text:
Rylands Library Papyrus P52

The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John's fragment and with an accession reference of Papyrus Rylands Greek 457, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 x at its widest (about the size of a credit card), and conserved with the Rylands Papyri at the John Rylands University Library Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38. Since 2007, the papyrus has been on permanent display in the library's Deansgate building.

Although Rylands 𝔓$52$ is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text, the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The original editor proposed a date range of 100–150 CE, while a recent exercise by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, aiming to generate consistent revised date estimates for all New Testament papyri written before the mid-4th century, has proposed a date for 𝔓$52$ of 125–175 CE. A few scholars say that considering the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows the possibility of dates outside these range estimates, such that "any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries."

The fragment of papyrus was among a group acquired on the Egyptian market in 1920 by Bernard Grenfell, who chose several fragments for the Rylands Library and began work on preparing them for publication before becoming too ill to complete the task. Colin H. Roberts later continued this work and published the first transcription and translation of the fragment in 1935. Roberts found comparator hands in dated papyrus documents between the late 1st and mid 2nd centuries, with the largest concentration of Hadrianic date (117 CE to 138 CE). Since this gospel text would be unlikely to have reached Egypt before c. 100 CE, he proposed a date in the first half of the 2nd century. Roberts proposed the closest match to 𝔓$52$ as being an undated papyrus of the Iliad conserved in Berlin; and in the 70 years since Roberts's essay the estimated date of this primary comparator hand has been confirmed as being around 100 CE, but other dated comparator hands have also since been suggested, with dates ranging into the second half of the 2nd century, and even into the 3rd century.

Greek text
The papyrus is written on both sides and hence must be from a codex, a sewn and folded book, not a scroll, roll or isolated sheet; and the surviving portion also includes part of the top and inner margins of the page. The recto consequently preserves the top left corner of a right-hand page; while the verso preserves the top right corner of a left-hand page. The characters in bold style are the ones that can be seen in Papyrus 𝔓$52$. The recto text comes from the Gospel of John 18:31–33:

Eleven lines of the text are lost, containing 18:34–36. The text translates as:

The verso text comes from the Gospel of John, 18:37–38:

The text translates as:

There appears insufficient room for the repeated phrase (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) in the second line of the verso, and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through haplography.

The writing is generously scaled – letter forms vary between 0.3 - 0.4 cm in height, lines are spaced approximately 0.5 cm apart, and there is a margin of 2 cm at the top. It can be determined that there were 18 lines to a page. C. H. Roberts commented: ".. to judge from the spacing and the size of the text, it is unlikely that the format was affected by considerations of economy". There are no apparent punctuation marks or breathings shown in the fragment; but the diaeresis is applied to an initial iota at both the second line of the recto and the second line of the verso; and possibly too on the first line of the recto. Taken together with the over-scaled writing, this suggests that the manuscript may have been intended for congregational reading. If the original codex did indeed contain the entire text of the canonical Gospel of John, it would have constituted a single quire book of around 130 pages (i.e. 33 large folded papyrus sheets written on both sides); measuring approximately 21 x when closed. Roberts noted a glued vertical join in the papyrus slightly inside the inner margin and visible on the verso, indicating that the large sheets used for the codex were likely to have been specially prepared for the purpose, each having been constructed from two standard sized sheets measuring approximately 21 x, with a central narrower sheet approximately 21 x constituting the spine. Roberts describes the handwriting as "heavy, rounded and rather elaborate", but nevertheless not the work of "a practised scribe" (i.e. not a professional bookhand). Roberts notes comments that had recently been made by the editors of the Egerton Gospel (P.Egerton 2); and says similarly it could be said of 𝔓$52$ that it "has a somewhat informal air about it and with no claims to fine writing is yet a careful piece of work".

In total, 114 legible letters are visible on the two sides of the fragment, representing 18 out of the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet; beta, zeta, xi, phi, chi, and psi being missing. Roberts noted that the writing is painstaking and rather laboured, with instances of individual letters formed using several strokes "with a rather clumsy effect" (e.g. the lunate sigma ('Ϲ') at line three of the recto, and the eta ('H') immediately following it). Several letters are inclined to stray away from the notional upper and lower writing lines. Another peculiarity is that there are two distinct forms of the letter alpha ('Α'); most are formed from a separate loop and diagonal stroke, where the top of the stroke has a distinctive decorative arch while the bottom is hooked; but on the fourth line of the verso there is a smaller alpha formed by a single spiralling loop with no arch or hooks. Also present in two forms is the letter upsilon ('Υ'); the more common form is constructed from two strokes, each stroke terminating in a decorative hook or finial (see the second line of the recto); but on the fourth line of the verso is an upsilon formed from a single looped stroke with no decoration. These observations support Roberts's supposition that the scribe was an educated person writing carefully in imitation of a calligraphic hand, rather than a professional scribe writing to order; such that, on occasion, the writer inadvertently reverted to the undecorated (and often smaller) letter forms of his everyday hand.

Roberts noted that in addition to alpha and upsilon, other letters also tend to be given decorative hooks, especially iota ('Ι') and omega ('Ω') (both seen in the seventh line of the recto). He also drew attention to the forms of epsilon ('Ε') (with an extended cross-stroke a little above the centre-line, as in the fourth line of the verso), delta ('Δ') (with a decorative arch, as in the first and second lines of the recto) and mu ('Μ') (with a central stroke dipping down to the baseline, as in the third line of the recto). Nongbri confirms Roberts observations, and also notes distinctive forms of rho ('Ρ') (with a small head and an undecorated downstroke extending well below the lower line, as in the second line of the verso), pi ('Π') (with an extended horizontal stroke, as in the third line of the recto) and kappa ('Κ') (formed like the looped upsilon with an additional downwards stroke, as in the fourth line of the recto). Aside from their sometimes clumsy construction, the sigma and eta are also distinctive in form; the sigma facing fully to the right, and the eta having a distinctive high cross stroke.

In 1977, Roberts surveyed 14 papyri believed to be of Christian origin – 12 codices and two scrolls – comprising all the Christian manuscripts then commonly assessed as likely having a 2nd century date, including 𝔓$52$. He considered that only three of these texts had a calligraphic bookhand, such as was then standard in formal manuscripts of Greek literature, or in most Graeco-Jewish biblical scrolls. Of the other eleven, including 𝔓$52$, he states that their scribes were:

"...not trained in calligraphy and so not accustomed to writing books, though they were familiar with them; they employ what is basically a documentary hand but at the same time they are aware that it is a book and not a document on which they are engaged. They are not personal or private hands; and in most a degree of regularity and of clarity is aimed at and achieved. Such hands may be described as "reformed documentary". (One advantage for the paleographer in such hands is that with their close links to the documents they are somewhat less difficult to date than purely calligraphic hands)."

It may be added that the codex of 𝔓$52$, with its good quality papyrus, wide margins, large clear even upright letters, short lines in continuous script, decorative hooks and finials, and bilinear writing, would have presented an overall appearance not far from that of professionally written Christian codices such as 𝔓$52$ or 𝔓$52$, even though its actual letter forms are not as fine, and are closer to documentary exemplars.

