Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Biblical inconsistencies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biblical inconsistencies was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article after a rewrite.

Copy of a list I've seen all over the Internet. RickK 00:22, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Wow, great rewrite, CheeseDreams. Yes, keep this version. RickK 20:16, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

No, Mpolo did the re-write, probably after I invited him to. CheeseDreams 22:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. KeepCheeseDreams 00:23, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, but send to cleanup to add desc.s...or maybe RFE? I don't know, but not a delete, unless there's another Wikipedia article on this somewhere (please leave a note on my talk page if somebody finds that this is a copy). -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 00:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, needs cleanup, not deletion. Shane King 00:39, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep The Patriot
  • Has anybody figured out who this really is?  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 03:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cut and paste email forward. Gamaliel 00:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. An article discussing the issue generally - fine, some examples, fine, a list of passages? No. Put it this way, would I be likely to get away with putting up a list of "alleged discrepancies", showing how they are in fact consistent? The issue is inherently POV - such a list exists in order to bolster one POV. zoney ♣ talk 01:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • How is the list point of view? There's no editorialising at all, it's just a simple list with no commentry. Surely this is the best possible example of NPOV: just present the facts, let the reader decide if they are really inconsistencies or not. Shane King 01:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Mere presentation of facts is not necessarily NPOV. See the NPOV page - Fairness and sympathetic tone, Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. In this case, the stance is not even "implied".). My example above was that one could pick a whole series of facts to emphasise the consistency of the Bible. This list has been selectively picked to emphasise a POV, namely that the Bible is inconsistent. zoney ♣ talk 02:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • There's a subtle difference, it's not saying that the bible is inconsistent, it's saying it contains inconsistencies. That's the title of the article, of course you're going to pick facts that demonstrate it. What facts is it supposed to select? You'd expect an article on John Kerry to contain facts about John Kerry, and not about James Knox Polk too! I think the article is pretty crap as it stands, but that's grounds for cleanup, not deletion, like I originally said. You're also welcome to create a Biblical consistencies article to counter-balance, which I would also vote to keep. Shane King 04:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have created the Biblical consistencies article. Anyone interested in expanding it? I think it would be interesting to read. CheeseDreams 22:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think a biblical consistencies article would be terribly coherent, though it would be interesting to read. CheeseDreams 08:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • The new version is exceptionally well written. I propose that this VfD debate is no longer valid, unless someone wants to list the new article for deletion. I would note that I consider that it would have been better to begin the new article at a new location, and allow the old article and its history to be deleted. zoney ♣ talk 18:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: As Gamaliel says. Also, it's simply pathetically POV, childish, and uninformative. It is no more encyclopedic than Bible proof that hanging is good or Bible justification for slavery or whatever else: Bible proof-texts aren't articles, and neither are trash lists of "inconsistencies" in the Bible. Geogre 01:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Personal research. Undocumented opinion pairing quotes from a fairy-tale. If somebody wants to make a good encyclopedic page out of Biblical inconsistencies, this ain't it. An encyclopedic page on Biblical inconsistencies would pick maybe three big and interesting ones--like maybe God's mistakes or Who saved God from sin? or Cain's wife. This list scores points for the Christians. Nobody but a first-grade mentality would think that the first three on that list are inconsistencies anyway. This is after all just a fairy tale; fairy tales don't have inconsistencies; fairy tales have hooks for the mind. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wow! I am impressed with the new page! I suggest everyone reconsider their vote after looking at the new page. I also liked my witty comment above that I had to strike out to change my vote. :((( But this is a real Wikipedia page now, and none of my witty remarks above apply. :((( The new page needs a lot of work however. (; But there is a solid architectural design here to work from now, in my opinion! My congratulations to the turn-around artists! ---Rednblu | Talk 17:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*delete Appears to have been taken from here

