Talk:Christianity/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Vandalism or helathy Criticism?

I think the recent addition to criticism is more than just vandalism. Firstly we should know that its a criticism on the world's largest followed religion. Secondly it gives related sources. Thirdly it states a renowned scholar. Even if the author is not registered the comments made is not just POV but something which is under thorough research. Don't be hurt.Faith should never fail though stories may! I think its a valuable piece of information. The more criticism we face the more truth we explore. Some facts I know: Christianity is still considered cruel in many parts of Asia and Africa where it is expanded by some fake missionaries for money - this is infact vandalism. The book by Acharya S explores history very well .Please have a look-This is my POV. Overall all the major world wars are fought by Christians,Jews or Islamic followers who have common connection of religious stories. Bible never provides nor does any artefacts of the 1st century CE that life of Christ was a truth. In general almost all the religions fail to provide strict facts as its a matter of faith! Hence I feel let it remain in criticism section and accept the truth.No Roman empire now and also Keep the faith. Philosopher1 12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Development of Modern Science" POV??

The science section probably needs some cleanup. It sounds POV to me (in my POV). The whole section states little in facts and mainly presents POV. The sub-parts on the "Galileo affair" and Darwin's evolution concept are particularly in violation of Wikipedia policy. They do nothing to present the facts of the case, the fallout or link to any authoritative page which talks about them. It merely attempts to explain the "discrepancy" away.

Please state facts with citations or attributing POV's to original authors. --BD

I don't remember all those redlinks in that section, has it been changed recently? It's possible the version you're seeing now was recently changed alot and nobody noticed. Homestarmy 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This section should not deteriorate to another pro-con section but give, in broad strokes, the general, secular trends in relation to Christianity's contribution to science (and I considered "progress" to be a bit POV, so I left it out). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions to controversy section

There have been additions to this section, which I had to remove, for the following reasons:

• "Many historians present the so-called historical Jesus as natural man who did not rise from the dead. See, for example, the Jesus Seminar."

Several errors: the Jesus Seminar has nothing to do with what historians say, as it is a bunch of liberal theologians. Also, the historical Jesus is not someone "who did not rise from the dead", but the recontruction of Jesus via historical methods. The issue of the resurrection is not open to the historical craft but a question of faith. Many historians might think that Jesus did not rise from the dead but in doing so they are speaking not as historians but as non-Christians.

• "Acharya S writes that Christ is a fable and that Christianity errs in taking Bible stories literally."

True, but a) the view of one woman is not notable enough for inclusion, b) she is already covered in the next point "A few writers propose that Jesus is a myth."

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the second one is probably the most obviously wrong one to include :/ Homestarmy 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy to allow abundance of information, not to restrict information. See Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy. Specficially, the policy of abundance is here to stop revert wars. According to that policy, we should include at least some version of both references. Anyone out there have an alternative that might be acceptable both to Str1977 and to me? If not, I'll take a crack at it. Jonathan Tweet 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I might provide it myself. We can Archarya S into the following point, so it would read: "A few writers, such as AS, propose ..." We can include a treatment of the "historical Jesus" into the the second part of that point, right after the affirmation of the historicity, but without the claim that the former denies the resurrection. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to Achary S - the lady is so unknown that it distorts the record to include her name (and probably is a disservice to more eminent figuers who have advanced the "jesus-was-a-mushroom" theory - incidentally, why isn't there a ention of that?)PiCo 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, Str, let's try: "Most historians do not treat the resurrection as a historical event," or "Most historians of the so-called historical Jesus do not treat the resurrection as a historical event." That's good by me. Also, "Academic Bible scholars generally treat the Bible as the fallible creation of human beings." These are facts, and they're relevant. Anyone want to help Str and me compromise? Jonathan Tweet 21:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Jonathan, you want to use "historians" as witnesses against the resurrection, which is not feasible. The resurrection is beyond their scope as scholars. And who are these "academic bible scholars"? I hope not the Jesus Seminar? In any case, the stances of academia, especially if they are consensus, are neither controversy nor criticism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that Str brings it up, I also have something to say, if these historians don't agree with the account of the ressurection but aren't disagreeing with it to criticize Christianity, it isn't criticism. For instance, I doubt that members of Juche believe the ressurection happened, but they aren't doing it in the context of criticizing Christianity. This is an interesting theme i've noticed through many articles with criticism sections, (such as the Criticism of Christianity article and Jews for Jesus) where people's views are noted who conflict with the subject, yet the people aren't actually criticizing the subject, they just hold a belief (or a lack of belief) contradictory to it. Homestarmy 01:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

" The resurrection is beyond their scope as scholars." Why? Whether Jesus lived isn't byond their scope. His ministry isn't beyond their scope. His death isn't. Why would his resurrection be off limits? If it happened, then why can't historians investigate it? How about this: "The fellows of the Jesus Seminar concluded that Jesus did not rise from the dead"? Specific and clean. And again, there's the Bible, which historians take to be a human creation (see documentary hypothesis, etc.). As to Homestarmy's point about "criticism," academic analysis is frequently referred to as criticism, and scholars use various types of criticsm (such as form criticism) to analyze the Bible as a historical artifact. If that's not good enough, then it's easy enough to say, "Critics point to historical analysis, which treats the Bible as a fallible human artifact." Jonathan Tweet 04:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The resurrection is beyond their scope because of the nature of the event. Also, there is no source directly narrating it but only source telling us about the disciples meeting the resurrected Christ. Jesus' life is a historical fact, his death is and the empty tomb is as well.

Please stop your trying to give the Jesus Seminar undue prominence.

As for criticism, it is unfortunate that the word is so commonly misused and your take is the more accurete definition, but this is not the scope of this section "Controversy and criticism", which deals in the latter point with voices saying "Christianity is bad because ..." or "wrong because ..."