Date
The significance of 𝔓$64$ rests both upon its proposed early dating and upon its geographic dispersal from the presumed site of authorship, traditionally thought to have been Ephesus. As the fragment is removed from the autograph by at least one step of transmission, the date of authorship for the Gospel of John must be at least a few years prior to the writing of 𝔓$77$, whenever that may have been. The location of the fragment in Egypt extends that time even further, allowing for the dispersal of the documents from the point of authorship and transmission to the point of discovery. The Gospel of John is perhaps quoted by Justin Martyr, and hence is highly likely to have been written before c. 160 CE; but 20th century New Testament scholars, most influentially Kurt Aland and Bruce Metzger, have argued from the proposed dating of 𝔓$52$ prior to this, that the latest possible date for the composition of the Gospel should be pushed back into the early decades of the second century; some scholars indeed arguing that the discovery of 𝔓$52$ implies a date of composition for the Gospel no later than the traditionally accepted date of c. 90 CE, or even earlier.

Scepticism about the use of 𝔓$52$ to date the Gospel of John (not about the fragment's authenticity) is based on two issues. First, the papyrus has been dated based on the handwriting alone, without the support of dated textual references or associated archeology. Secondly, like all other surviving early Gospel manuscripts, this fragment is from a codex, not a scroll. If it dates from the first half of the second century, this fragment would be amongst the earlier surviving examples of a literary codex. (Around 90 CE, Martial circulated his poems in parchment codex form, presenting this as a novelty.) The year before Roberts published 𝔓$52$, the British Museum library had acquired papyrus fragments of the Egerton Gospel (P.Egerton 2) which are also from a codex, and these were published in 1935 by H. Idris Bell and T.C. Skeat. Since the text of 𝔓$52$ is that of a canonical gospel, the Gospel of John, whereas that of the Egerton Gospel is not, there was considerable interest amongst biblical scholars as to whether 𝔓$52$ could be dated as the earlier of the two papyri.

Colin Roberts
𝔓$52$ is a literary text and, in common with almost all such papyri, has no explicit indicator of date. Proposing a date for it ultimately required comparison with dated texts, which tend to be in documentary hands (contracts, petitions, letters). Nevertheless, Roberts suggested two undated literary papyri as the closest comparators to 𝔓$52$: P. Berol. 6845 (a fragment of an Iliad scroll conserved in Berlin and dated paleographically to around the end of the first century) which he suggested (other than in the form of the letter alpha) is "the closest parallel to our text that I have been able to find, a view that I was glad to find shared by so great an authority as Sir Frederic Kenyon"; and P.Egerton 2 itself, which was then estimated to date around 150 CE. Roberts stated that in the Egerton Gospel, "most of the characteristics of our hand are to be found, though in a less accentuated form"; and he particularly noted similar forms of upsilon, mu and delta.

Establishing the Berlin Iliad P. Berol 6845 as a comparator was key to Roberts proposing an early 2nd century date as plausible for 𝔓$52$; as the Berlin papyrus had been dated to the end of the first century by Wilhelm Schubart, in a landmark papyrological study which demonstrated the close similarity of its hand to that of P. Fayum 110, a personal letter, but written by a professional scribe in a "literary type" hand and with an explicit date of 94 CE. In proposing a date of around the middle of the second century for P. Egerton 2, Skeat and Bell had also relied on comparison with P.Fayum 110; together with Abb 34 (now known as B.G.U. 1.22 and dated ca. 110–117 CE), a letter in a documentary hand of the time of Trajan; and P.Lond. 1.130, a horoscope of late first or early second century date. The Berlin Iliad has since been re-edited in the light of more recent discoveries, but confirming Schubart's conclusions as to its dating around 100 CE, and its close relationship to the dated literary type hand of P.Fayum 110; and it remains a primary exemplar of a particularly distinctive form of first/early second century CE calligraphic book hand. Roberts in turn was also to advance P. Fayum 110 and Abb 34 (though not P.Lond. 1.130) as dated comparators to 𝔓$52$, identifying P. Fayum 110 as the "most important parallel" he could find among dated documents, and noting in particular that both of these showed the same two forms of alpha in simultaneous use. Nongbri notes other instances where the letter forms in P. Fayum 110 are a closer match to those in 𝔓$52$ than are the counterpart forms in P. Berol 6845; specifically delta, pi, rho and epsilon. In his later career, Roberts reasserted the close resemblance of P. Fayum 110 to both 𝔓$52$ and P. Egerton 2.

Roberts also proposed two further dated papyri in documentary hands as comparators for 𝔓$52$: P. London 2078, a private letter written in the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE), and P. Oslo 22, a petition dated 127 CE; noting that P. Oslo 22 was most similar in some of the more distinctive letter forms, e.g. eta, mu and iota. Roberts circulated his assessment to Frederic G. Kenyon, Wilhelm Schubart and H. I. Bell; all concurred with his dating of 𝔓$52$ in the first half of the 2nd century. Kenyon suggested another comparator in P. Flor 1. 1, a loan contract dated 153 CE; but Roberts did not consider the similarity to be very close, other than for particular letters, as the overall style of that hand was cursive. In the same year 1935, Roberts's assessment of date was supported by the independent studies of A. Deissmann, who, while producing no actual evidence, suggested a date in the reigns of Hadrian (117–138) or even Trajan (98–117). In 1936 the dating was supported by Ulrich Wilcken on the basis of a comparison between the hand of 𝔓$52$ and those of papyri in the extensive Apollonius archive which are dated 113–120.

Philip Comfort
Subsequently, other comparator literary papyri have been suggested, notably P. Oxy. XXXI 2533, where a literary text of the second century in a hand proposed as very close to 𝔓$52$ is found written on the back of a re-used document in a late first century business hand; and also three biblical papyrus codices; P. Oxy. LX 4009 (an apocryphal gospel fragment, dated paleographically to the early/mid second century); and P. Oxy. L 3523 (𝔓$52$) and P. Oxy. LXIV 4404 (𝔓$52$) both dated paleographically to the later second century. In addition, the discovery of other papyrus codices with second century hands, such as the Yale Genesis Fragment (P. Yale 1), suggested that this form of book was more common for literary texts at this date than had previously been assumed. Consequently, until the 1990s, the tendency amongst New Testament commentators, supported by several paleographers such as Philip W. Comfort, had been to suggest a date for 𝔓$90$ towards the earlier half of the range suggested by Roberts and his correspondents. However, a cautionary note was raised by the discovery that a papyrus fragment in Cologne constitutes part of the Egerton Gospel. In this fragment the letters gamma and kappa are separated by an hooked apostrophe, a feature infrequent in dated second century papyri; which accordingly has been taken as implying a date for the Egerton Gospel closer to 200 CE – and indicating the perils of ascribing a date for a papyrus text of which only a small part of two pages survives.

