User talk:Tyler Chinappi

Welcome!

Hello, Tyler Chinappi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Getting started

Hi Tyler. Getting started on a Wikipedia article can be daunting, but the key, I think, is to start by carefully reading the article and trying to figure out what's missing. It might be that a certain key fact is missing. Or it might be that a concept is explained, just not very well.

If you look at the Christian pacifism article, you'll notice that the section on pacifism in the Old Testament is short on text - it's basically three quotes. Can you find a source that deals with the topic and use it to add to that section? Or any of the other subsections in the "Origins" section of the article? After all, they're almost entirely built from quotations from primary source material, which is not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. There's plenty of source material on pacifism in the New Testament. It should be very easy to use a source or two to write about the topic. Describe what scholars have written about any of those topics. Or just about any other section in the article. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm really glad you're thinking about flow (a lot of people don't!) While it's really to you, here are a couple things to think about. If you can find something to say that elaborates on the opening thought, adding a sentence after "Whilst pacifism is only a minority practice in modern Christianity, the concept has scriptural and historical support" might be one way. Another might be to elaborate on the last sentence in the section - either replace it entirely or something along the lines of "and has been interpreted that way by [whomever]". You could also add another (sourced) example - maybe Amos? - or something that ties these all together: "this has formed the basis of [someone's theology]" or something like that. (I'm just guessing that references exist to support these.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Question

Ian,

Just a question... I just added a few sentences and a citation directly to the Christian Pacifism article, however I did not see my name and article as being edited on my course page as I saw some of my other classmates who have also completed the assignment. Does it take some time to show up on my course page? Was I supposed to sign my edit or do it in my sandbox first? I can see my edit in the article and the citation, just want to make sure my professor sees that I did the assignment. Tyler Chinappi (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I just checked and I saw my work under the "Activity" button for my course page.Tyler Chinappi (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Help message

Hi Tyler. User:Sage (Wiki Ed) is helping out with your class now. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tyler! I'm taking a look at what you've got in your sandbox. The first thing that jumps out to me is that you should answer the question "according to whom" explicitly. This is a topic that I'm guessing there are a wide variety of opinions on, so when you use a particular source that claims that the roots of pacifism are to be found in the Old Testament, do in the form of explaining that specific person's viewpoint on it. If you start with that, it will go a long way toward making the tone more appropriate for Wikipedia. (If you do that, you'll probably also change the way it's written with respect to the reader; things like 'God tells us' put the reader in the position of a follower to whom God is speaking, rather than a more neutral perspective that describes what the content of the Old Testament as a historical document.) Hope that helps! When you've taken a pass at that, let me know if you'd like me to take another look.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again! It looks like you were on the right track in terms of attributing viewpoints to the people who hold them; better to do more of that and edit it down later for style than to leave it out. Your article got some edits from User:Jytdog, which helped quite a bit in removing some of the non-neutral parts that didn't belong. In my opinion, the good next step would be to try to find sources that put some of these viewpoints into historical context. Are there different places and times where there have been specific trends in Old Testament exegesis regarding the role of pacifism in Christianity? If you can find some sources that put the topic into that kind of historical context, they may help with moving the article towards a well-rounded overview. As it stands, we have some specific viewpoints discussed — which is a good start — but not much to help a reader make sense a bigger picture or understand which viewpoints are, or have been, the most historically influential.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Tyler- Wow! A lot of great thoughts here. Here’s what I think can help take it to the next level: Consider rephrasing your article from a detached perspective, as statements sound more like personal opinions now rather than objective views (which Wikipedia calls for). An example and suggested edit for the first 2 sentences are, ‘The Old Testament has roots of Christian pacifism.’ As for the rest of the article, replacing ‘us’ with ‘people of God’ (or a similar phrase) would fix this. There are also a few grammatical flukes that should be fixed, so just be sure to go back and edit these before you post! Examples of revised grammar include: ‘God occasionally sanctions, even commands, wars,’ ‘sin and death, as well as putting the issue of war.’ Include in your revisions tense consistency when referring to God’s works as stated in the Bible. Making these edits will help the article flow more smoothly and will help drive your point home.

In terms of content, I have a couple contentions with the phrasing of the following ideas: “As long as Israel would trust and follow God's will, then the occupants of the land would be driven out in ways which made it clear that it was God, and not the strength of armies or large numbers that won the victory.” This sentence starts with one idea and ends with another- I would argue a better approach for this idea is that as long as Israel trusted and followed God, God would work God’s power through Israel to drive occupants from lands God willed them to then occupy.

2. “The Old Testament speaks of how God pursued His people of Israel, even after Israel's repeated relapses of faith, demonstrating the covenant of law and justice is rooted in God's grace, not violence.[5] Here, I’m confused about what is meant by ‘God pursued His people’? Do you mean helped? Perhaps the idea that God acts in this way (continuing to guide His people even though they keep failing in faith) out of grace, rather than to pursue violence could be made more explicit. It also makes more sense to use “repeated lapses in faith” because this means a temporary time without but eventual return to. The few sentences leading up to this (starting at ‘finally, the end result”) should be broken into separate ideas as well. You have great remarks throughout your article, and they’re sourced well, but their value gets lost in this unnecessary combination of ideas.

All in all, though, please keep in mind these are only suggestions! Know that I really appreciate the deep thought and research you obviously put into this work. Wonderful job Tyler! Petra Sen (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your feedback on my article! I appreciate it, and will work on that sentence. Petra Sen (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)