And we don't need to state the obvious in provocative language.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (who doesn't appreciate your placing insulting tags on your user page)

To be more specific, I wouldn't object to a sentence like "Historians treat the Bible just as any other source" (though of course, those that have made big proclamation about how fake it all were actually did not to that) but I do not not see how this is anyhow relevant to the article on Christianity. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone takes the Bible to be a human creation. Some people also take the Bible to be a divine work. Theories like the documentary hypothesis have virtually no impact on religious doctrines like Biblical infallibility. Why would they? Lostcaesar 10:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is important not to expect too much from historical methods. Descartes once said that even the greatest professor of Rome, who could speak Latin fluently, still only knew about what Cicero's maid knew. Historical methods are great, but we ought not always expect a conclusive answer. Lostcaesar 10:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, we historians have come a long way from the dark 18th century where overrated dilletants like Gibbon thought themselves authorized to judge and condemn at whim. Modern historians know their craft's limitations and do not issue such sweeping pronouncements. Historiography is the reconstruction of the past according to the sources, that are necessarily limited in avaiability and in their scope. The trouble is that many take the "historical X" to be the "really existing X" - especially prevalent in this artificial dichotomy of the "Jesus of history" vs. the "Christ of faith" - the latter is only valid if he is the Jesus that really walked the earth 2000 years ago, of which the former can only give a fragmentary picture. Everyone should contemplate what historians would write about him 200 years from now and which things would be covered and which things ommitted or glossed over, even considering our age is much more documented then the 1st century. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think stereotypes are filled up even in wiki-Christianity.I wonder if this is the way a criticism and research is accepted today what would it be during Roman Empire? The whole criticism including a mention got washed off.Hail Christianity Hail stereotypes .I wonder how much of Christianity you follow is this class act?Philosopher1 11:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is a whole list of criticisms we report, even if they are really really fringe. But we merely report them. We do not endorse them. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Str, "Please stop your trying to give the Jesus Seminar undue prominence." I would love to do so. I would adore being able simply to state something like, "Scholars of the historical Jesus generally treat the resurrection as not having happened." But then LC wills step and say that he wants a source for the statement and that he wants the statement construed as narrowly as possible. So I resort to "The Jesus Seminar. . . etc." If you could persuade LC to stop demanding that academic veiws be construed so narrowly, I could stop referring to the JS all the time. Jonathan Tweet 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan, you say that various scholars use criticism (with a definition which I didn't realize was more technical, guess its back to the drawing board for me...) to "analyze the Bible as a historical artifact" and that "Critics point to historical analysis, which treats the Bible as a fallible human artifact.". Why does it matter that critics (I assume in the technical sense) treat the bible as a fallible human artifact, that doesn't say anything about which parts historians consider "wrong" or "right", which is what a fallible human artifact would ordinarily be, "wrong" in some places and "right" in others. The mere act of treating the Bible as fallible doesn't mean most historians will just dismiss everything which sounds odd to them as compleatly and utterly false right from the start, there needs to be more specifics, and of course, with the Jesus Seminar, since they essentially voted on what they thought was historical and what wasn't, it would be more helpful to specify which people in the Jesus Seminar voted against it, since I assume the whole lot of them did not together decide in consensus that the ressurection never happened. (and yes, I know here in Wikipedia its tempting to define a supermajority as consensus, I do it all the time :( )Homestarmy 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus Seminar is not particular the centre of academia. And certainly not representative of "historical Jesus research". And historians are not qualified, as scholars, to issue such statements as you would like. The jesus seminar of course doesn't care, but they are not historians but disgruntled liberal theologians anyway. A consensus (or supermajority) within the JS is not consensus of scholarship, very far from it.

The difficulty with the two meanings of criticism I already pointed out and we cannot mix them.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Str, I don't see your point. In the criticisms and controversies section we mention scholars that are "not particular the centre of academia." Since when did that become a criterion for inclusion? As for, "they are not historians but disgruntled liberal theologians anyway," if that's true, find a source and add it to the JS page. It sounds like a relevant addition if it's true. If we can't include them as critical, we can certainly include them as controversial. You're not going to assert that the JS is noncontroversial, are you? If there are no other ojejctions to the JS, then I'll include a mention of them. Jonathan Tweet 00:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What about my objection? :( Homestarmy 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, the fellows of the JS got together specifically to issue conclusions as a group. It would be beside the point to pick out who said what. As for which parts of the Bible are "wrong," could you propose an alternative wording that would address your concerns? Are you concerned that the careless reader will take "fallible" to mean "total bunk"? Jonathan Tweet 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But they did that voting thing, didn't they? Did the people on the opposite side of the vote change their viewpoint because of the supermajority so that they would ultimatly be rendering a consensus opinion? I find it difficult to believe that a Seminar could "conclude" or really even "find" much as a whole when things get down to percentages. That's not to say one couldn't suppose that the Jesus Seminar leaned one way or another concerning something, but I suspect much of the reasoning behind not including them much in many articles is because of this weird democratic way to vote on history. Nextly, I could not propose an alternate wording, as I am not familiar with exactly how most historians of the field word their opinions on the Bible's reliability, and in my opinion, something along the lines of many mainstream historians explicit wording should probably be used. (Which, by the way, doesn't mean mostly the Jesus Seminar) That way, there's no risk of it being vauge with "Most Scholars" this and "Many scholars view..." that. Homestarmy 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, "I find it difficult to believe that a Seminar could "conclude" or really even "find" much as a whole when things get down to percentages." Instead of restricting Wikipedia by opposing references to JS, please expand Wikipedia by going to Jesus_Seminar#Criticism_of_the_Jesus_Seminar and trashing it. Get references that reveal the seminar to be a hoax, a put-on, a sideshow, an illegitimate use of so-called history. Make it clear to the reader what an affront the JS is. That's what dialog in a free society is about: not suppressing the viewpoint that you dislike but supporting your opponent's right to express it and being free to argue against it. Jonathan Tweet 16:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, "The jesus seminar of course doesn't care, but they are not historians but disgruntled liberal theologians anyway." Please back that insult up. Go to Jesus_Seminar#Criticism_of_the_Jesus_Seminar and explain your position there. If the JS is a botch job, make that clear to the reader. Jonathan Tweet 16:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus Seminar. I would like everyone who doesn't want the Jesus Seminar to be mentioned under "controversies" to scroll up and see all the talk about the JS on this page and then look me in my virtual eye and say with a straight face, "There's no current controversy regarding Christianity and the Jesus Seminar." Given how much people resist the JS (and I don't blame you), I'd be happy with this: The disgruntled liberal theologians and wannabe historians of the Jesus Seminar have the audacity to overstep their legitimate field of expertise (if any) and conclude that Jesus did not rise from the dead." Jonathan Tweet 16:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Too Long, how are we supposed to shorten it? :/

