Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Bible Contradictions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{T}{L} 12:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Bible Contradictions

Original research. Articles consisting entirely of original research should be deleted per WP:NOR and WP:DEL -Cynical 16:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Eldarone 17:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. No, its not original research - go look at the source 'Undestanding Catholicism - Rick Jones'. It is a widespread, existing belief among protestants that the teachings of the catholic church contradict the bible. I felt that quotations were the best way to present very complex arguments, easily, concisely in a NPOV. Crippled Sloth 17:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Direct biblical interpretation (rather than cited discussion of published interpretatitons in an appropriate context) is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Religion. If the particular beliefs of Rick Jones are being discussed, they should be treated as his beliefs (rather than as facts) and discussed on an article about him. —donhalcon〒 17:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

comment. Thats why its not an interperetation - its an index of quotes which protestants believe to contradict each other. It is a cited discussion of rick jones beliefs - but theyr not just his, they are the beliefs of most protestants. And I didnt present them as fact, hence the word apparent. Crippled Sloth 17:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes (see point #2). I know a lot of protestants who believe various things, including that the King James bible is not in any way an authoritative translation of the bible. Most of them acknowledge Catholicism as a form of Christianity (which the article denies). Regardless, a Protestant perspective is not necessarily the same as a "biblical" perspective, and from a standpoint of verifiable encyclopedic fact that's irrelevant anyway — matters of religious interpretation should be left to religious websites, not online encyclopedias. —donhalcon〒 17:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
So, why cant an encyclopedia have an article on a theological dispute? I never said all protestants agree with Rick Jones & Jack Chick - but many do. No, i never presented protestant and biblical as the same - i presented the king james bible and biblical as the same. If this intent is not clear, edit the page - dont delete it.Crippled Sloth 17:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have an article on the Protestant Reformation, which covers the differences between catholicism and protestantism in encyclopedic detail. —donhalcon〒 18:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it does not give near the detail, on this specific dispute as the article we are discussing. There are significant differences. Crippled Sloth 18:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information... If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. A properly cited NPOV article would be fine IMHO, but list of quotations is just tedious. It is like having an article about the sinking of RMS Titanic which just presented a list of passenger names and whether they died or not. Jll 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. They are not indiscriminate. It is the best way I could think of presenting what is an important, major theological dispute in a NPOV as informatively and concisely as possible. Wikipedia is not intended as a source of general entertainment - there are plenty of tedious index style articles. The point of the quotes is that they make the representation of a viewpoint beyond doubt. Its very different to the titanic example as it allows the religiously inclined to determine for themselves if the contradictions exist. If you think the page is quote heavy, write some analysis. Crippled Sloth 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Ill change most to some. The source would be the statement of faith of any major protestant denomination.Crippled Sloth 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment This doesn't really help on its own, since it is only an example. I would also echo the comments that others have made about the WP:NPOV problems. Jll 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete - No longer withdrawn: Unless the article is significantly altered to include sourcing of the information, context, and evidence that it does not violate WP:NOR I feel it should be deleted. If it is changed I will withdraw my vote. Not my leg 17:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Not my leg (talk • contribs) .

