scriptural Reasoning should be undertaken by members of that religious tradition.

That this disagreement took place has not, I believe, been denied by anyone. However, user scripturalreasoning has used this talk page, and the article itself, to advance a particular interpretation of that disagreement. He or she has interpreted this disagreement to mean that the prominent members in question, founder practitioners of Scriptural Reasoning, have set themselves up as an authority over against the authority of user scripturalreasoning's religious tradition, and that the network of which they are members has implicitly or explicitly accepted such a downgrading of the authority of religious tradition.

Whatever the facts of the original disagreement, this interpretation of it's implications is clearly a matter of opinion. And it is a contentious opinion. I, for instance, do not find user scripturalreasoning's interpretation of the disagreement in which he or she was involved plausible. To state my own opinion (acknowledging, of course, that it is simply an opinion), I see the original disagreement much more simply as one in which certain longstanding practitioners of Scriptural Reasoning, including members from what appears to be user scripturalreasoning's own religious tradition, taking advice from other members of that same tradition, disagreed with a specific proposal from user scripturalreasoning - nothing more.

The editorial conflict that faces us on this talk page therefore involves two sides. On one side, we have several editors who regard as unacceptable the attempt by an individual editor to use this article and talk page to promote a particular opinion – a particular interpretation of the nature of the practice and principles of the original Scriptural Reasoning network – particularly as they believe this opinion to be no more than the personal opinion of that one editor.

If these editors are right, then the Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy, in the section on Undue Weight, states the appropriate outcome: 'Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.'

Of course, if it should instead turn out that the opinions expressed by user scripturalreasoning are verifiably held by a significant minority (rather than a single individual), then the same policy points the way forward: (1) any statement of that minority opinion in the article would needs to be explicitly (and verifiably) presented as the report of an opinion of an identifiable group, and (2) such reports would need to be given a weight appropriate to the prominence of that minority. (The policy states, after all, that 'Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.' Elsewhere the same policy states that 'In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity.')

On the other side of this editorial conflict, of course, we have the individual editor, user scripturalreasoning, who regards as unacceptable censorship any attempt by other editors to move in the direction described. To demonstrate that the editorial policy described in the previous paragraph counts as unacceptable censorship, all that user scripturalreasoning needs to do is present evidence to show that his or her opinions about the practice and principles of the original network of Scriptural Reasoning are verifiably the opinions of more than one person, or more than the opinions of a 'tiny minority'. (And standard Wikipedia practice suggests that where contentious claims are involved, verifiability by 'reliable sources' is indeed central – and that, I take it, is the point of the call for a higher level of referencing than is normal for uncontentious Wikipedia content, a call which user scripturalreasoning has repeatedly called hypocritical on this talk page.)

Of course, even if it should turn out that user scripturalreasoning's views are verifiably representative of more than a tiny minority of those who comment on Scriptural Reasoning, they will still need to be presented clearly and verifiably in the article as the opinions of identifiable persons or an idenitifiable group.

It is worth noting that no evidence presented so far suggests that the opinions expressed by user scripturalreasoning (and I mean, of course, his or her opinions specifically about the existing practice and principles of Scriptural Reasoning as conducted by its founders and the network associated with them) are shared by anyone else. Indeed, quite the opposite seems to be the case: we have heard from some Scriptural Reasoning practitioners who find his or her descriptions of it to be unrecognisable as portrayals of the practice in which they are and have been involved. We have also seen references that suggest that the members of that network remain publicly committed to the principles that user scripturalreasoning claims they have abandoned.

It seems clear, therefore, that the burden of proof now rests firmly with user scripturalreasoning.

