Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 14 September 2012

Christianity Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

F. C. D. Wyneken

Friends, I noticed that much material here was deleted because it substantially copied my article, "Wyneken as Missionary." I give my permission to copy from my article as much as is needed to tell his story, or from my other works for that matter. It has been a long time since I have edited here, so I cannot figure out how to restore it. Would someone do so or, even better, expand the article based on it? It is really busy here as we approach the end of an academic year. Thanks! --CTSWyneken

Requested move

On the Talk page of Depiction of Jesus there is a "Requested move" to Depictions of Jesus. This article is within the scope of "WikiProject Christianity" and "WikiProject Visual arts". That discussion is found here. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments in response to August 2012 newsletter

First, I would like to say that I believe it is very important to this project to have some clear idea as to which articles are considered of being, for lack of a better word, "core" importance to as many topics within the field of Christianity as possible. Unfortunately, we do not at present have the banner capacity to determine a "core" importance for each related project. One of the best reasons I can think of for having wikipedia books on each of the relevant projects is that, basically, we would be able to use the book itself as an indicator of which are the most important topics to a given project's scope. So, for instance, even though we don't have a "core" priority for the Catholicism WikiProject, or the LDS project, Lutheranism project, etc., we would be able to basically have an idea which articles are included in the small number of most important subjects to any of those topics by using the book as an indicator - those articles included in the book are the most central ones to the topic.

Also, regarding the two articles selected for improvement this month, I think it is probably worth noting that both have substantial articles in at least one encyclopedia and there is to my eyes anyway probably no good reason to think that we should not easily be able to get both of them as viable DYK candidates, although there might, conceivably, be some problem in developing that much text for Nerses. But, speaking at least for myself, I do think that maybe some sort of focused attention on some of these articles, which are apparently among the most significant to "Christianity" in general, even if they are not among the most obvious articles, might be one of the better ways to help develop the more central content.

If anyone does develop the wikipedia books, please list them below. And, yes, if nothing else, I will work to try to bring both of the articles selected up to DYK level myself in a week or two at most, although I would be most appreciative if others wanted to use the sources they have to generate the content they can before then, to help ensure we get the best possible content on these topics. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ogdoad

I know this is out on the fringes of the Christianity topic area, but I didn't know of a more specific place to post about Gnosticism. The article Ogdoad covers both the Ogdoad in Egyptian mythology (a group of gods who created the world) and the Ogdoad of Gnostic belief (a group of aeons). I've argued on the talk page that the two subjects should be in two articles, as the connection between them is tenuous; see Talk:Ogdoad#Egyptian and Gnostic. I'd like input about the location of the divided articles (whether one gets the main "Ogdoad" title or whether that page becomes a disambiguation). A. Parrot (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Improve Heresiarch

Let's get together and at least de-stubbify Heresiarch; I have some good sources (listed on the talk page), and some help to get it started would be appreciated, even though it's relatively low-importance (the article Heresy could use some major work too).

Also, I've not received any of the WPChristianity newsletters (Ichthus)... I received the first one (with all of the problems of over-distribution because of a bot malfunction) and thought that there wasn't a second... if there is a second, or more, please tell me where to access them, and put me back on the list to get them. As well, now that the summer is over, I have more time to dedicate to Misplaced Pages again, so drop by my talk, etc. etc. if anyone needs help, references, writing, voting, debating, so on (I've been relatively dormant since the RFC on Genesis creation narrative earlier this year). St John Chrysostom _τω 21:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move

Discussion on name of Genesis creation narrative article at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move. -- 203.171.196.112 (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Can biblical scholars be used as sources for Acts 18:1-18?

On the talk page for Suetonius on Christians we are having a lovely discussion about the reliability of books by "biblical scholars" who are professors in well known universities. I actually do not care that much about that page, but the real issue is if professors of religion can be portrayed by some Misplaced Pages editors as bumbling fools who make "blunders", or worse that they "invent material" to suit their beliefs even if they have published over 20 books.

