Talk:Community Rule
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Community Rule article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Recent changes[edit]
I cant help thinking that Empireheart has waded in to change what were bullet points into prose (in itself, a good thing if done well) without regard to keeping the careful content of the original points. Anything regarding the DSS is fairly contentious, and the secondary literature argues from a particular interpretation - usually the Essene hypothesis/consensus view for want of a better model - of the DSS corpus. In an article on a primary source, we surely must be careful not to bundle together interpretations with a plain description of content.
If I were looking here for information about this manuscript, I would prefer the concise and accurate bullet points to the current "There is ..." prose revison (into which have crept a couple of actual factual errors, in addition to interpretive descriptions).
I have therefore reverted to the bullet version, until a better job is done. 78.149.94.49 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Article rewrite[edit]
An anon user has rewritten the article here a couple of weeks ago. And the revision is dire! What was an article that focused on the document and its contents has now turned into an article about the interpretation of the document and (not necessarily) related people and places. Why are we having the discussion of, for example Josephus' Essenes and Qumran ruin latrines, in an article on 1QS? Or about the significance of the presence of women in the Qumran cemetery? Save that for the Qumran and Essene articles! Moreover, the few references that were in the article have been removed. In adding all this irrelevant information, the editor has removed the entirety of the description of document contents ('theological themes'). Is it too much to expect an article that concentrates on the facts, free of interpretive bias? I am undoing all the changes now, but will add select bits of the current revision to it later this evening to address lacking interpretative issues (plus an outline - it is a useful guide to structure, and a worthwhile addition to the article - though i shall probably choose a Vermes outline over Knibb's, simply as I have his work to hand) 188.126.80.175 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)