Isn't this like one of those topics where you simply can't help but have a long article lest you leave out some major topic? Homestarmy 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Kill the "Too Long" tag. standonbible^Talk! 01:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

105 kb is way too big. We can easily spin off sections. Jonathan Tweet 03:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Which sections in particular? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's already a history of Christianity page, so that can be replaced by a summary and maybe a timeline. The Beliefs section is also substantial enough to be its own page if there isn't one like it already. At that point, you'd want to spin off most of the sections, following summary format. See WP:SUMMARY. Then there's all the material at the end. Is there any way to make that bibliography stand on its own? Let me tell you that there's a huge advantage in cutting an article like this one way down. Currently, it's so long that everyone wants to be sure to get their piece in. If it's summarized, then there's clearly no room for every idea, and that sort of elaboration gets pushed off to spinoff pages. Jonathan Tweet 16:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the article already in summary style? The sections which are summarizing other articles aren't exactly as long as the articles their summarizing after all, and much of this background is rather important. Homestarmy 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the legnth a problem? Just because a banner says so? What's the real problem we are trying to solve? People with dial-up will have to wait another 15 seconds or something? Lostcaesar 17:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people seem to get annoyed when they come across articles longer than about 32 kilobytes is the thing :/. Homestarmy 17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is three times as long as the recommended maximum. It's not exactly in summary style because some major sections, such as Beliefs, do not refer explicitly to spinoff articles and are longer than summaries need to be. Summary style has the advantage of moving tricky topics, such as nontrinitarians, off to spinoff pages. That's right, if you're sick of me trying point out that (lots of Bible scholars say) Jesus didn't preach his own divinity, then summary style would mean there wouldn't be room for issues like that on this page. Jonathan Tweet 19:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to trimming down some of the historical content, less for length than because having so much of it presents Christianity as an historical artifact. I think The Trinity and Scriptures might be trimmed a bit. I see that three sections are stubs where expansion is requested: Eschaton and afterlife; Demographics of Christianity; and From Paganism to Christianity. Given that this is a top-level article, the bibliography and references are pretty important, so I would be inclined to keep them. In many places the wording is the result of much debate and compromise. Honestly, I don't see this page getting much shorter without a total rewrite. That would give us a shorter page, but not a better one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Most likely the article is too long only if you are not doing any research on Christianity ;P. It's too long for some wikipedia editors. Some of us never read all of the article which we try to edit. Just my impressions... Maybe too assumptous here ;)Kmarinas86 05:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag. We can restore it if people feel it is useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Article

I hope this article is written in a NPOV way. The truth is there's no proof that there's a God and it is assumed because of a book which attacks different groups such as homosexuals. That SHOULD NOT be added into the Bible. Lonelyboy 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the opposition to Homosexuality already is in the Bible, why do you think Christians oppose it so much, we didn't just invent the opposition up one day out of midair. And while there is proof of God's existance, this article doesn't deal with the issue. (And of the articles that do, their fairly low quality)Homestarmy 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

DFTT. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I meant it should not be in the bible. There will never be proof of God's existence in less he's standing up in front of you, which will never happen. :) But it's cool that you believe in it and all. The rules in the Bible are so ridiculous. Who would remember all those rules and follow them in their every day life. It was obviously written up by some bored group of people. Lonelyboy 08:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remember, talk pages are meant solely to discuss the article and ways to improve it. —Aiden 10:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Aww, but I wanna talk to this person! :( Homestarmy 13:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions

"(Jewish communities have periodically suffered violence at Christian hands), as did the non-Christian native peoples of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Muslims have faced persecution as well, particularly during the Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista."

• non-Christian native peoples (what are the Christian natives?) have suffered violence, but this is not subsumed under persecution, as the violence was not motivated by religion. Anyway, we already have a sentence on colonialism and missionaries.
• The Reconquista is already mentioned.
• The Crusades were not acts of persecution but religiously motivated warfare. You could also say Muslims persecuted Christians during the Crusades.
• "Muslims have faced persecution ..." anyway cannot stand, posted by editors that have refused to acknowledge any kind of persecution ever perpetrated by Muslims against Christians. Please explain which specific acts you can cite to justify the epithet of persecution (as the war dead of the Crusades, or the expelled remnant from Spain will not do).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This section is very problematic, and I don't know if there is a solution. It seems as if any time in history a Christian killed someone it is interpreted as "persecution". Maybe the first thing to do would be to define what persecution is, and thereby limit the scope of material. Lostcaesar 16:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is quite simple:

• If someone is killed or otherwise seriously harmed for their religion it is persecution.
• Religious wars (in the broadest sense) is excepted, as it involves both sides facing each other with arms (otherwise there is no war but only a massacre).
• Simply Christian individuals or governments using violence against random people or groups for other reasons than religion are not persecution.