keep done. Crippled Sloth 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment The entire section of quotes is still just that, a list of quotes. If you want to write an article about a position (so-and-so feels catholicism is not christianity) then do it. As it stands now it is still a list of quotes preceeded by a brief statement of "context." I would suggest taking each of your sections, writing what Rick Jones, or someone else, believes, and using the quotes to evidence their position. I am open to recinding my vote, but at this time I remain in favor of deletion. Also can I suggest that you begin posts after the first with comment rather than keep as it will prevent people from thinking you are trying to vote multiple times.Not my leg 17:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am, for the moment, withdrawing my vote for deletion. The article still has major problems, but I am willing to wait on casting my vote now. I am not voting to keep yet either, but I will take my discussion to the talk page.Not my leg 18:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment After looking at the article, and trying to discuss some possible changes I have decided to change my vote back to being in favor of deletion. As the article currently stands I don't know how it can be salveged. I tried a rewrite, but couldn't get through more than a section without stalling and being at a complete loss for how to make this NPOV. I think that there may be a topic somewhere in there, but it would need a total rewrite.
  • comment Ive made significant changes. What current reasons for deletion still stand? Ive got some ideas fore more sections in typical article style which would make it more article like. Ive put some in the talk page, but im too tired to write them now. Crippled Sloth 19:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NOR violation that cannot possibly be remedied as long as the article remains in its current form. I could very easily dig up entire scholarly articles debating the "true meaning" of almost every single Bible passage listed, so to simply dump the quotes onto the page without any attempt to provide context renders the article useless. In addition, the article is also a rather nasty - some might say outright bigoted - WP:NPOV violation ("Catholic views" vs "Biblical views"? That's not just opinion, it's Catholic bashing.). --Aaron 19:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well biblical views vs catholic views is how many protestants see it (reported POV of some protestants not authors POV), call them catholic bashers if you like. Im reporting this oppinion objectively, not holding it. Its a genuine theological dispute, to claim that reporting it in detail is nasty is censorship. If catholicism is consistent with the king james bible then the 2 views should be the same. As I used a NPOV i left this assesment to the reader. There are a huge number of christians who claim the bible is accessable and says what it means. That profesional scolarship is required to understand the bible is a biased oppinion. If you want to write a section at the end about those who believe that the bible needs expert interperetation, be my guest. Crippled Sloth 19:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's irrelevant that "many Protestants" see it that way. The terminology is inherently biased and directly implies "Well, there's the Catholic view and then there's the Christian view." It's a thinly-veiled way of saying "Catholics aren't real Christians." That's an opinion, not a fact, and opinions are not allowed to be posted as fact on Wikipedia. And I'm not accusing you personally of holding these views; it would be fine with me if you did, as that's your business, not mine. I'm purely concerned about the article and whether or not it adheres to Wikipedia policy. By the way, Catholics generally don't use the King James bible. --Aaron 20:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Im not posting it as fact - im posting it as the oppinion of 'many protestants'. Isnt that clear from the article?????? If not EDIT IT TO NPOV. dont just cry for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crippled Sloth (talk • contribs) 15:13, February 27, 2006.
  • Wikipedia is not a forum for debate, nor for discussion of opinions outside the context of articles about the persons or organizations who publish those opinions. Moreover, comparison articles are almost never encyclopedic, nor do they often maintain a neutral point of view. The content in the article is clearly written to advance the notion that catholicism is incompatible with biblical texts; there is no conceivable way to edit such content into a perspective that respects the breadth of religious interpretation that is required to preserve a neutral point of view. —donhalcon〒 20:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not supposed to have to edit it to make it NPOV; you're supposed to make a good faith attempt to create it as NPOV in the first place. (Which I fully believe you did, by the way; I just don't think your attempt was successful.) In any case, I don't think a few edits will fix the problem; the article itself is presenting a specific argument, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. --Aaron 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia has an article on arguments for and against the legalisation of recreational drugs. Thats arguments in a debate if ever i saw them. I understand im supposed to make in NPOV - but i thought, and still think i had done. A catholic counterargument would make it more balanced, but i dont know enough. Crippled Sloth 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- personal advocacy. AnonMoos 19:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Why does everyone think im POV? Im reporting the oppinions of people who are POV/advocating personal oppinions. Tell me how the non quoted text is biased and ill change it. Fix it, dont delete it. Crippled Sloth 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The quotations you have provided are all based on one individual's point of view, or the point of view of a particular ill-defined group of individuals. The addition of "(some)" to a few of the sentences that carry a point of view does not significantly mitigate the point of view expressed by that text. —donhalcon〒 20:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It is hard to define any group of protestants. Some should be added to all sentences. The quotes cannot be considered biased as they are quotes. The article is about a debate in which the "point of view expressed" is the proposition. If you believe other perspectives need to be written from, then request that this occurs rather than that the article be deleted129.234.4.76 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that any perspectives on religious interpretation should be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. If you want to present a religious interpretation and/or contrast views on it using a confrontational, quote-heavy style, start a blog. —donhalcon〒 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Im not posting interperetations as fact. Im posting interperetaions as reported oppinions.
  • Delete - POV, soapbox, original research. Gentgeen 20:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you see it as POV, then request a change to NPOV rather than deletion. I still fail to see how it is POV though, ive removed all weasel words. Its not original research - look at my source Understanding Roman Catholicism - Rick Jones available onlnie at www.chick.com. Here the oppinions/POV of some protestants which i have reported are given. What is a soapbox? 129.234.4.76 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've reformatted the page to make it easier to read. Nobody's comments or votes have been changed. --Aaron 21:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. AnnH ♫ 21:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you see it as POV, then request a change to NPOV rather than deletion. I still fail to see how it is POV though, ive removed all weasel words. Its not original research - look at my source Understanding Roman Catholicism - Rick Jones available onlnie at www.chick.com. Here the oppinions/POV of some protestants which i have reported are given. 129.234.4.76 22:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, some things to be going on with when working on this article: avoid weasel words such as "It is a widespread (but not universal) belief...". This tells a researcher and a casual reader precisely nothing about the scope and depth of the topic under discussion and, more importantly, attempt to cover a Point of View. Articles shouldn't be partisan and WP:NPOV is a guide to avoiding this stance. The article tells me nothing about the dispute between the two authors but instead prompts in my mind the question "What line is the author trying to push in the debate?". Secondly, presenting illustrative quotes to raise awareness of a debate is not the same as contributing an encyclopædic article about said debate. How to write a great article is a good guide towards constructing something for inclusion in WP. Please read it whilst thinking of further improvements. Why not precis the debate? What is the context? What are the points of view of the contending authors? A NPOV guide to the debate is worth far more than a series of quotations which are really quite boring to read. Sources and citations for researchers? Is this debate continued in journals of religious studies? References to these would be really worth having for any researcher interested in the debate. In summary, NPOV; introduction with topic & scope; analysis of POV of subjects' work; one or two illustrative quotes so as not to disrupt the flow of the article; summary if appropriate; citations, references and further reading. I hope that my comments are useful. I would like to read about the debate but I can gain nothing from reading this article as it stands.  (aeropagitica)  21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV and Original Research (and badly done at that, so possibly not even serious). Str1977 (smile back) 21:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you see it as POV, then request a change to NPOV rather than deletion. I still fail to see how it is POV though, ive removed all weasel words. Its not original research - look at my source Understanding Roman Catholicism - Rick Jones available onlnie at www.chick.com. Here the oppinions/POV of some protestants which i have reported are given.129.234.4.76 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