Brent Nongbri
The early date for 𝔓$104$ favoured by many New Testament scholars has been challenged by Andreas Schmidt, who favours a date around 170 CE, plus or minus twenty-five years; on the basis of a comparison with Chester Beatty Papyri X and III, and with the redated Egerton Gospel. Brent Nongbri has criticized both Comfort's early dating of 𝔓$52$ and Schmidt's late dating, dismissing as unsound all attempts to establish a date for such undated papyri within narrow ranges on purely paleographic grounds, along with any inference from the paleographic dating of 𝔓$52$ to a precise terminus ad quem for the composition of the Fourth Gospel. In particular Nongbri noted that both Comfort and Schmidt propose their respective revisions of Roberts's dating solely on the basis of paleographic comparisons with papyri that had themselves been paleographically dated. As a corrective to both tendencies, Nongbri collected and published images of all explicitly dated comparator manuscripts to 𝔓$52$; demonstrating that, although Roberts's assessment of similarities with a succession of dated late first to mid second century papyri could be confirmed, two later dated papyri, both petitions, also showed strong similarities (P. Mich. inv. 5336, dated around 152 CE; and P.Amh. 2.78, an example first suggested by Eric Turner, that dates to 184 CE). Nongbri states "The affinities in letter forms between (P. Mich. inv. 5336) and 𝔓$52$ are as close as any of Roberts's documentary parallels", and that P.Amh. 2.78 "is as good a parallel to 𝔓$52$ as any of these adduced by Roberts". Nongbri also produces dated documents of the later second and early third centuries, each of which display similarities to 𝔓$52$ in some of their letter forms. Nongbri suggests that this implied that older styles of handwriting might persist much longer than some scholars had assumed, and that a prudent margin of error must allow a still wider range of possible dates for the papyrus:

"What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of 𝔓$52$. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century documentary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of 𝔓$52$, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel."

Nongbri resists offering his own opinion on the date of 𝔓$52$, but apparently approves the relatively cautious terminology both of Roberts's dating, "On the whole, we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which (𝔓$52$) was most probably written"; and also of Roberts's speculations on possible implications for the date of John's gospel, "But all we can safely say is that this fragment tends to support those critics who favour an early date (late first to early second century) for the composition of the Gospel rather than those who would still regard it as a work of the middle decades of the second century". Nevertheless, and notwithstanding Nongbri's statement to the contrary, some commentators have interpreted his accumulation of later dated comparators as undermining Roberts's proposed dating; but such interpretations fail to take into account the essential similarity of Roberts's and Nongbri's main findings. Roberts identified the closest parallels to 𝔓$52$ as being P. Berol 6845 and P. Egerton 2, then dated paleographically to 100 CE and 150 CE respectively; and proposed that the most probable date for 𝔓$52$ would lie in between these two. Nongbri rejects paleographically dated comparators on principle, and consequently proposes the closest dated parallels to 𝔓$52$ as being P. Fayum 110 of 94 CE, P.Mich. inv. 5336 of ca. 152 CE and P.Amh. 2.78 of 184 CE; each, he suggests, as close to 𝔓$52$ as the others,  and all three closer than any other dated comparator. The consequence is to extend the range of dated primary reference comparators both earlier and later than in Roberts work; and Nongbri stresses that, simply from paleographic evidence, the actual date of 𝔓$52$ could conceivably be later (or earlier) still. Although Nongbri is concerned to demonstrate that the possibility of a late second (or early third) century date for 𝔓$52$ cannot be discounted, his chief criticism is directed at those subsequent commentators and scholars who have tended to take the midpoint of Roberts's proposed range of dates, treat it as the latest limit for a possible date for this papyrus, and then infer from this that the Gospel of John cannot have been written later than around 100 CE. .

Stanley Porter
The relationship of 𝔓$52$ to P.Egerton 2 has been further re-examined in detail by Stanley E. Porter. Porter offers two further comparator early biblical papyri for both texts, P. Oxy IV 656 (a fragment of Genesis) and P.Vindob. G. 2325 (another apocryphal gospel, the Fayum Fragment); and provides a wide-ranging survey of the history and range of opinion amongst papyrologists for the dating of 𝔓$52$ and P.Egerton 2, presenting arguments to support Robert's judgement that the two are close parallels, that they are unlikely to be of widely separate dates, and that 𝔓$52$ is more likely the earlier. Specifically he notes that P.Egerton 2 is in "a less heavy hand with more formal rounded characteristics, but with what the original editors called "cursive affinities"." Porter adds that "Both manuscripts were apparently written before the development of a more formal Biblical majuscule style, which began to develop in the late second and early third centuries." In this respect, Porter also notes that although the hooked apostrophe form found in the Cologne fragment of P.Egerton 2 is unusual in the second century, there is at least one known dated example in a papyrus of 101 CE and three others of mid or late second century date. "The result is to bring the two manuscripts together, somewhere in the middle of the second century, perhaps tending towards the early part of it."

Stanley Porter has also questioned Nongbri's assertion that valid comparisons can be made between 𝔓$52$ and documentary papyri of the later second and early third centuries; noting the warning from Eric Turner that, "Comparison of book hands with dated documentary hands will be less reliable, the intention of the scribe is different in the two cases." and in respect of this Porter cautions against what he terms Nongbri's 'overly skeptical' insistence on disregarding comparators without an explicit date, forcing comparators for literary texts inappropriately to be confined to purely documentary hands. Porter suggests that Nongbri's proposed late second and third century comparators are in several cases quite different from 𝔓$52$ so that they force comparison to focus on detailed letter forms without consideration of the overall formation, trajectory and style of the script. If, rather than undertaking comparisons document by document, typological letter comparisons are instead applied using published series of dated representative script alphabets, then, Porter asserts, both 𝔓$52$ and P.Egerton 2 "fit comfortably within the second century. There are of course some letters that are similar to those in the third century (as there are some in the first century) but the letters that tend to be given the most individualization, such as alpha, mu and even sigma, appear to be second century." Both Porter and Nongbri note that Eric Turner, notwithstanding his proposal of P.Amh. 2.78 as a parallel for 𝔓$52$, nevertheless continued to maintain that "The Rylands papyrus may therefore be accepted as of the first half of the second century". Nongbri has subsequently pointed out the limited usefulness of Porter's study due to the fact that it makes no reference to manuscripts with secure dates and thus is entirely circular (several undated manuscripts are used to provide a date for another undated manuscript).