Just my view, but sensible I think. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Text size revert

After a quoted passage, y'all left the remainder of the article in the small font. 66.57.225.77 14:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, looks like it happened with the Nicene Creed argument, but I can't find the unclosed italic marks.... Homestarmy 14:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Which English translation of the Nicene Creed should be used?

I propose this one: Nicene_creed#1975_ecumenical_version 75.14.222.46 09:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That creed doesn't have an offsite reference, whereas the old one did, with the text in Greek parallel to the English, which I personally think is kind of nice. The wording is almost identical to the one you prefer, so why not use the one with a proper reference? (ps, could you perhaps get a username also, instead of an anon ip - it help to keep track in conversation).

Lostcaesar 09:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Having a web address is not the same as having a reference. What is the reference of the English translation you propose? Has it been approved by any Christian Churches? Who did the translation?75.14.222.46 10:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I believe the version Lostcaesar proposes is here: [1]. 75.14.222.46 10:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think User 75 was only objecting to the bracketing of "and the Son". The only other difference between the two texts, as far as I have seen, is the formatting: the version User 75 favours has the ICET official formatting; but I think that is a decidedly minor matter. Perhaps User 75's difficulty will be overcome by my recent editing, which points out that "and the Son" is not the only ICET variation from the Niceno-Constantipolitan text, and which in consequence omits the over-simplified statement that the ICET translation was made "from the Greek".

By the way, the wiki-reference that User 75 gives does state that the ICET text put "and the Son" in brackets. The brackets were omitted there, because it was giving only texts known to be in liturgical use.

Lima 10:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If possible, we should have a (referenced) version using the singular and not the plural, as that is closer to the original. Referenced, if we are reallly slavishly bound to copy a reference, otherwise I would propose the current one but using singular.

The Filioque should be included but bracketed.

May I ask why the reference to the Filioque controversy was removed?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article used a singular creed with the filioque in brackets and a ref, that paged the text in greek, english, and latin. An anon user had an unexplained problem and removed it. I will put it back Lostcaesar 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, now Lostcaesar has reinserted [2] this English translation of the creed [3]. My question is, who did this translation and is it approved by any churches and why should it be favored over Nicene_creed#1975_ecumenical_version? 75.15.201.233 21:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is an accurately translated version from a scholarly source, so it is properly referenced. The official versions are the Greek and the Latin, not some ecumenical version that contains errors. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the "scholarly source", who did the translation, what scholar, what churches have approved it, and why should I take your word that the ecumenical version contains errors? See Wikipedia: Reliable sources for details. 75.15.201.233 22:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources.

This page provides guidance about how to identify reliable sources. It is advisory only and not binding except insofar as it repeats policy pages. The relevant policy pages regarding the need for sources on Wikipedia are No original research (NOR) and Verifiability (V).

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. (See WP:V). Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source.

75, you have yet to say what your problem with this version of the Creed is, and it's hard want to change it if no one knows why it should be done. Lostcaesar 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made my complaint clear. What is the "scholarly source", who did the translation, what scholar, what churches have approved it, and why should I take Str1977's word that the ecumenical version contains errors? Is this article exempt from Wikipedia: Reliable sources? 75.15.201.233 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For the scholarly source, peruse the weblink (hence RS is satisfied.) The errors in the ecumenical version is the "we". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't I get a straight answer to my questions? What is the scholarly source? What scholar did the translation? What churches/denominations have approved it? Why should I believe your claim that there are errors in the ecumenical version? Do you have a wikipedia reliable published reference for that claim? 75.15.201.233 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

From "peruse the weblink" it appears the source of [4] is Dr. George Cronk, Coordinator of the Department of Philosophy & Religion, Bergen Community College, Paramus, NJ.

Am I the only one who finds this suspect?

Why should wikipedia use this translation and not the Nicene_creed#1975_ecumenical_version?

Because Str1977 claims the ecumenical version contains errors?

75.15.201.233 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you find suspect about Bergen College? I do not claim it contains errors, it is wrong in translating a singular with a plural ... plain and simple. I would have no problem with using the 1975 version if we change the "we" to "I" ... I don't think this would violate WP:V, if we explain it in a footnote. Any thoughts? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My only thought is that I would just like to know why we are doing something. I happen to like this creed because the link has English, Greek, and Latin, and I think that's pretty darn useful. I don't mind the 1975 version I guess, but if we have to change "we" to "I" then why not just use one that already has "I" in it? After all, we are better to use a source than to change another (which would make it unsourced). I have no reason to doubt the translation of the previous source. And, when I compare it with the 1975 version, it looks almost identical except for the "we" part - so what are we doing here? Lostcaesar 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be misrepresenting the ecumenical text. Why not use the ecumenical text and then explain the objections to the text and provide alternate translations? 75.15.201.233 23:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be to use the 1975 ecumenical version and the Nicene_creed#Traditional_Anglican. 75.15.201.233 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with LC, why are we changing the creed? I think the current one works just fine. --Christknight 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

75, it would not be misrepresenting the 1975 version (and stop using the term "the ecumenical text" - it is just one translation) as we wouldn't be claiming that it is the 1975 version. I would propose adding something like based on the 1975 version but ammended to reflect the original along other translations (and mention these).

I do not want to use the uncorrected 1975 version because it is incorrect and would need such circumstantial explanations, including the difference with the Eastern Orthodox. And to give more than one version would be overkill.