• Keep if and only if completely rewritten to remove pre-existing material; otherwise delete. -Sean Curtin 03:04, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. POV title and content. And most of the items listed are obviously not inconsistencies. Eric119 04:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Text dump, not an article. If someone wants to write a real article about this topic, he can do so without this crud appearing in page history. jni 07:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewritten version. jni 08:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Needs complete rewrite and focusing, but probably worth covering. Title needs NPOVing as well. The information here at least provides a basis for what those holding this point of view consider to be inconsistency. With that huge caveat, keep. Mpolo 08:13, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be broken up into sub articles - for example, Creation according to Genesis already exists to discuss the inconsistencies (or not) there. Likewise, parts of it can be used in a "John vs. the synoptic Gospels" article. Other parts in "The Gospels vs. Paul" etc. These are major academic talking points, and should be included. CheeseDreams 08:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have just done a major rewrite, moving the article to Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible. Some more details may need to be added, and some subarticles to discuss particular points, but I have hopefully improved the situation... Mpolo 10:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

• This is a much better version. I think this one should be kept. (Though, as it appears to be a wholly separate article, I think it beyond the scope of this VfD.) Eric119 16:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Great rewrite, sir. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Replace. The article should be started from scratch. It is an interesting angle of study. But, for all we know, someone holds the copyright to this list, and it really should include opinions from all sides. So instead: cite some inconsistent verses, followed by discusion of whether they really are inconcistent. Also, talk about the roots behind this whole thing--why is it important to show that the Bible does or does not have inconsistencies? To many people it is important, and a good article will explain why. Q

This link suggest a probable owner of the copyright Geni 09:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I'm undecided if this is a topic worth an article but the current contents are usueless. Jeltz 10:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewritten version. Jeltz 15:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten version (and the redirect). - Mike Rosoft 12:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite with the new title. A valid topic for an article IMHO as it is the subject of much debate. Whether or not the current content is useful or not is irrelevant. That can be dealt with. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 13:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Definite Keep. With the new title. Plus inconsistencies in the bible is a very serious ongoing argument, and if I voted to keep the Star Wars v. Star Trek article, I really can't vote any other way here, especially for an topic more serious and with a much longer history. - Lifefeed 13:58, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't think the new title changes anything. I'm not sure if it'd help to allow rebuttals and through exploration of the topics raised -- that could be huge. It may be interesting to create argument maps, but I suspect that those really would fall out of scope of Wikipedia's mission. I'm too close to the issue to feel that I can vote in good conscience anyhow. --Improv 15:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• delete not in any way encyclopedic. --Aaaaaaa 17:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that this person may very well be a sock, as this is the user's only contribution. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 19:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Good eye! Who could it be? Surely it must be someone who voted "delete."  :)) Would someone who already voted "keep" also vote "delete"?  :(( Alternatively, it may be an "anonymous" reader who suddenly had a change of heart about registering because she or he wanted the vote to count. A mystery in any case. I will go post a Welcome message!  :)))))) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. Nice article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in its current form. Agree with Lifefeed. Fishal 21:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep new version. Needs some work, but well on its way and better than a lot of articles out there. 21:11, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep new version. —siroχo 21:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep this. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Current article is excellent. New title Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible is NPOV. — Gwalla | Talk 04:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this is a good article, I will add some to it too. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 06:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopedaic (or capable of being such), valuable, well defined subject, likely to be of interest to more than a few people. I plan to try and help it though as it does need cleanup and probably if not mistaken some NPOV and accuracy checking. But nowhere near enough to justify deletion. FT2 06:36, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it is shaping up into a real article. -- Infrogmation 21:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; like Infrogmation was suggesting, it's no longer some long list of reasons for atheists to disrespect the Bible, but now a clean, balanced report of the feelings about Biblical consistency on both sides. Very professional. --Al Fox 03:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Has some actual informational potential, and it is better than many articles we currently have. ClockworkTroll 03:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Some may not like it but a good and honest list on inconsistencies can be used as a theological learning aid even to a hard-core believer. -- Toytoy 08:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; current version is a good, NPOV article. Josh Cherry 13:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, absolutely. Grue 20:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• New version is a keeper. Fire Star 05:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep now. Entirely encyclopedia article; content now widely praised. Samaritan 10:19, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep shiny new version.
• Keep Could use some cleaning but it's miles better than the early, disputed versions. Perhaps remove the disputed flag from the page? md25 09:33, 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)
• Keep Could be interesting... [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 08:26, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Can we remove the VfD tag now? I think its fairly clear what the consensus is. CheeseDreams 21:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Second to the above proposal--Homo universalis (0:28 GMT 16.11)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.