Don Barker
An altogether different approach to dating New Testament papyri has been proposed by a number of paleographers in recent years, drawing on the notion of "graphic stream" developed by Guglielmo Cavallo. Rather than comparing letter forms of undated papyri directly with dated comparators, it is proposed that the hand in question should first be identified to a graphic stream representing the overall development of a particular handwriting style. "The way that individual letters are formed within these graphic streams is secondary to the overall style of the script". Don Barker, reviewing the proposed comparators and range of datings that have been advanced over the years for 𝔓$52$, maintains that this papyrus can be placed in a "round block script" graphic stream that is attested from the first century onwards; and notes eleven dated examples ranging from P.Oxy. 3466 (81–96 CE) to P.Oxy.3183 (292 CE) and including all the later parallels proposed by Nongbri and Turner as well as P.Fayum 110 (94 CE) from Roberts's original study. Otherwise, however, Barker rejects from this graphic stream all the other comparators proposed by Roberts and his correspondents, including P. Flor 1. 1 (153 CE). Barker maintains that the letter formation within this the graphic stream "appears to have great holding power", and proposes that it is consequently difficult to place 𝔓$52$ into a narrower time frame within it. " When the general style and individual letter features are kept in close connection and keeping in mind how a scribe writing a documentary text may write a literary text differently, it would seem from the above dated manuscripts, that a date of the second or third century could be assigned to P.Ryl. 457"."

Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse
Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse also adopt the "graphic stream" approach; and have applied it to reviewing the dating for all New Testament manuscripts proposed as having been written before the mid-fourth century, including 𝔓$52$. Since none of these papyri and parchments carry explicit dates, all must be dated paleographically; so Orsini and Clarysse propose that manuscript comparisons for such paleographic dating should be made only between hands that are similar to one another. However, and in contrast to Don Barker, their classification of hands conforms rigorously to the typology of Hellenistic Greek handwriting styles developed by Guglielmo Cavallo; applying his categorisation of hands into 'styles', 'stylistic classes' or 'graphic types' as appropriate. Orsini and Clarysse propose dates for New Testament papyri that are often rather later than the consensus dates in the Nestle-Aland lists, and considerably later than the counterpart dates proposed by Comfort and Barrett. They criticise Don Barker for assigning dates they regard as extending too early; the dating ranges they themselves propose for New Testament papyri are never wider than 100 years, more frequently 50 years, and for several early papyri (𝔓$52$, 𝔓$52$, 𝔓$46$) they propose purely paleographic dates within a 25-year range. In their paper Orsini and Clarysse state that the early parallels proposed for 𝔓$95$ by Comfort and Barrett are "inappropriate"; and, although they cite with approval Nongbri's assessment of the respective papyrological dating approaches adopted by Grenfell, Hunt and Roberts, they do not cite his specific study of 𝔓$64+67$, and none of his proposed later parallels feature in their list of stylistically similar comparators; nor do any of other papyri advanced by Barker as representatives of his proposed graphic stream. Of the papyri discussed by Roberts and his correspondents, and in contradiction to Barker, Orsini and Clarysse maintain Kenyon's proposed dated parallel, P. Flor 1. 1 (153 CE) as corresponding to the same "Round Chancery Script" graphic type as 𝔓$52$. Two further comparators they propose are PSI V 446, the official proclamation of an edict of the prefect Petronius dated 132–137 CE; and P. Fayum 87, a municipal receipt dated 156 CE; while they also note, as other commentators have done, the close similarity of 𝔓$52$ to 𝔓$52$ for which they propose a date of 100–200 CE. Consequently, Orsini and Clarysse propose 125 to 175 CE as the range of dates for 𝔓$52$; which corresponds with the "mid second century" date proposed Stanley Porter, is much narrower than the ranges envisaged by Barker or Nongbri, and implies within their dating schema that 𝔓$104$ and 𝔓$52$ stand as the earliest New Testament papyri so far identified (although, strangely, at the conclusion of their article, Orsini and Clarysse state that 𝔓$52$, 𝔓$104$, and 𝔓$52$ "probably all [date to] the second half of the second century)."

John Rylands Library
The John Rylands Library states "The first editor dated the Fragment to the first half of the second century (between 100–150 AD). The date was estimated palaeographically, by comparing the handwriting with other manuscripts. However, palaeography is not an exact science – none of the comparable Biblical manuscripts are dated and most papyri bearing a secure date are administrative documents. Recent research points to a date nearer to 200 AD, but there is as yet no convincing evidence that any earlier fragments from the New Testament survive."

Text-critical and historical significance
Finds of early Christian papyri from Egypt represent the earliest surviving indisputable physical evidence for Christianity and the Gospels. There is a considerable degree of overlap in the proposed ranges of dates for these papyri, and consequently it cannot be stated categorically that 𝔓$90$ is earlier than other New Testament fragments of apparent 2nd century date, such as 𝔓$104$, 𝔓$52$ and 𝔓$90$; it also cannot be stated categorically that it is earlier than some early apocryphal texts, such as P. Egerton. 2, P.Oxy. LX 4009. There are, in addition, a number of papyrus fragments of Old Testament books in Greek (chiefly Psalms) which have also been dated to the 2nd century, and whose characteristics have been advanced as indicating a Christian, rather than Jewish or pagan, origin. Nevertheless, since all of these papyri have been dated paleographically, and mostly with reference to the same dated documentary comparators, they may be considered as a manuscript cluster whose estimated dates will vary as a group, amongst which 𝔓$104$ is commonly recognised as having earlier features. Moreover, despite the small quantity of text, the text that survives in 𝔓$64+67$ is sufficient to provide early witness to a number of key historical claims about the Historical Jesus; though not mentioned by name, the verses in 𝔓$52$ show a man tried before the Roman authorities at a specific date (the governorship of Pontius Pilate), at a specific place (the Praetorium in Jerusalem), sentenced to a specific death (crucifixion), and all at the instigation of the Jewish Temple authorities.

If the early 2nd century dating of the 𝔓$52$ is in fact correct, then the fact that the fragment is from a codex rather than a scroll would testify to the very early adoption of this mode of writing amongst Christians, in stark contrast to the apparent practice of contemporary Judaism. Furthermore, an assessment of the length of 'missing' text between the recto and verso readings corresponds with that in the counterpart canonical Gospel of John; and hence confirms that there are unlikely to have been substantial additions or deletions in this whole portion. Other than two iotacisms (ΗΜ'ΙΝ, 'ΣΗΛΘΕΝ), and in the probable omission of the second ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ from line 2 of the verso, 𝔓$52$ agrees with the Alexandrian text base. In lines 4 and 5 of the recto, the reconstructed text reads "ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ", in agreement with 𝔓$52$ and with the Codex Vaticanus, whereas the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus and the Majority Text all have the alternative word order of "ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ"; however, this is not considered a significant variant. Since this fragment is small – about 9 x – it cannot be proven that it comes from a full copy of the Gospel of John, but it may be presumed that the original text was at least of near full gospel length, to be worth the extra care and time required in writing in codex form. On the other hand, the generous scale and format of the codex pages of 𝔓$52$ are such that it is highly unlikely that it could originally have comprised the four canonical gospels; Roberts calculated that such a codex might have required 576 pages.