I posted about it on WP:RSN here as well, but given that the page is within the project Christian History which is a sub-project here, I think it is relevant here because if books by biblical scholars start to get viewed as no-no, then this entire project gets affected. Interestingly enough the only people who write about Acts 18:1-18 are of course professors of theology who are biblical scholars.

I think this really goes to the very heart of how this project can use sources, and goes far beyond Suetonius. If sources by some professors of biblical studies are ridiculed about the Book of Acts, something is amiss, for professors of Hinduism are not getting questioned for writing on the Bhagavad Gita, and Islamic scholars are not getting banned from appearing on Quran pages.

Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've only skimmed the dialog on Talk:Suetonius on Christians and I don't claim to be able to resolve the dispute therein. However, the key point here is that a Misplaced Pages editor should not dismiss a source as unreliable without another reliable source that explicitly questions the reliability of the first source. If spin control believes that your sources are unreliable, he/she needs to, at a minimum, present sources that are are claimed to be more reliable and present a different perspective. Preferably, spin control would present sources that directly criticize your sources. Unless such sources are presented, spin control's criticism of your sources can only be judged to be OR. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a long discussion, but he prefers one or two "other" biblical scholars of his liking (say the Anchor Bible dictionary) and dismisses several others as making blunders or inventing things. The issue is that if that starts as a trend, then biblical scholars can be rejected because they are labelled as "inventors", biased or blundering, etc. based on an "argument from authority" made by Misplaced Pages editors. Moreover, it is essential to note that the AD 50-51 date for the trial of Paul supported by the "blundering scholars" is already acknowledged as the "majority opinion". It is the scholars supporting it that are called blundering based on the authority of Misplaced Pages editors to judge content... Go figure... But my concern is not just that page but the entire Book of Acts and this project. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To restate my point... no Misplaced Pages editor's judgment counts for anything. If one wants to dismiss reliable sources as blunderers and inventors, one must provide reliable sources that make those judgments. If one wants to present a thesis as the "majority opinion" or an "opinion that is gaining support among the academic community as superior to the mainstream opinion" then one must provide reliable sources that say that. Failing such sources, such judgments can only be considered to be OR. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. As you said: "no Misplaced Pages editor's judgment counts for anything". I have therefore tagged the relevant section as WP:OR and asked on WP:RSN as well. But the issue does not seem to want to go away... History2007 (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Contra the title of this discussion, Acts 18:1-18 is only a small part of the evidence in discussion for issues relating to Suetonius and Roman history. We examine the significance of Claudius 25.4 about which the classicists are not as strident with assumptions as the non-Roman historians. We also look at the dating of the expulsion which regards Cassius Dio, Orosius, a letter from Claudius, and small portions of a Seneca letter and a Pliny E. comment. I have also cited a few biblical scholars on the imprecision of Acts 18:1-18 for historical purposes. The title of this thread shows the interest of my colleague.

The majority opinion found in the article is not of classicists whose field we are principally dealing with. It is of scholars from another field. It is frequently from popular books and there is sufficient error and speculation in the material to show that much of it is not reliable. Examples of reliability I noted on the talk page:

• Birge who makes the false claim that Seneca in Ep.104.1 says when Gallio became sick he returned to Rome.

This is what Seneca actually said: "I kept saying the same thing my dominus Gallio said when he began to feel feverish in Achaia; straightway he went on board ship, insisting that the sickness lay in the place, not in his body." Does Seneca say that Gallio returned to Rome?

• In a lovely little infobox Cosby (p.76) makes the false claim that Gallio was the younger brother of Seneca!

This error is made clear here though I can supply numerous other examples.

• Thiselton (p.30) makes the false claim that Seneca said that Gallio did not complete his term of office.

Checking the Seneca citation in the first point one can see that this claim is false.

• Murphy-O'Connor makes the unsupportable claim that Gallio was a hypochondriac. In fact both Gallio and his brother Seneca suffered from the same complaint, ie consumption, and Pliny notes that Gallio discharged blood in the context of a discussion of phthisis, ie tuberculosis or consumption.

And another example I supplied at length here, where a scholar seems to have simply misread the source. Scholars who prove to be untrustworthy in facts are not reliable sources.