Finally, I do not understand why you are so bent on including this version. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are so bent on creating your own version or using a version from Bergen Community College over the Nicene_creed#Traditional_Anglican and the Nicene_creed#1975_ecumenical_version. Again, is this article somehow exempt from Wikipedia: Reliable sources? 75.15.201.233 23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons (while you haven't). Your claim that not using your preferred version is akin a violation of RS (it isn't - the Bergen link is enough) kindles in me the suspicion that you are "trolling". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

75, I agree with LC and Str, why do we need that version? It may not be exempt from Wikipedia: RS, but it is simply unneeded. Please explain why you want that one in the article so much. It does seem like you're trolling, and there is no reason for that. --Christknight 23:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect there is an undisclosed reason why 75 wants to remove this text and replace it with the other. I don't know what that reason could be, but I do know that creed translation, like bible translations, are sensitive and everyone has his favorite. Lostcaesar 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

CK, I believe 75 is trying to say that we claim this article to be exempt from RS. This is of course untrue and ridiculous, given that other versions are referenced too.

LC, certainly everyone has favourites and I can say that I like the 1975 version but I certainly do not like the "we" bit in it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So this is all a matter of what 75 thinks looks best. We all have our opinions of what looks best, as LC said, but I just don't think it's really important enough to the article to change the creed. --Christknight 00:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Another setback of the 1975 version is of course the addition of "we believe" in front of the "Church item". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, if editors are intent on quarrelling over what English version to put here, the obvious solution, indeed the proper solution, is to give here no more than a reference to the Nicene Creed article, and let the reader choose freely among those given there. I propose this strongly.

By the way, what does Str mean by saying the singular is nearer to the original? If "the original" means the text adopted by the Councils, the plural is correct. This is seen even in the Greek text in the source that he quotes for his preferred version: "Πιστεύομεν ... ομολογουμεν ... προσδοκωμεν" The Greek spelling errors (only one serious one, the others are just the omission of two accents and a breathing) are not mine: they come by cut-and-paste from Str's source, not a favourable witness to the site's "scholarly" quality. Lima 12:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree in that I think the article needs the creed. If I had to pick between the whole article w/o the creed, and just the creed, I would use the latter to describe Christianity. The Creed is a backbone of Christian belief. Lostcaesar 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The creed recited used the singular and hence the singular should be used. Also, there is no "str's source", Lima. This discussion wasn't started by me and I am not the one that says we have to slavishly copy one source. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought Str was the editor who put in the article the version of the Creed, with its source, that is now in it. If I was wrong, I apologize to Str, since he now disowns it. I still think Str did make reference to some unidentified "original" text of the Nicene Creed. Apologies if I am wrong in this also.

I would be interested in knowing how, with so much disagreement about the choice, Lostcaesar proposes to select one particular English version (and, for that matter, how he justifies giving the text of just one particular Creed, and not including also the text of, for instance, the Apostles' Creed). I still favour cutting the Gordian knot in the way I suggested.

Str's latest comment suggests he does not favour giving here any one existing version ("slavishly copy one source"), but I think we cannot depend on that being his meaning. Lima 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? Lostcaesar 16:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lima, to clarify my stance:

• This discussion started without me and I only came in later. Hence I did not chose any source reference. I do not say that the bergen reference is spotless, only that it is not to be disregard in the way 75 has (by pointing out a violation of RS).
• I pretty much like the 1975 version, except for the mistranslation I pointed out above (mainly the "we" instead of "I")
• The unidentified original text it the Nicene Creed in Greek and Latin, as recited in the liturgy. Am I mistaken, that the Greek Orthodox recite the creed in their liturgy using the singular? In Latin it certainly is the singular.
• Some editors think that we have to exactly copy one translation from some web reference. If that is consensus, so be it. I, however, am of the opinion that we can base the text given here on various references, combining the best of both worlds. That is what my "slavishly" remark was about. I will yield to any consensus on this but don't want to pass over this alternative silently.
• What I oppose as well is to give large explanations on the translation in the main text. We can put what we absolutely need (and no more) in a footnote.
• As for the question, why the Nicene-(Constantinopolitan) Creed: because it is after all the official creed of all churches that use creeds, from the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Orientals and the Nestorians in the East to the Catholic Church, the Anglicans and the Lutherans (though sometimes with the variation of one word) in the West. This is pretty much a very large chunk of Christendom.

Hope this helps. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess I should clarify my stance. Here is how I see it. The section on the Creed goes by just fine for a long time. Then an anon user shows up and deletes the creed. I don't like that, so I put it back. Then the anon user changes to another version. I wonder why, and lament the loss of a link to a Greek, English, and Latin copy of the creed and, as a general principle, wonder why we are fixing something that is not broken. The anon uses says he likes the other creed because it is "ecumenical", and dislikes the other one because it is "not approved by churches". However, the only real difference between the two is that his says "we" instead of "I". The whole thing sounds a bit strange to me, and to some other who wonder why the status quo is being upset. Meanwhile the anon user never really gives a good explination. So, I put the old version back for now. Then I become, for reasons unknown to me, the object of Lima's criticism. And so I stand a bit puzzled. For the record, I don't like the idea of filling this page with tons of versions of the Creed, nor do I like the removal of it alltogether. I don't think we need to slavishly copy a ref, but if something isn't broken why fix it? Besides, having a ref'd creed prevents people from changing things on a whim, and if we don't have some standard then some nutball will come change "Father, Son, and Spirit" to "Mother, Daughter, Womb" or something like that and we will be up a creek. That's my take. Lostcaesar 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the height of absurdity that this article should cite an obscure philosopher and lawyer from Bergen Community College, Paramus, NJ for something as important as the english version of the Nicene Creed. Are you editors taking your task seriously at all or is this just some great computer geek prank? I'm sorry, but even if it turns out you are all pre-teens, if I were your teacher I would have to give you an F. This is just one more example of why wikipedia will never have credibility and why I choose to remain anonymous. 75.15.200.127 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

75, personal attacks don't help your case, be it against that man or against other WP editors. Everyone can compare this translation with other translations and see that that man didn't translate nonsense. I am now positively convinced that you are tolling, 75, and propose to my fellow editors that we should find a solution among ourselves without taking heed of 75. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I must apologize all round, it seems. I obviously do not understand at all what is going on. I am unaware of having in any way criticized Lostcaesar. And I apologize for giving him that impression.