𝔓$66$ is small, and although a plausible reconstruction can be attempted for most of the 14 lines represented, the proportion of the text of the Gospel of John for which it provides a direct witness is necessarily limited, so it is rarely cited in textual debate. There has, however, been some contention as to whether the name 'ΙΗΣΟΥ' (Jesus) in the 'missing' portions of recto lines 2 and 5 was originally written as nomen sacrum; in other words, was it contracted to 'ΙΣ' or 'ΙΗΣ' in accordance with otherwise universal Christian practice in surviving early Gospel manuscripts. On the assumption that the nomina sacra were absent from 𝔓$52$, Roberts originally considered that the divine name was more likely to have been written in full, but later changed his mind. This latter view is also the view of Larry W. Hurtado, with Christopher M. Tuckett maintaining Roberts' original opinion. The verses included in 𝔓$52$ are also witnessed in Bodmer Papyrus 𝔓$52$ – usually dated to the beginning of the 3rd century CE – and there is also some overlap with 𝔓$52$ and 𝔓$66$ of the 7th and 2nd centuries respectively. No two of the four contain the same exact text as reconstructed for John 18:31–38, but 𝔓$60$ seems to represent an example of the same proto-Alexandrian text-type. Kurt Aland described it as a "Normal text", and placed it in Category I, due to its age.

First publication

 * C. H. Roberts (editor), An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1935.

title: Rylands Library Papyrus P52


text:
Norman Lewis (writer)

John Frederick Norman Lewis (28 June 1908 – 22 July 2003) was a British writer. While he is best known for his travel writing, he also wrote twelve novels and several volumes of autobiography.

Subjects he explored in his travel writing include life in Naples during the Allied liberation of Italy (Naples '44); Vietnam and French colonial Indochina (A Dragon Apparent); Indonesia (An Empire of the East); Burma (Golden Earth); tribal peoples of India (A Goddess in the Stones); Sicily and the Mafia (The Honoured Society and In Sicily); and the destruction caused by Christian missionaries in Latin America and elsewhere (The Missionaries).

His newspaper article entitled "Genocide in Brazil" (1969) prompted the creation of Survival International—an organisation dedicated to the protection of indigenous peoples around the world.

Graham Greene described Lewis as "one of the best writers, not of any particular decade, but of our century".

Early life
Lewis came from a Welsh family and in later life identified – at least partially – as Welsh, but he was born at "Clifton" (which Lewis called a "quiet, rather dismal little house"), 343, Carterhatch Lane, Enfield, Middlesex, a suburb of London, to pharmacist Richard George Lewis (d. 1936) and his wife Louise Charlotte (née Evans; d. 1950). His parents became spiritualists after the deaths of Lewis's elder brothers, and hoped young Lewis would grow up to become a medium. A clever child, Lewis was bullied by other children, and sent by his parents to live for a couple of years with three deeply religious "half-mad aunts" in Wales. Having been educated at Enfield Grammar School, as a young man, Lewis tried a variety of ways to make a living in the Great Depression of the 1930s, including self-employed wedding photographer, auctioneer, umbrella wholesaler and briefly a motorcycle racer at Harringay Stadium and White City. At this time of his life, he was a "young rake and dandy" with a "love of fast cars and adventure". For some years during this period, he set up home in Woodberry Down near Manor House in London.

Lewis's different books give varying accounts of his British Army service in World War II. In his autobiography, Jackdaw Cake, he says he served in the Intelligence Corps in Algiers, Tunisia and Naples in 1942-44; elsewhere says he was eventually commissioned as a second lieutenant and served with the 1st King's Dragoon Guards, an armoured regiment in the Italian Campaign. His account of experiences during the Allied occupation of Italy, Naples '44 (1978) was called by The Telegraph "one of the great first-hand accounts of the Second World War." Shortly after the war he wrote books about Burma, Golden Earth (1952), and French Indochina, A Dragon Apparent (1951), which The Telegraph similarly praised as " the finest record of Indo-China before the devastation wrought by the Vietnam War".

Tribal societies
Another major concern of Lewis's was the impact of missionary activity on tribal societies in Latin America and elsewhere. He was hostile to the activities of missionaries, especially American evangelicals. This is covered in his book The Missionaries, and several shorter pieces. He frequently said that he regarded his life's major achievement as the worldwide reaction to writing on tribal societies in South America. In 1968, his article "Genocide in Brazil", published in the Sunday Times after a journey to Brazil with the war photographer Don McCullin, created such an outcry that it led to the creation of the organisation Survival International, dedicated to the protection of first peoples around the world. Lewis later said of this article that it was "the most worthwhile of all my endeavours".

Writing
Lewis was fascinated by cultures which were little touched by the modern world. This was reflected in his books on travels in Indonesia, An Empire of the East, and among the tribal peoples of India, A Goddess in the Stones.

Lewis wrote several volumes of autobiography, again concerned primarily with his observations of the many places in which he lived at various times, including St Catherine's Island in South Wales near Tenby, the Bloomsbury district of London during World War II, Nicaragua, a Spanish fishing village (Voices of the Old Sea), and a village near Rome.

Lewis also wrote twelve novels. Some of these enjoyed significant success at the time of publication, but his literary reputation rests mainly on his travel writing.

Testimony of war crimes in Lazio
While Lewis was a British officer on the Monte Cassino front, he witnessed war crimes (Marocchinate) committed by French colonial troops during the Italian campaign: "The French colonial troops are on the rampage again. Whenever they take a town or a village, a wholesale rape of the population takes place. Recently all females in the villages of Patricia, Pofi, Isoletta, Supino, and Morolo were violated. In Lenola, which fell to the Allies on May 21, fifty women were raped, but – as these were not enough to go round – children and even old men were violated. It is reported to be normal for two Moroccans to assault a woman simultaneously, one having normal intercourse while the other commits sodomy. In many cases severe damage to the genitals, rectum and uterus has been caused. In Castro di Volsci doctors treated 300 victims of rape, and at Ceccano the British have been forced to build a guarded camp to protect the Italian women."

- Naples '44

Family
Lewis's first wife, Ernestina Corvaja, was a Swiss-Sicilian. Sicilian life, including the role of the Mafia, was a major theme, which he explored in The Honoured Society (1964) and In Sicily (2000). While never losing sight of the horrors inflicted by the Mafia, his accounts were not sensationalist. They were based on a detailed understanding of Sicilian society, and a deep sympathy with the sufferings of the Sicilian people. The Latin connection encouraged him to travel, resulting in his first book, Spanish Adventure (1935). The marriage had however failed by the start of the Second World War in 1939. He was briefly married a second time, after the war.

He died in Saffron Walden, Essex, survived by his third wife, Lesley, and their son, Gawaine, and two daughters, Kiki and Samara; and by a son, Gareth, and daughter, Karen, from his second marriage with Hester; and by a son, Ito, from his first marriage. His son Gareth is also a published writer.

Lewis said that he believed in "absolutely nothing" and indeed "I do not believe in belief." He did not believe that humanity was making progress. He talked about "the intense joy I derive from being alive", and said he was "exceedingly happy".