Claims of scholarly consensus found in the article fundamentally about Roman history do not regard classicists but biblical scholars. I have cited classicists I could find and they are not reflective of the claims of biblical scholars' consensus found in the article.

Now if History2007 would remain tacit for a while, you independent editors may be able to comment. -- spin 00:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So the summary of that is that you assert that "the professors are in error" but do not provide citations from other professors who say that - just your own analysis and intellect.

And the discussion above is of course mostly about Gallio/Paul and Acts 18:1-18. There are other issues such as Cassius Dio in that article, but the section being discussed is clearly titled Gallio and refers to Acts 18:1-18 and the "the trial of Paul" is the focus - i.e. Acts 18:1-18.

And of course about two weeks ago in Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_34#On_WP:DUE you already acknowledged what the majority view was. Right? Has biblical history changed since then?

Anyway, the issue of your arguing based on your own authority against the blundering professors is obvious here. And anyone can comment any time, of course.

And now that the discussion is getting to be long, I suggest it should move on to the article talk page, given that there is a clear pointer to it here, so this page will not get cluttered. History2007 (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to engage in further fruitless discussion with an editor I believe to be tendentious in the particular article, I leave the field to independent observers. -- spin 01:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is fine with me, that is why I asked here for other views. And I specifically agree with Pseudo-Richard's statement that "no Misplaced Pages editor's judgment counts for anything". You need sources, not use your own analysis and intellect to label professors as blunderers, as above. History2007 (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you wouldn't care if they were professors of hair science. We need peer-reviewed materials and materials from scholars in the appropriate field. Verifiably inaccurate materials don't qualify. -- spin 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you got that wrong. I do not know what hair science is, but is not applicable. But the issue of "the trial of Paul" is about the Book of Acts, and most scholars who write on that are biblical scholars - not scholars from other religions. And again, as you were told by Andrew Dalby when a scholar in the field writes in a book by a well known publisher, that is WP:RS. I am sure you recall that. So you can not at will label some scholars as blunderers based on your own judgement and intellect for you may be a 12 year old, I may be a 12 year old. Any editor may be a 12 year old, and can not pass judgement on scholars. Now, speaking of that, how about stopping 12 year old type discussions and following policy, such as WP:RS, and WP:V let us say. Given that your last statement runs counter to WP:V. Of course you asked on WP:V a few weeks ago, and I am sure you recall the response there too. History2007 (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks, it is impossible. "I do not know what hair science is"! The trial of Paul itself is irrelevant to the article. Acts 18:1-18 provides a fragment of relative chronology in a complex discussion about Roman history. Suetonius, Claudius, an instigator in Rome called Chrestus, an expulsion of Jews from Rome amid Suetonius's list of problems with various races (not religions), a discussion of Acts 18:2 in the context of that expulsion, Cassius Dio, Orosius, Paul's conjunction with Gallio in Corinth, a letter from Claudius to Delphi, Gallio, Seneca, Pliny. -- spin 02:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hair science, whatever it may be, is beside the point. That section is about the use of the Delphi inscription to date the "trial of Paul" which is Acts 18:1-18. And the subject is not really complex. It is pretty straightforward, in fact. History2007 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Hair science, whatever it may be, is beside the point." That is the point. Biblical scholars are not classicists. I've said this to you many times: you don't get a brain surgeon to do your taxes. (Or a hair scientist to give you acupuncture.)

The trial itself is irrelevant, we are interested among other things in the concurrence of both Gallio and Paul in Corinth in relation to the letter of Claudius. The evidence comes from Roman sources. -- spin 02:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, biblical scholars who are professors can not be excluded from the discussion of the "trial of Paul" which is part of the Book of Acts. They publish books on it by Oxford Univ Press, Wiley/Blackwell, Baker Academic etc. And you have used several biblical scholars yourself in your edits - it is the pesky ones who say otherwise (stating the majority opinion) who seem to be getting labelled as blunderers. Again is this in play here?... History2007 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been edifying, I need to be offline for a little while, but will see you soon... History2007 (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Professors of hair science are just as relevant to Roman history. Peer reviewed journals and other peer-reviewed venues, or monographs by classicists, are fine. -- spin 03:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually as you have seen two other users on the WP:RS talk page have now disagreed with you, saying that "You don't get to label an author "a biblical scholar" and then say that therefore their publications are completely unreliable because they're the wrong kind of scholar" as WhatamIdoing said and that "we don't discount one system of knowledge production and publication, or elevate it above another" as Fifelfoo said there. As I said there, those users were both right. And those users frequently comment on that page and are fully familiar with the reliability issues.