As I see it

1. There is a dispute here about what English version of the Nicene Creed to use: "I" or "we"; ICET 1975 or the version at present in the text, which differs from the ICET version in much more than "I" or "we". (Personally, I see faults in both versions. I have difficulty in seeing what the second version is supposed to be a translation of: it is not of the Councils' text. If a choice has to be made between these two for insertion in this article, I would unhesitatingly opt for the ICET version.)
2. There seems to be no consensus about which version to use nor immediate prospect of reaching consensus.
3. The situation thus seems to me to have reached an impasse.
4. I proposed that the way to avoid that impasse is - instead of privileging any one of the disputed versions by inserting it here - to direct the reader to the article Nicene Creed for the text ("For the text, see Nicene Creed").
5. Since Lostcaesar responded by saying he thinks the text of an English version of the Creed should be inserted here (something he has now repeated, without giving any reason other than he dislikes omitting it), I asked him, without intending to criticize him in any way, to be so good as to indicate how he thinks we should solve the problem of the lack of consensus on which English version to choose.
6. I said I still think the best solution is a reference to the other article for the original text and English translations. After all, if that solution works for the Apostles' Creed, as apparently it does, why not also for the Nicene Creed?

So please, Lostcaesar, tell me what I have done wrong or what I have seriously misunderstood.

I think Str and I understand each other better, and can answer each other's question, even if we do so, at times, with other questions. Since I have written so much to try to repair what Lostcaesar saw as a criticism of him, I will at this point (before going to bed for the night) only ask Str why he thinks the English translation to put here should be based on the text in liturgical use by the Greek Church, rather than the actual text of the Councils (which has "we"); or, if it is claimed that the creed in actual use by Christian Churches is what counts, then why not choose instead the text in liturgical use by the decidedly more numerous Latin Church? and indeed why not add in also an English translation of the much more elaborate Armenian form of the Nicene Creed? There would be lack of consensus not only between editors of Wikipedia but also between Churches!

Good night. Lima 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Nicene Creed is the focal point of historical Christianity. Though I have been corrected in other articles regarding including large quotes (they alwasy say just use a link), I think this Creed is so significant it should be included. I do not have a preference about which one is used, but would support whichever one is the most commonly used and stated by the majority. There should be some narrative about the different forms, but without going into minute detail. Let's wrap this up, make the edit and move on. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned there is no lack of consensus. The text that is currently in the article was there for months without objection, until quite recently an anon user, whom I and others believe to be a troll, came in and stirred the pot. If we revamped a section every time this happened we would be absurdly changing articles all the time.

For the record, I am not stuck on keeping the version we have now. I do like the fact that it links to English / Greek / Latin, and I would at least like to keep the link. Neither do I think there is anything wrong with it, so I don't know what reason we have to change it, and I think it is fair to have a reason before changing something.

Why do I prefer a Creed in this article? Its simple: the article is about Christianity, and the Creed is a brief conciliar expression of central Christian tenants. Furthermore, Greeks, Latins, Anglicans, and Lutherans all accept the Creed, and even groups that do not generally employ creeds, like Reformed, still adhere to all its teachings.

I would have no problem with use of the Apostle's Creed rather than the Nicaean Creed, as they are almost identical (though the former has the Harrowing), though I think the latter is more shared within the Greek tradition than the former.

As for which version to choose, as I said before there really neither was nor is a problem, excluding one anon editor. Even with his concerns, the version of the creed are almost identical. Furthermore, as a rule I don't see questions of translation as necessarily precipitating the exclusion of the text. First, we do include some minor discussion of significant divergence (like the filioque). Second, we manage to overcome quibbles and still talk about all manner of things here, so why should the Creed be different? Third, this has been perhaps the least controversial section over the last few months.

Really the whole of my position is that I see no problem with the status quo, and I am puzzled as to just what the fuss is about. Lostcaesar 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still in agreement with LC. There doesn't seem to be a problem with this creed. 75 either started this with the intention of trolling and getting us frustrated, or he started this not realizing that his opinions about the creed would conflict with ours, thus causing trouble. I think the creed should be left the way it was for months before this all started. --Christknight 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick reply before I go to bed as well:

• I think the NC is notable enough to merit a quote, as it is the defining and overall valid creed of Christianity (see my comments above). Hence, I would very much prefer this one to the Apostles' Creed. Rememember that the NC and not the AC is the official creed of all these churches. If we merely linked to it, we would have to circumstantially explain a couple of things about it, which would become more difficult than actually quoting it, thereby transporting the content as well as the structure of a creed.
• I believe we should include the version used in liturgy. As for Greek or Latin: Greek has a preponderance as the original is in Greek, but I have absolutely no disrespect for the Latin version. The Greek and Latin are one in the issue controversial here (differing only in the Filioque which is a different issue alltogether and hence should be mentioned with a link separetely). I only asked about whether my idea was mistaken that the Greek version recited in liturgy uses the singular, since I never actually have witnessed a Greek-language liturgy (though I know the Byzantine rite). I asked about the Greek, because I certainly know the Latin "Credo in unum Deum". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Schaff's Creeds of Christendom: § 8. The Nicene Creed.:

In the Nicene Creed we must distinguish three forms—the original Nicene, the enlarged Constantinopolitan, and the still later Latin.