Novels

 * Samara (Cape 1949)
 * Within the Labyrinth (Cape 1950; US: 1986 Carroll)
 * A Single Pilgrim (Cape 1953; US: 1953 Rinehart)
 * The Day of the Fox (Cape 1955;	US: 1955 Rinehart)
 * The Volcanoes Above Us (Cape 1957; US: 1957 Pantheon, not dated)
 * Darkness Visible (Cape 1960; US: 1960 Pantheon)
 * The Tenth Year of the Ship (Collins 1962; US: 1962 Harcourt)
 * A Small War Made to Order (Collins 1966; US: 1966 Brace)
 * Every Man's Brother (Heinemann 1967; US: 1968 Morrow)
 * Flight from a Dark Equator (Collins 1972; US: 1972 Putnam)
 * The Sicilian Specialist (Random 1974; UK: 1975 Collins)
 * The German Company (Collins 1979)
 * The Cuban Passage (Collins 1982; US: 1982 Pantheon)
 * A Suitable Case for Corruption (Hamilton 1984; US: 1984 Pantheon, as The Man in the Middle)
 * The March of the Long Shadows (Secker 1987)

Travel and miscellaneous

 * ''Spanish Adventure (1935, later disowned)
 * Sand and Sea in Arabia (Routledge 1938)
 * A Dragon Apparent: Travels in Indo-China (Cape 1951, Eland 1982; US: Scribner's 1951)
 * Golden Earth: Travels in Burma (Cape 1952; US: Scribner's 1952)
 * The Changing Sky: The Travels of a Novelist (Cape 1959; US: Pantheon 1959)
 * The Honoured Society: The Mafia Conspiracy Observed (Collins 1964, Eland 2003; US: Putnam's 1964)
 * Naples '44: An Intelligence Officer in the Italian Labyrinth (Collins 1978, Eland 1983; US: Pantheon 1978)
 * Voices of the Old Sea (Hamilton 1984; US: Viking 1985)
 * Jackdaw Cake (Hamilton 1985; new edition by Eland 2013) – an autobiography
 * A View of the World (Eland 1986)
 * The Missionaries (Secker 1988; US: McGraw 1988)
 * To Run Across the Sea (Cape 1989)
 * A Goddess in the Stones: Travels in India (Cape 1991; US: Holt 1992) (Thomas Cook Travel Book Award)
 * An Empire of the East: Travels in Indonesia (Cape 1993; US: Holt 1993)
 * I Came I Saw (Picador 1994) – extended issue of 'Jackdaw Cake'
 * The World, The World: Memoirs of a Legendary Traveler (Cape 1996; US: Holt 1997)
 * The Happy Ant-Heap (Cape 1998)
 * In Sicily (Cape 2000)
 * A Voyage by Dhow (and other pieces) (Cape 2001)
 * The Tomb in Seville (Cape 2003)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Norman Lewis (writer)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewster Jennings & Associates

This page could possibly be a real Wikipedia article... if sources for this "information" were cited. -- [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm Talk ]] 01:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete, if not expanded. Andris 15:19, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agenda of one kind or other, but mostly nonsense.  Bacchiad 19:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This article was speedy deleted (which, as patent nonsense, I agree it should have been) then Undeleted without the approriate Votes for undeletion process. It should have stayed deleted.  In other words, I vote to delete.  RickK 19:50, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote, but it did go through the Votes for undeletion process and it is not patent nonsense in the very specific way which that term is used on candidates for speedy deletion. Rossami
 * Delete: Sure seems like patent-able nonsense. Fairly ridiculous.  Is it maybe a reference to some dumb TV show or other?  Should we even be trying to read the author's mind? Geogre 21:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The context, for what it's worth, is that it was supposedly a front company for outed spy Valerie Plame. If the name doesn't get de-linked there, this will probably keep popping up. Also note some articles give a different address. Niteowlneils 01:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 17:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
User talk:S t e e l e

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Winter kills.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Winter kills.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Emperor of america.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Emperor of america.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:S t e e l e


text:
User talk:Bodnotbod/June04

In trouble? BIG TIME!
Nah, just kidding. Saw the change you made to Clinical depression, and just want to let you know that the stat comes from the Canadian Mental Health Association, which has far better survey tools for such things than I. You may wish to consider reverting it. Denni 01:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Everyone needs one easy victory a day. I'm not going to push for a revert to your edit, first, because you worded it quite well, and second, because I'm inclined to agree with you. (The stat, BTW, comes from a handbook published by the CMHA). If someone with the real goods comes along, they can revert or modify it. Denni 02:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

using Categories
The short answer to your question on Category talk:Writers by genre is to read
 * Categorization
 * m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using Categories

Some hints for doing a complete job:
 * 1) In addition to the category, include as a pipelink the person's name in Last, First format; i.e., , this way they get alphabetized correctly in the list.
 * 2) While adding them to one category, read through the article and see what other categories are appropriate.  For example, I also added Jack Kerouac to Category:Novelists and Category:American writers.  I considered adding him to Category:Poets but couldn't decide.  (You can add it if you think it is appropriate.) --ssd 05:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Convention is to add categories (and language links) to the end of the article.  Partly, this is to reduce confusion to new writers; also, it makes it easier to space out without leaving a glob of space at the top of the aricle.