--mahigton (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's helpful to have a clear statement about Wikipedia guidelines and the need to follow them. This usefully makes a distinction between the level of support needed for uncontested claims, and the level of support required for contested claims. If mahigton is saying "contested claims need to be verifiable, or they should not appear in the article", I agree. This is an appeal to standard Wikipedia good practice and should be acceptable to all editors, whatever their views. The first sentence in Wikipedia:Verifiability is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It's important this discussion is kept civil, so - lest this seem a battle of wills between scripturalreasoning and mahigton - it would be good if other editors might comment on whether mahigton has correctly interpreted Wikipedia guidelines, and whether he/she has fairly represented the material on this talk page. Nsa1001 (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read the above. And without extending this discussion into a subjective meander about what does or does not constitute a "minority view", the views expressed and referenced in relation to the Scriptural Reasoning Society (Oxford School) and its approach to SR are enshrined officially in its founding documents as a Registered Charity, the Oxford Ethic and also in juridical documents such as the Fatwa issued by other authorities -- and arose historically as a critique of certain events in which were involved practitioners of the SSR. The Scriptural Reasoning Society is the largest network of Scriptural Reasoning groups in the United Kingdom with a membership substantially in excess of the SR Theory Group at Cambridge - to which latter, I suspect some other users on this page have direct or collegial connection. By virtue of their membership of the Scriptural Reasoning Society and signing up to the Oxford Ethic, which they must, our member SR groups explicitly hold the views referenced in the latter document. What is so absurd about the idea of summoning the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view undue-weight-to-tiny-minority (the example given was the question of the billions who believe in the spheroid earth versus the handful who still hold a flat earth belief -- say 0.001% of the population), is the pretence being tendered here that Scriptural Reasoning is an activity in which thousands upon thousands of people participate. It is not, and I have good reason to believe that more than one of the protagonist users on this page are actually members of one small clique (the JSR lists for example the membership of the SR Theory Group at an approximate number at around 35 -- really rather less than the Scriptural Reasoning Society membership) which is now proceeding to set itself up as a "vast majority" over a proportionately "miniscule minority" percentage-wise - viz. spheroid vs flat earth proponents. So I'm not going to waste time arguing this silly position.

On the matter of verifiability, I do have some sympathy. And where there are viewpoints that are expressed they have been referenced wherever possible, but even the protagonist users themselves have accepted that this is not possible in every case. In some instances, where very significant events have taken place, but have not been published, there are nonetheless written records of what has gone on. I am in the process of considering whether to publish these, but have said repeatedly that I have exercised a certain restraint in doing so in order to avoid personalising these matters too greatly -- as they could be potentially embarassing for some leading figures in the Cambridge Interfaith Programme and elsewhere. Therefore, I have already dropped a line in the discussion note above, to ask Nsa1001 or any other person to clarify if the CIP have no objection to these materials being posted publicly on the internet -- from where they can be directly referenced in the Wiki article. Once I hear back a no objection note from any of you who have a line of communication via the CIP, then the points which have been given as "unpublished correspondence" will in due course be visible online for all to see and consider "verifiable". I also repeat that the SSR editorial control of the Journal of Scriptural Reasoning means that it is not an exhaustive resource of everything that has happened or is "significant" in Scriptural Reasoning, and the absence of a reference in this publication does not mean that something didn't happen or isn't significant. I don't intend to get into more meandering debates than this. scripturalreasoning 17:04, 19 December 2008

Thank you for restating your case - but I think you have misunderstood what I was asking for. Reference to the Oxford Ethic or to the Fatwa does nothing to provide the demonstration for which I have asked you, and which I believe the Wikipedia policies demand. I am asking you for some verifiable demonstration that people other than you hold that the descriptions you have propagated of the principles and practice of the founders of SR and the networks associated with them are fair and accurate descriptions. Neither the Oxford Ethic not the Fatwa contain such descriptions. They contain directives for how SR should be done, and indications of pitfalls to avoid - not accusations about any specific persons or groups whose practice or principles are supposedly different. The fact of someone signing up to them therefore cannot be taken to imply that person's acceptance of the burden of those accusations. Yet it is those descriptions that are at issue - and I do not think it absurd to hold that an encyclopedia article on a worldwide practice - in which, you are right, many, many people are involved - should give any place to those descriptions if they are indeed the opinion of only one person. If you are able to demonstrate, in some verifiable way, that those descriptions are held to be accurate by a significant minority, then I will of course support the inclusion in the article of a section which describes those views, alongside responses by those who think that those descriptions are a thoroughgoing misrepresentation - to the extent, of course, that such a debate can be represented neutrally, verifiably, and not given undue weight.