Biblical scholars who are professors can not be excluded from the discussion of the book of Acts. That is clear. History2007 (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly ducking and weaving these days. Many times I've said I use biblical scholars regarding analysis of Acts... remember, Murphy-O'Connor and Harrington?

But you are still simply refusing to acknowledge that most of the questions we are dealing with have little to do with Acts. Here's the list once again: Suetonius, Claudius, an instigator in Rome called Chrestus, an expulsion of Jews from Rome amid Suetonius's list of problems with various races (not religions), a discussion of Acts 18:2 in the context of that expulsion, Cassius Dio, Orosius, Paul's coincidence with Gallio in Corinth, a letter from Claudius to Delphi, Gallio, Seneca, Pliny. Most of the discussion is certainly not Acts. It is Roman history. So while you turn a blind eye to most of the discussion you won't be dealing with it. Acts supplies a fragment of relative chronology. Roman history supplies all the possible fixed points. Biblical studies professors do biblical studies. Classicists deal with Roman history. So, feel free to return to your ducking and weaving now. -- spin 13:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, this specific discussion has been about the "trial of Paul by Gallio" in an article section called Gallio. That trial is about the Book of Acts. I should also note that a parallel branch of this very long discussion is taking place on the reliability talk page here as I stated there, the key points have been made there already. The long list you typed above was also typed by you on that talk page. The discussion is at the point of overflowing these talk pages now with no new issues, and only repetitions. History2007 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Then your premise for starting the discussion here seems misguided. I have used biblical scholars (at least those of the New Testament variety) regarding interpretation of Acts. As I have pointed out, that is at best tangential to our discussions on the topic of the article. -- spin 14:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, unless there are comments by other users, I will not respond to you further, given that this has become circular. Do not expect a response from me here unless there are new comments. This has become circular and can not go on forever like this. If there are no other user comments I will just leave it as such with no further comment myself. History2007 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And, as we've confirmed the apparent futility of this discussion, there is no reason for me to comment unless someone says something relevant to the Suetonius on Christians article. -- spin 14:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments requested at Biblical cosmology

Page: Biblical cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Biblical cosmology#almost exactly that of the source

There is bias at Biblical cosmology. Please come by and have a look there. Currently the resident editor and I disagree over how to summarize, non-summarize, or quote a source. This will help us all escape the pull of thinking we WP:OWN articles. Thanks. tahc 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS you should be framing things neutrally and not with "There is bias at X". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor biased against religion and specifically Christianity at religion-related articles

Will someone keep an eye on User:Pass a Method's edits to religion or religion-related articles? Or at least propose a topic ban with regard to his edits at these articles? There have been various complaints about this user's editing, not just to religion or religion-related articles, by the way. See this and this for some of the editor's other problematic editing.

With regard to religion or religion-related articles as of late, here are some problematic edits the user has made:

• Messed with the Soul article to add "mythological" to it, while removing "traditional spiritual"; this was tweaked by another editor, but "mythological" still currently remains the first descriptor.

• Removed "Christian church" and "Christianity" from the Universalism article.

• Removed the part about "church" refering to a "Christian religious institution or building."

• Added "mythological" as first description of Hell.

• At the Genesis creation narrative, stated, "I find it quite astonishing that some editors are arguing that possibly giving a negative connotation to widely-held unscientific misconceptions is somehow a bad thing. Its a GOOD thing. This show his bias.

• Biased, religion-related edits at the Golden Rule article, such as this.

• Removed Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Bible from God article. As User:Avanu stated when reverting him, "Editor shows a pattern of bias in overall edits." 94.76.201.77 (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Project-Class Christianity pages
• NA-importance Christianity pages
• WikiProject Christianity articles