Have fun! --ssd 05:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CamBottom
Hi Bodnotbod, I saw your revert on clinical depression. I have conducted a very similar argument with John Gohde on his talk page. I am not very happy with this boxing match. The compromise we reached was to replace with , which is less intrusive but still a far cry from "normal" encyclopedic info on the CAM viewpoint. Any views on the matter? JFW | T@lk  13:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Bod. It appears John has started stage III of his CAM project. This is only good news: at least we can hear what he has to say, rather than skirmishes with boxes (even boxes that aren't).
 * What I do appreciate is his scientific citations! Much of the article material is not referenced to professional literature, which makes it relatively easy to challenge ambiguous statements. Do you know if there are any wik-psychiatrists that might be able to do this?? JFW | T@lk  08:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page message. I have little to add, and quotations of journal articles that are not otherwise mentioned should be removed. But I would recommend keeping articles that appear relevant, and certainly not replace then with links to the BBC! I am too underqualified on psychiatry to give professional feedback on this particular article, but I'll give it a close reading soon... JFW | T@lk  19:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * There's an arbitration case going on with MNH right now. Comments which might help keep his knowledge but alleviate his personality would be a damn fine thing ... - David Gerard 00:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I can't find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration, where do I go? --bodnotbod 01:02, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) Found it! --bodnotbod 01:07, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * Saw your summary of the actions of MrNH. Yeah, it really is bizarre the more one looks at it.  I'm starting to believe he may be suffering from a condition best dealt with using medications.  Kd4ttc 23:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Or perhaps, more aptly, "Alternative" medications...... - Xgkkp 20:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Now now... you must be seen to be above all this. As tempting as it is to pass disparaging comments.  Bites tongue.  Clenches fists.  Gah!  It is so against my nature not to say something funny.  Right, I'm hitting the sig. button and pretending I've never seen this. --bodnotbod 20:38, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm lovin' it
Hi. I noticed your recent edits to McDonald's Corporation. You may be interested to learn of the existence of McLibel case. I have created appropriate redirects. I have left your summary intact as I think a short paragraph on the trial is worthwhile in the McD article itself, as well as a more substantial treatment in the other article. The other hospital stuff is probably less important (a flash in the pan that isn't particularly important over the fifty year history of the corporation) but I guess you thought it deserves the prominence? Pcb21| Pete 23:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I feel it's nice to have it there ;o) But, you know, I wouldn't get into an edit war over it.  If someone deletes it I'll ask them why, but I'm not gonna take it out myself ;o)  --bodnotbod 23:58, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration
Bodnotbod, I do understand your perspective about allowing the community to offer evidence (this is in reference to a note you left on the evidence page for Irismeister). I think the reason for the restriction is that arbitration cases otherwise tend to attract users who looking for trouble and like to put themselves in it. Careful restrictions on who may post to these pages helps limit the escalation of situations, which often become much more partisan than they should be by different editors showing up to say "I don't really know what happened in this situation, but {Editor 1} is a sensible fellow who does vital work here, while I've never heard of {Editor 2} but a look at his work makes it clear he's a talentless hack." I will say this - if you have evidence to offer concerning an arbitration case, the best way to handle it is to contact one of the involved parties. If you have evidence helping to clear Irismeister or demonstrate a fault of mine that led to Irismeister's comments, you can contact him on his talk page. Likewise, if you have evidence substantiating my assertions about Irismeister's conduct, you could leave a note for me on my talk page. This kind of filtering allows the parties in an arbitration to control, to some extent, the course of arbitration, and set the tone. If evidence is offered to me that I think detracts from the main point, I can choose not to use it, whereas if a random editor was able to show up and offer it, the evidence could make the case seem trivial (if, say, evidence that an editor is gay was introduced by someone who finds that offensive, it could make all parties opposed to that editor appear to be homophobic). If you still disagree with the arbitration policy, well, I think there's plenty of room to discuss it. But I thought I'd give you my impression of why it works the way it does. And as noted above, if you have evidence to offer, I suggest contacting either Irismeister or myself. Jwrosenzweig 16:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I have a completely different view of this to yourself. It seems to me that trying to present evidence via the two main combatants is precisely the wrong way to go about it.  It's like filtering evidence through either an amplifier or dampener.  Evidence should stand alone as a flat description of behaviour with a link identifying the user's edit, ie opinion is no replacement for a simple pointer towards the defendant's (if that's the right term) behaviour.

 * Introducing statements such as "talentless hack" into evidence should result in whoever posted that to be warned for a personal attack.

 * Your concerns that the case could be diluted are understandable, I guess - but I think you have to put faith in the committee itself to sift through what is valuable and what is not.

 * FWIW I had intended to examine Irismeister's edits for breaches of policy and report on them using a simple link to each instance, whether that be personal attack, edit wars or any other examples of bad practice. However, if I were to do that and then send it to you that would make me look completely partisan to you - and I had absolutely no interest in what you've done (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, I'm sure you are doing interesting work like other good users, I just mean...) since you are not the subject of the arbitration. Irismeister is. --bodnotbod 17:38, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * I completely respect your position, which is why I noted there was plenty of room for discussion on the topic. :-) I'm open to different possibilities -- I just wanted to explain why I think there is a certain logic to the current situation (although I recognize many potential challenges to that logic).  I'm sorry that I over-caricaturized how discussions become partisan.  Usually blatant phrases like "talentless hack are not used" -- editors are pretty sophisticated at finding ways of elevating one editor and showing disdain for another without getting themselves in trouble.  Sad, really.  And while I have a lot fo faith in the AC, I also recognize that they have way too little time to devote to way too many cases, which is why it takes 3-5 weeks to resolve disputes.  Right now they've taken a week to discuss whether or not to take "emergency action" to ban an editor while the case is decided....so far, they're all agreed, but they can't get a majority to vote.  Obviously, in such circumstances, I want to do as much as possible to provide the AC with all the relevant evidence with as little fluff as possible, to make it easier to find resolution more quickly.  I do like your approach theoretically, but I believe (and you're free to disagree with me) that practicality demands a filter at this point.  I recognize its limitations, however, and wouldn't die on that particular hill.  I am glad you wish to avoid seeming partisan, and so I encourage you to leave evidence on the talk page of the evidence page.  I expect the AC will read what is there.  An unsatisfactory solution, I know.  I encourage you to start dialogue about this on the talk page of the arbitration policy document.  Finally, one minor correction: I too am subject to this arbitration.  Arbitration has to take place between two parties.  At issue is Irismeister's treatment of me (that's my complaint), but I feel it is his right to have examined anything I might have said or done to create the situation.  Admittedly, at present no evidence has been submitted to challenge my behavior, and I hope and trust that none exists, but I would encourage the bringing to light of anything that shows I contributed somehow to the problem -- if I've misbehaved, I should be chastised, whether by warning, ban, or any other consequence the AC selects.  Not that you have to take any special interest in my conduct, of course.  But I do want it to be very clear that Irismeister has the right to note any misconduct on my part -- this isn't a prosecution of Irismeister by Wikipedia.  It is a dispute between two parties concerning whether or not either of them has violated Wikipedia policy, which the arbitrators will examine for merit.  I hope you don't take offense to my comments -- I very much agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I've been impressed by your work here as an editor.  But I do want to make my position clear, partially for your sake, and partially because I don't want anyone who stumbles across this conversation to misunderstand my perspective.  Sorry for taking up so much space on your talk page. Jwrosenzweig 18:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Wow! You've taken up so much space on my talk p... oh, you already apologised ;o)  I've decided just to be bold and add my evidence when I see fit using what I hope will be primarily diff links with no editorial, but perhaps some uncontroversial (ie accurate) summaries of the pattern of behaviour.  If I've done the wrong thing, well then someone will tell me to stop.  I won't need to be told twice (though, I might argue a little bit depending on the reasoning.  Thanks for compliment on my edits ;o) --bodnotbod 19:23, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Help desk query
I saw your question on Help desk about a way to show how long you've been here, and given that it's gone unanswered, I'm ashamed to admit that you may have stumped us. My best advice would be to list it on Village pump, so it'll get wider circulation. Good luck, Meelar 15:14, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, will do. --bodnotbod 16:05, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Massage/MNH
Hi Bodnotbod,

Having had my encounters with Mr.N-H before, I am following the arbitration case against him closely. However, I do not feel that the situation on Massage warrants bringing it before the AC. He has only reverted three times so far after all, and not with very abusive comments (as compared to what he usually uses).

If the situation excalates, I will be sure to put in my bit, however.