As user Nsa1001 suggested, it would be good to hear from other editors about whether they think that what I am asking for is reasonable in Wikipedia terms, and whether I am fairly representing the nature of the disagreement. --mahigton (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We may be going round in circles here, and it is Friday night. I refer you to what has been written above 1) if what is sought is a verifiable reference that a founding Elder of the SSR did indeed make statements about "asymmetric" hospitality, as referred to in the Wiki article - there is written correspondence (with a named person, a date and a time), which can be published once I receive the go-ahead from one of you in a note on this message board that the Cambridge Interfaith Programme has no objection to such private correspondence being published (it has to be one of you users since I do not have a personal line of communication to their door, whereas I have good reason to believe that at least one of you does). 2) If what is sought is a verifiable reference to the point about a founding Elder of SSR discouraging the seeking of traditional juridical rulings in relation to Scriptural Reasoning, a reference can likewise be published about the SSR Elder's statement to that effect, again subject to one of you posting on this board a note saying that the CIP have no objection to such material being posted up online. 3) If what is sought is a verifiable note in reference to the point made about the proposed Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group, then there is are written records and correspondence of this proposal and meetings which were had and conversations were had on particular dates, and these can be published, subject again to one of you being in touch with the CIP and stating that there is no objection from them to such private correspondence being published online...you get the idea... The Oxford Ethic and Fatwa were as a matter of historical fact written in the direct context of these disagreements, and in many respects as a direct response to them, and there is reference to the existence of this debate in those documents -- eg. reference to the SR Reference Group proposal. If though what is being demanded by you now is for the whole gruesome blow-by-blow account, then what will be needed is to go public on certain matters which I have already said that for reasons of tact, and to avoid further unhappiness in this bitter dispute, I have tried to handle sensitively. That is why I will only put all this stuff up online after I am notified on this message board of the consent of the other party -- hence one of you needs to pick up the phone to the CIP, and then post a "nihil obstat" to such private correspondence being published.

As to the extent and majority-minority issues -- I think enough has been said as to whether SR is some worldwide phenomenon of thousands (which of course, it is not), or whether a significant proportion of the users who have posted here actually come from the same tiny little SR Theory Group of a couple of dozen people. Furthermore, turning round your argument of onus of proof to you, my having one or two personal friends who are actually members of the SR Theory Group and who have in private expressed sympathy with the critique about the direction and management of SR, such as has more publicly been championed through the SR Society/Oxford School, I think the onus would perhaps lie on you, mahigton to demonstrate that there is such a solid consensus on the other side, as you seem to claim.

I repeat that unlike other users on this page who have removed material I have written up which might be politically embarassing to say the SSR, I have not deleted critiques written up in the article by other users against the position of the SR Society/Oxford School, but have rather faithfully maintained these critical comments -- and so the article does in fact state that some of the SR Society's representations/Ethic, etc are disagreed with by others and rejected by others.

On your final paragraph, I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether a straw poll of folk like me or you who have nothing better to do on a Friday night than log into Wikipedia is somehow a representative democratic vote -- especially when it is rather obvious that after a very long period of quiescence and inactivity on this Wiki article for months, all of a sudden the word seems to have been put around the SSR network in a matter of days -- and so marshalled troops rallied to a cause are hardly a representative democracy for the entirety of SR. Have a good weekend. scripturalreasoning 23:58, 19 December 2008

I hope we won't use the Wikipedia talk page to discuss, anonymously, the possible publication of material other than on Wikipedia. I very much hope Scripturalreasoning wouldn't treat an anonymous Wikipedia user's comment as an official statement from CIP - even if any other user were prepared to make such a statement in this context, which I doubt. And I hope that if s/he wants to get in touch with CIP, or with any individual associated with CIP, s/he will use the publicly available contact details for the project or the individuals concerned. I am in no position to have a view either way on the publication of any of the material discussed (this whole thing passed me by while I was busy - er - doing Scriptural Reasoning), but I'm pretty sure we can't and shouldn't sort it out here.Laysha101 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Many items on this page have been resolved, and I have started to archive them here: /Archive1. Feel free to move them back into the main text if you prefer. Nsa1001 (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that on page 1, under "Certain facets of Scriptural Reasoning may be highlighted," the arabic has been blocked. This is inappropriate. Dozens of traditional Muslim scholars internationally engage in SR practices and, to support these, they post and make use of online arabic texts.--Chaisr (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)chaisr December 26, 2008

Hi, thanks for your note. I can see both the Hebrew and the Arabic text fine on my PC, and so can my neighbouring colleague on his Mac. I have reversed the edit this time. If you still have problems with viewing the Arabic, you might want to check the installation of language packs on your computer. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)