The Greek reads the plural (πιστεύομεν), but the Latin and English versions have substituted for it the singular ( credo , I believe), in accordance with the Apostles' Creed and the more subjective character of the Western churches.

Symbolum Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum - Greek: Πιστεύομεν εις ένα Θεον ...

Symbolum Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum - Latin: Credimus in unum Deum ...

The Nicene Creed: We believe in one God ...

Le Symbole de Nicée-Constantinople: Nous croyons en un seul Dieu ...

Schaff's Creeds: Forma Recepta Ecclesiæ Orientalis. A.D. 381.

Schaff's Creeds: Forma Recepta, Ecclesiæ Occidentalis.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.199.238 (talk • contribs)

I seem to have got no clear support for my idea of just referring the reader to another article for the text; the majority want an English translation here. Let us therefore discuss what text should be used.

Has any argument been used in favour of the text that is now in the article other than that it has been there for some time?

I do not consider it a rational argument to attribute to User 75 motives other than that of trying to get the text right, for instance by calling him a troll. And aren't we supposed to presume the good faith of fellow-editors?

(As an aside, may I appeal to User 75 to choose some name and log in under that name. Perhaps he does not realize that by using his ISP number, he is letting us all find out, if we wish, what city he lives in and thus perhaps go a long way towards identifying him. If he uses a name like the rest of us, he avoids this. Also would he please not forget to sign with four tildes.)

As I see it now, we must (because of majority opinion) select some English version of the Nicene Creed. Surely we should select a text that has authority of some kind. The present one seems to be an individual's effort. I could write and translate as well myself, but would not dream of making my version the Wikipedia version. I don't know whose effort it is. It does not correspond even to the source to which it is attributed at the end. And that source is only a Web site of a certain Bergen Community College that gives no information on where it got the text. The length of time that the present text has been in this article adds no authority to it, even if it did correspond to the source it claims to be derived from. So I say NO to the present text. Please do not accuse me of trolling. I am giving my sincere opinion, and I give for it reasons other than just my personal likes and dislikes.

What other text? Rather than select a text peculiar to any one Church or the product of any individual or private group, no matter how gifted, should not the Wikipedia preference be for an English text that is the product of official collaboration between several Christian Churches? There seem to be only two candidates: the 1975 ICET text and the 1988 ELLC text. Before discussing the relative merits of these two texts, I obviously prefer to await reaction to my thesis: The text to be included here should be an ecumenically agreed text. Lima 08:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The other arguments for the old link, just for the record, were (1) that is contained Greek Latin and English, and (2) it was a correct translation, besides (3) it had not been seriously objected to. But we can drop it if you wish - though it would be nice to keep a link to the three languages. Persaonlly I don't see any grand reason to put ecumenism first. What should be first is that the creed is translated right. Sometimes ecumenical collaborations result in compromises that sacrifice scholarly accuracy in favor of a least-common-denominator intended to make everyone happy enough. And of course ecumenical actions are no less liklely to divide. That said, I have nothing against ecumenical translations, as long as they are right. That's the real criterion for me. I do think the 1975 one is ok. But this current translation does have the advantage of reading: "being of one substance with the Father", whereas the other omits "substance", an important word and one which we have linked in our Creed. But hey, if we go with the 1975 one, I will sign on. Lets get this done and move along. Lostcaesar 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the proposal of the 1975 ICET text by Lostcaesar, whom I thank for his understanding. If Lostcaesar's proposal is accepted, "and the Son" must obviously be bracketed; and perhaps I was wrong in thinking User 75 opposed that bracketing. If Lostcaesar thinks it important to give links here to a Web site with the Greek text (either the Councils' text or the Greek Church's text - which should we choose?), rather than just a reference to the Wikipedia article where they are already, I will willingly search for a site free from errors, and therefore different from the present one. Lima 09:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the current article link should be enough except that it is a mess - structurally I mean. Maybe we can link there and just improve that page a bit. It is more about the history of the Creed than being a useful reference for reading the languages. The first Creed has a ton of -strike- text to show the difference between the 325 and 380 texts, which seems trivial for our purposes; it then has a duplicate interlinear English / English copy of the 325 / 380 and then another Greek / Greek – after this it starts to be what we specifically are looking for. What we are interested in are the Greek and Latin texts used in the liturgy today. We, of course, have to translate one, and I guess we should go with the Greek, though I would think most English liturgy is from the Latin, but it seems to minor to get in the way. Lima, I think we have a good compromise here and I am glad to have an interlocutor that I respect. Lostcaesar 09:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have specified that what I had in mind for Wikilinks were: Greek liturgical text, Latin liturgical text, English translations. I proposed on the Nicene Creed Talk page the deletion of the "underline or strikeout" part of the Nicene Creed article, which is a duplication of what I think is set forth more clearly in tabular form immediately below. But I got no support, and did not want to do the deleting without support. Would Lostcaesar care to do the deleting? Both ecumenical translations into English are based on the Greek text of the Councils, but with consideration also for the Latin liturgical text, which historically has been the basis of almost all English translations and for that reason can scarcely be ignored. Lima 10:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what LC wrote above.

As far as the Greek text, I am honestly asking about the usage in the liturgy.