Rasmus (talk) 15:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * (Oops. Sorry about putting this on your user-page). Rasmus (talk) 16:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * No probs ;o) --bodnotbod 16:43, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * My argument would be that it is the cumulative effect of the behaviour over a broad range of articles which will be most compelling. So, I would say that your argument would result in failing to bring the strongest possible case to the AC.  However, I've got a solution - I'll basically put a recommendation under one of my full accounts that x y and z articles should also be taken into account for similar behaviours.  That seems like a compromise I can handle without boring myself to tears ;o) --bodnotbod 16:31, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Gay Icons
I added some people to the category, like Twiggy, Joanna Lumley, and Julie Goodyear. I created an article on her just so I could put her in there. TheCustomOfLife 00:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * What are your other categories? Perhaps I can help. :) TheCustomOfLife 01:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I added Joan Crawford. That's the only one I know for certain. I loved that scene in Mommie Dearest where she's replacing her daughter on The Secret Storm and she's drunk on-camera. Back then, they did the soaps live, so there was no time to re-tape or anything. TheCustomOfLife 01:20, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I was so excited I responded on my talk page. TheCustomOfLife 01:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * True about Jimi. He was probably more of a drug user than an alkie. TheCustomOfLife 15:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rienzo point-blank refuses to believe that Grace Kelly (Princess Grace of Monaco) was a gay icon, and we've gotten into a bit of an editing war over the category. Perhaps you can throw in your two cents? TheCustomOfLife 18:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I wish I could say that was helpful, but it really wasn't. Plus, the argument had ended hours ago. TheCustomOfLife 03:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry. I'm completely dispassionate on this one.  But I'm glad the argument has ended.  That's the main thing. --bodnotbod 03:44, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * Check my talk page. TheCustomOfLife 03:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * One last bit at my talk page. Mike H 22:31, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Your comment at the village pump
It wasn't a f&!*ing defeat it was a fucking defeat! I've decided that I hate all swiss I hate that referee for the time being. If you fancy cheering up check out my talk page. Before tonights game I decided to paint the george cross on my tits and upload a picture of them to Wikipedia. I'll shall probably delete the picture pretty soon I'm so depressed theresa knott 22:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * They are actual tits. They are great tits theresa knott 23:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * OK so you want a real bust? Then that's what you'll get. (I aim to please) check my talk page theresa knott 09:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

British sitcoms
I created the category British sitcoms seconds before you created the other category. I've added shows to it...I was just trying to help. Mike H 00:56, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * You replied on my user page, you silly. :) Thanks for replying, and I moved your reply to my talk page. Heh. Mike H 01:41, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * It's quite all right. Nothing I couldn't change. :) :) Mike H 01:48, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome!
Glad to have you aboard. I appreciate your clear-headed, rational, and gentle approach to discussion that I've seen on the George W. Bush page. It's refreshing. Cheers! (Toasting his Beck's beer.) Kevin Baas 22:20, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Re: your remarks at the reference desk
Very kind of you, sir, very kind. I figure people like must be at the end of their rope to end up posting cries for help at encyclopedias (and we get them frequently...the last one was a woman, poor soul, who was desperate for advice of how to rid her home of evil spirits that were tormenting her children). If I can say or do anything to increase peace in their lives for a moment, well, even if this whole encyclopedia sinks someday it will still have been worthwhile. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:31, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MrNH
See: Requests_for_arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health. Thanks for alerting us to this one - for some reason it wasn't on Template:ArbCommOpenTasks so I (and probably other AC members) simply forgot about it. --mav 04:54, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Cheers. It was giving me a real pain. --bodnotbod 05:00, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

 * 3 months is good news. It should give everyone time to whip those pages into shape. Personally I'll be taking a short rest (of about a month) first though so I can go about undoing some of the damage with a fresh eye. As for me being busted - I think not! You know as well as I do that I delivered on my promise. I am innocent. theresa knott 14:02, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe... but first, museums of Belgrade :) Nikola 07:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"When will they learn? That pile of dead bodies out back is starting to smell. --bodnotbod 22:05, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)" Now that's comedy.--Wasabe3543 07:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

James Harries
Ah, so someone else was watching that program ;)

I wonder if they are going to complain to OFCOM. Morwen - Talk 23:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * It surprised me how attacking the film was. I guess the family were too desperate both for money and exposure to get a clause in the contract stating they'd have final say on whether it should be broadcast. --bodnotbod 16:40, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bodnotbod/June04


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of murdered people (0th nomination)

Does this page serve any purpose? The way it stands it doesn't appear very useful: as an alphabetical list it provides the ability to search by name (the Search function takes care of that already), but doesn't provide any other useful information. It also seems limitless, so it could easily grow by millions of names. Exploding Boy 01:26, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * This page serves the purpose of listing famous/notable people who have been murdered. (What search function could provide the same list?) The "other useful information" can easily be accessed if one follows the links. And it only seems limitless because, as experience has shown, people soon run out of names to add (cf. the edit history of cover version). In other words, I don't see the slightest problem with that page. Keep.  01:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * See, it doesn't say it's a list of famous/notable people who have been murdered, and I didn't recognize most of the names on the list, so they can't have been that famous. Also, many of them are probably only famous for having been murdered, which is a whole other thing.  The search function I'm talking about is is to the top left of every page on Wikipedia. Surely if these people are so well-known one would be more likely to search for them by name.  Exploding Boy 02:31, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * As all lists of people, it's supposed to include only people who already have articles in Wikipedia or are likely to get one (i.e. they are famous). It's currently in the format "Name, Year, Annotation" and part of a death-related series. Keep.-- User:Docu

 * OK, I withdraw my vote for deletion, but I'd like to see the page cleaned up, and the entries standardised. Exploding Boy 03:22, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: I see from this list e.g.: Lili Wang. Why do the people mentioned here qualify for an article in Wikipedia? Is there a consensus / policy / guideline that being a murder victim is grounds for notability? Ianb 05:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh man. Keeeeeep. Barely. I'm not convinced of it's usefulness, but it might turn into something interesting.  However, keeping it makes me want to create List of people who died of old age and List of people who died from their own stupidity.  :-)  Ocon | Talk 04:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * keep (barely) but only if the people listed are otherwise notable. I see no point in a long (and incomplete) list of murdered random people. Ianb 05:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep, I suppose- it is useful information, though I think it would be moreso if it were sorted by date. Besides, don't we already have a lit of people who died from their own stupidity? -FZ 18:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Abstain: Someone created a List of people who died with a tortoise shell on their heads. Listmania is outrageous.  Also note that people who enter minor folks sometimes hit the List of first and then rationalize the article from that, rather than the other way around.  The more nebulous the list, the more susceptible to tomfoolery.  This one's probably useful (keep), but the list shouldn't warrant an article; only an article should warrant inclusion on the list. Geogre 21:15, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Abstain. I just want to predict that all you people who voted "keep" are going to regret it when someone starts adding all the names of the 9/11 victims (and that's just the start). --Zero 16:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Rename. List of notable murdered people. --Jll 12:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Supoort a rename to List of notable murdered people — siro  χ  o  00:28, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming, support keeping. To be consistent, we'd also have to append an "of notable people" to every list on Lists of people by cause of death. Current policy already forbids adding non-notables to the article namespace. Keep the existing article titles. If you must, create a template to stick at the top of every list. --Benc 09:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: this is an excellent idea. Wiki is a very spontaneous medium, and I suspect most people don't stop and read the guidelines before they list their favourite personal cause de celebre. Of course, this doesn't such a template will be universially heeded, but it makes it easier to point out that someone doesn't belong on a list. Ianb 09:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)