comment POV - If weasel words are the issue, could someone please rephrase the article to remove them. If unequal representation is the problem, then lets find an expert on catholicism to add a catholic response section. I see the rebutals as extreemely complex, and do not trust myself to transcribe them to NPOV reliably. Original Research - Understanding Roman Catholicism - Rick Jones (www.chick.com). 129.234.4.76 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. KHM03 23:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned, most importantly that it violates NPOV. While one could request it be neutralized rather than deleted, salvaging this article would require changing the title, the structure, the wording of every single section and adding major content. In other words, it would require deleting what's there now and writing something completely different, so therefore... delete it. We shouldn't be keeping something just because its content is related to an encyclopedic topic. Tuf-Kat 01:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I couldn't agree more, Tuf-Kat. --Cúchullain t / c 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tuf-Kat. AndyJones 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no way to edit this down to NPOV. Slippy0 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I dont see how that is so. 129.234.4.76 13:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: 1) the fact that it's quotes makes it original research. Possibly someone else's, but original research nonetheless. An article on the alleged controversy might be encyclopedic, but only if the controversy itself is verifiable. 2) The Bible is inconsistent with itself - you can't reasonably expect any document to be entirely consistent with it. 3) Mainly it violates NPOV as it is merely thinly-disguised Church - bashing. The Catholic Church doesn't claim the catechism is consistent with every single word in the Bible. I only looked through a few examples (I just couldn't take any more) and they all said, not that the Catholic Church isn't Christian, but that it isn't Protestant, hardly a fact meriting it's own article. Peter Grey 08:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The line of argument being reported, is that the catholic church isnt biblical. Crippled Sloth 13:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • What does Biblical mean? NPOV is violated by the implication that the catechism is flawed, that the contradictions imply something. The Bible is interpreted in a particular context. Aside from the lunatic fringe that believes the Bible is to be interpreted literally, there is no objective measure of what it is to be Biblical. And, again, the catechism isn't intended to be Biblical by Protestant standards; you might as well have an article that the Theory of General Relativity isn't Biblical. Peter Grey 18:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Biblical means consistent with the bible. That the catechism is flawed/contradictions mean something is not an implication. Its the oppinion of many protestants which i am reporting in NPOV. "there is no objective measure of what it is to be Biblical" - most protestants, in fact almost all christians would disagree. Most believe that the bible is literal except for certain well defined parts (the parables) - especially the reported speech of jesus is considered literal. This is an important article as these contradictions are behind much protestant rejection of catholicism - which is noteworthy. No one in their right mind would consider the theory of relativity a biblicaly/christian doctrine - catholicism on the other hand... Crippled Sloth 22:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • All that you're saying is that Catholicism isn't Protestant (in fact a very specific meaning of Protestant), not that it isn't "Biblical", whatever that is. You're also saying that Catholic (and presumably Greek and Russian and Bulgarian Orthodox) perspectives are not valid in assessing what is Biblical. You might want to check, you know, the Bible, it mentioned Jesus' opinions of the Pharisees who believed they monopolized interpretation. Peter Grey 23:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • comment I thought I had gotten out of this, but I can't help but come back in now. When you say that almost all christians would disagree that there is no objective measure of what it is to be biblical you are doing one of two things. Either claiming that catholics are not christians, which backs up that this is personal advocacy, or claiming that almost all christians agree to a strict literalist interpretaion of the bible, which is patently false. Most don't care about wearing cloth of two different fibers, for example. Even those that do accept a strict literalist interpretation usually grant some wiggle room for potential human error in transcribing the perfect word of God. Otherwise many would argue that a strict literalist interpretation would make the bible not internally consistent. That is another topic though. The point is that your claim about the meaning of biblical is by no means agreed upon by "nearly all christians". Not my leg 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • comment i cant see any definition of biblical other than "what the bible says". Some Protestants claim that the inconsistencies mean catholics as non christian (they see christian and protestant as synonymous). This line of argument i am reporting, not advocating. Possibly my last comment came out wrong. what i meant to say was "nearly all christians do not think you can interperet the bible however you like and still call yourself a christian". Most christians see some books (ie gospels) as strictly literal, and others as metaphorical (ie genesis). Not - its all whatever you want it to be. 129.234.4.76 10:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • cant see any definition of biblical other than "what the bible says" That's the bias right there. The Bible says a lot of things, many of which have nothing to do with Christianity. Peter Grey 15:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Summary of the defense case thus far. There seem to be 4 main areas of debate.