As far as calling 75 a troll, this wasn't done because of his view or as an argument in the substantial debate, but becaue of his behaviour. Let me remind you that he not only is an anon IP, he also started this whole thing without giving any proper reasoning except that the 1975 version is supposedly ecumenical and that the other, referenced version was somehow in violation of RS. The Bergen reference might be bad (and I do prefer a Church-approved translation) but it is valid under Wikirules. And then he went on to insult other editors, calling them "computer geek" and "pre-teens" and issueing grades of F.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to Str1977 for not having chosen my words better. I did not really intend to criticize any person. Nor did I intend to condone offensive language by any editor whatever, even if he appears to be a newcomer. I only wanted to concentrate the discussion on what I thought was the substance. But I should have done so in a better way. Lima 10:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's allright, Lima. 75 is welcome to contribute as soon as he has something substantial to contribute. Hence my remarks against him aimed at the sam thing as your words: concetrate the discussion on the substance. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of those other pages; I can sign on wholly now to linking there. As for the creed page, I have no problem doing the deletion. Lostcaesar 10:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody - in particular, User 75 - has raised any objection to the solution proposed above. I have therefore taken it on myself to insert the ICET text in the article, attaching to it the wikilinks attached to the previous text. In view of Lostcaesar's remarks at 10:15 yesterday, I have also given text wikilinks not only for the Nicene Creed, but also for the Apostles' Creed and the Athanasian Creed. If my changes provoke no negative reaction, I look forward to removing this too rapidly changing article from my watchlist, where I placed it only a few days ago. Lima 10:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Still too much vandalism

I hate having to bring this back up, but I think this article should be blocked. I brought this up before, but it was archived away (to Archive 32) before anything was done. Christianity is a topic that will always be a target for vandalism by disrespecting non-users. If this article gets blocked, users will still be able to edit - and we're usually the only ones who add real information anyway. --Christknight 22:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that there should be semiprotection. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone could request page protection, but we try to lock pages only as a last resort. The page is closely watched, and we seem to be reverting quickly. If it starts to interfere with editing, it can be protected for a day or so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be permanently S protected, much like the mainpage is, because it sufferes 3-4 acts of vandalism every day, sometimes more. Its just a farse to leave it unprotected. Lostcaesar 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lostcaesar. The article should maintain a S-protect permanently. What do we lose by maintaining a permanent block? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Corrections from anonymous editors, who often spot mistakes that editors don't, and contributions of references from any scholarly type people who might read the article but don't want to sign up for wikipedia. I'm sure there's more too, but articles are pretty much never S-protected permanently, i'm fairly certainly that's very frowned upon, its a principle of open source communities sort of thing. Homestarmy 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then at what point do we say "enough is enough"? It's great that Wikipedia is open to everyone, but I see so many more anons adding vandalism than helpful edits. Even though vandalism is always fixed, thousands of people read Wikipedia every minute - so think about how many people might come to this article looking for info, and find (often offensive) vandalism. You have a good point, Homestarmy, but I still agree that this article should be S-protected. --Christknight 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Those last edits explain my point. This article should be protected. --Christknight 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly ask for page protection. See WP:RFPP. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have requested S-protection for this article. --Christknight 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that it should never be S-protected, especially because I myself had to just fix something the vandalbot accidently covered up, but that it shouldn't be permanently S-protected :/. Homestarmy 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mention "permanently" in my request. So I guess that's up to Steel359 and the other admins. --Christknight 01:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Christknight is right; this article needs to be protected. However, I think it should be blocked permanently. Homestarmy says "...contributions of references from any scholarly type people who might read the article but don't want to sign up for wikipedia." I feel that if someone was that intent on making positive edits to pages such as the Christianity page, they could easily sign up for a wikipedia account. In most cases, non-users perusing these articles are there to vandalize, not make positive edits.User:Butters1 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Butters1

Bibliography Section

Is this section necessary? I think it adds a lot of bloat to this article, and although much of the books mentioned may be excellent reading material, I don't feel this section is crucial for an understanding of Christianity. Tidaress 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be sad to get rid of that section, but it does make nearly 1/4 of the article. It might be a good idea sinse the article got that "very long" warning. But I agree that the section is unneeded to get an understanding of Christianity. --Christknight 01:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not create a new article for it? SparrowsWing 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that new article would turn into some sort of indiscriminate collection of information unfortunately. Tidaress 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, the Bibliography is supposed to represent works that are actually used to support some part of the article, its not like a "Further Reading" section, if you remove it, we may just have to re-cite it all over again. True, there are times when people add things into it mistakenly, but that needs to be worked out by moving said books or other kind of works into a "Further reading" section, not just deleting the whole bibliography :/. Homestarmy 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Much of this article seems to be general knowledge. Most of the specific details are further supported by the nearly 80 citations in the article. Regardless of whether or not the Bibliography section is a "Further Reading" section, it seems to have turned into one judging by its content and length. Tidaress 01:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunently, you might be surprised how much of this "general knowladge" has been the topic of heated disputes :/. For one thing, several of those references are intended to help reference the very first cite, namely, the idea that Christianity is monotheistic, as opposed to "considered monotheistic by its adherants, but not by some critics and Muslims". While it is extensive, removing it will probably create a whole lot of arguments down the line about what is verified and what isn't. Homestarmy 01:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well I'm absolutely sure there has to be a more efficient way to do this. The current bibliography section takes up 16KB, and this is detrimental to the rest of the article because editors are being forced to cut down on information presented in other sections. Tidaress 04:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a little bit of common sense about the legnth issue. A bibliography is an essential part of a work that cites its sources. This article has much material, and so it will have a legnthy bibliography. I see that as a positive. Perhaps it is my background in history, but a bibliography that is clear and properly done is a wonderful tool. This is an article about Christianity, it will be longer than usual. That is not a problem. 16kb is nothing really, I don't see why it should bother us. If we must I suppose we could do something like "for the bibliography, see X" and link to it - but really why? Lets just have a nice, thorough, well referenced article that is a few K longer than others. Lostcaesar 08:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)