This has never happened on Wikipedia before. Nearly 1000 Wikipedia editors have joined in solidarity with a union. Yes, really. They're threatening to strike: 961 accounts have signed a protest petition. It's fascinating and potentially historic. 👇

I know and care nothing about soccer, but the fact that this guy scored the goal by kicking the ball with deliberately crossed legs (so as to stay balanced) is very impressive. Practice!

Thanks to socialism, the average Zimbabwean became a trillionaire before @elonmusk 💪

Co-founder of @Wikipedia, @lsanger agrees that bias exists on the platform in an exclusive discussion on HAF’s Wikipedia page vandalism on @ndtv.

Shots fired!

We now have 20 members, and next week we will apply for official recognition in Wikipedia as a WikiProject. Last year, I said that we who have been left out in the cold by the Wikipedia community should get back involved—we might make a difference. I stand by that.

The question is: Were the books of the Apocrypha accepted in Orthodoxy and Catholicism *before* the Protestant Reformation? The answer is: There was serious controversy in both traditions. So what I meant was that before Luther stated that the Apocrypha was not Scripture per se (although he also said that it is very good to read, and he put the Catholic Apocrypha in a section between the OT and NT)—*before* all that, it was quite normal for Church leaders and theologians in Catholicism to *dispute* about the status of the Apocrypha. The best example of this is the author of the Vulgate, Jerome. Claude informs me about other skeptics of the Apocrypha from the Western Church, including Latin father Hilary of Poitiers, Rufinus of Aquileia, Pope Gregory the Great (!), Bede (!), Nicholas of Lyra, and Cardinal Cajetan—in 1532! The standard medieval biblical commentary used in universities, the Glossa Ordinaria, followed Jerome's classification. This was *not* a fringe position. FWIW—I also had to ask Claude about the Orthodox tradition. Here the position of "do respect but do not canonize" is endorsed by these: Athanasius of Alexandria (39th Festal Letter, 367) is probably your strongest single example. He lists the OT canon following the Hebrew books, then says Wisdom, Sirach, Esther (additions), Judith, and Tobit are "not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read." That's almost exactly Luther's later position, from the man who championed Nicene orthodoxy. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 4.35, c. 350) instructs catechumens to read "the twenty-two books of the Old Testament"—the Hebrew numbering—and says explicitly, "Read none of those that are not read in the churches." Gregory of Nazianzus composed a poetic catalogue of Scripture (Carmen 1.1.12) that excludes the deuterocanonicals entirely. Amphilochius of Iconium (Iambics for Seleucus) does the same, and even notes that some dispute Esther—showing how live the canon question was. John of Damascus (8th century, Exact Exposition 4.17) lists the OT following the Hebrew canon, mentioning Wisdom and Sirach as "admirable" but outside the numbered canon. Origen and Melito of Sardis (c. 170) both give early canon lists that essentially follow the Hebrew books, Melito's being one of the earliest we have—he traveled to Palestine specifically to settle the question. Thus saith Claude. But back to Luther. He took a definite stand because he was committed, on principle, to reclaiming the original Christianity from the various ways in which it had, even by 1517, been twisted by Catholicism. Thus he was committed to Sola Scriptura; but this then raises the question, "What is Scripture?" So he took a stand on that question of the status of the Apocrypha. The Catholics DID NOT similarly take a stand on the question until the Council of Trent. Similarly, I am informed (again by Claude) that Orthodoxy settled the matter in 1672 by the Synod of Jerusalem, in direct response to the Protestant reformers. There is still variation, however. "The Russian tradition under Philaret of Moscow (1839 catechism) distinguished canonical from non-canonical books in a way that echoes the older patristic pattern."

Wikipedia's bias is global.

It isn’t often that a philosopher gets a philosophically important case before even a state Supreme Court. Check it out!

By me in @JNS_org: 🧵 An anti-Israel Wikipedia editor was indefinitely banned on May 25 from editing articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The editor, known as “TarnishedPath,” has made more than 54,000 edits on the site and was sanctioned through Wikipedia’s Arbitration Enforcement process, in which administrators enforce rulings issued by the site’s Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia’s highest dispute-resolution body in contentious topic areas.

What are the most horrifying modern practices (that you believe to exist) that will eventually go down in history as truly horrific, though we may not admit that they exist or that they are actually so bad?

Hey @Grok , is it true that Joseph Smith and his family sacrificed a number of animals, in the years leading up to the (alleged) discovery of the golden tablets, purportedly to appease some evil spirits?

I'm the one who got this legislation proposed. Watch this video. youtu.be/6PqicYT_Cis I am coming clean. My nonprofit, pftk.org did this. Watch the video, it explains it. Trust the plan.