  • 1. Is it NPOV?

I would say so. Its intended as an article on the belief that catholic dogma is inconsistent with the bible. Such a belief is biased and some would call it church bashing. I think i have reported it in NPOV - the quotes from the catechism are catholic view fact. The quotes from the king james are biblical view fact. The commentary is relatively short (and i believe completely objective). If anyone still believes that to be biased/weasel words ill change it if they tell me whats wrong. I think thats everything. It doesnt give catholic counterarguments, see style.

  • 2. Is it an apropriate topic to wikipedia?

To reitterate Its intended as an article on the belief that catholic dogma is inconsistent with the bible. If such a belif had a name (something-ism) this dispute wouldnt arrise. The fact that it does not have a such name does not change its appropriateness as it is a theologicaly important, published belief. If you can think of a better name for such an article, then by all means suggest a move - i was at a loss when writing it.

  • 3. Is is original research?

The quotes given for each argument are the same as in one of the sources, Rick Jones - Understanding Roman Catholicism.

  • 4. Style

Yeah, its not great. It could really do with more context, and more sections than just the quotes one (for which ive put suggestions in the talk page). Im new to wikipedia, and was under the impression that people could submit work in progress articles and people would help them finish them. If this is not the case, and articles should be finished/rounded before submission then i guess delete it, ill "finish" it outside wikipedia and resubmit it.

  • On NPOV. What exactly do you all define NPOV as? I undestood it to mean 1)giving all opinions in reported speech, and 2)not using biased/weasel words in commentary. As far as i can tell ive done this. Are there any requirements ive missed?

Crippled Sloth 09:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment There are plenty of different descriptions of what 'NPOV' is, but presenting original research expressed in one book as accepted fact is definitely not NPOV Cynical 16:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original Research, with a nice big helping of NPOV-violation on the side. --Wingsandsword 04:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NPOV... Misleading, and prejudiced. In addition, the author's points are highly debatable and are all one-sided opinions/interpretations of the Bible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.8.237.206 (talk • contribs) 13:19, March 1, 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. This is one person's original research being presented uneqivocally by another. Similar criticisms could be levied against many other sects and religions in their interpretation of scriptures. Similarly this is just evidence, not fact and not analysis, for criticisms of the Catholic Church, and as such is just a list. This could be filtered and entered into an appropriate article. Donbas 12:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Context-free quotes selected specifically to portray one side in a positive light and another in a negative light - why is there any debate on this at all? I see no third views, no discussion of underlying theological concepts for either side, and no rationale for the quotes as chosen except they make Catholicism look bad to Protestants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.126.61.241 (talk • contribs) 13:39, March 2, 2006 (UTC).
  • Merge with Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church, wherein there is a section on controversies. Seems like the right place to cite chapter & verse (literally) on the positions expounded in this article. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep don't let one religious group censor this legitimate contribution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.10.92.201 (talk • contribs).
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "one religious group", as the various users who have voted to delete so far are not all members of one denomination, or even one religion. Likewise, removing non-encyclopedic content from an encyclopedia is not "censorship", but rather judicious editing. —donhalcon╤ 18:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a valid article. Yes it needs some editing, but there are clear and justified points regarding biblical authority and catholic belief. This SHOULD be in an encyclopedia. The points made are of interest, and seem to be based on a genuine look at the bible and catholic beliefs. Adrian Baker 16:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: some additional anon comments regarding deletion have been registered at Talk:Catholic Bible Contradictions; they should probably be taken into account as anonymous contributions to this discussion. —donhalcon╤ 21:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Catholic_Bible_Contradictions_b10a.html"