Talk:Immersion baptism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Alleged "scholarly agreement"

One editor claims that scholars now agree that archeology proves that early Christians normally baptized by full immersion and that the question is now settled in scholarly literature. The question here is not whether those who argue for or those who argue against the full-immersion interpretation of the archeological evidence are right, nor which group are more numerous. The question is whether there actually exists a scholarly agreement that the question of interpretation of the archeological evidence is now settled. If such an agreement existed, all recent works that can be classified as scholarly would reflect that view. Not all do.

Laurie Guy, Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs, and Practices (2004), pp. 224-225

The depth of the baptistery in the earliest church that was no longer used that was no longer used as a house but rather as a church – the church of Dura Europos in the mid third century – is only 0.955 meters. However, thigh-deep water is sufficient for immersion, and commonly used language of going down into or being plunged into or being covered with water points in the direction of immersion. Nevertheless, numerous baptisteries have a depth even less than the one at Dura-Europos, and those therefore tend to rule out full immersion (though allowing for affusion or for the immersion of the head without the immersion of the whole body). The church most likely practiced full immersion, partial immersion and affusion at various times and places in the early centuries, with sprinkling being practiced rarely (and probably only for medical reasons) during that time period.

Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (2004), p. 35

Archaeological evidence from the early centuries shows that baptism was sometimes administered by submersion or immersion, in which the rite symbolically re-enacted the process of burial and resurrection, but also by affusion from a vessel, when water was poured on the candidate's head, just as earth was sprinkled over a corpse at a funeral.

James L. Houlden, Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: Entries A - J., Volume 1 (2003), p. 123

Methods of baptism vary according to circumstances as well as tradition. Broadly speaking, there are three. Submersion (often confused with immersion), whereby the whole body of the person being baptized is "submerged" in the water; that is what Cyril of Jerusalem describes in his catecheses, and it was clearly envisaged in the large baptisteries constructed, for example, at Pisa. Immersion, on the other hand, involves the person kneeling in the font, with water reaching only part of the body, water then being poured over the head, sometimes in large quantities; there are many more examples of this kind surviving, sometimes as archaeological remains, from antiquity, and there is a modern example in Portsmouth Cathedral. Then there is affusion, whereby the candidate is sprinkled while standing (or being held) over the font, which could be quite small. Each of these methods corresponds with the three metaphors from the New Testament …

Stanley E. Porter, Anthony R. Cross (editors and authors of the introduction to) Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (2002), p. 2

Howard Marshall puts forward a compelling argument that, while immersion was the general rule for baptism in New Testament times, there are a number of indications that affusion (and possibly sprinkling) were also practised, while Ferguson's study of the Epistle of Barnabas includes evidence only for immersion. Both essays demonstrate that the evidence of the New Testament and early Church is not as evident as is often made out and point the way forward for further studies in this area.

Richard L. Pratt Jr in Understanding Four Views on Baptism (2007), p. 42

We (i.e. Reformed Christians) also agree that archaeological and biblical evidences strongly suggest that Christian baptism was most likely performed by some kind of immersion. It may not have entailed the complete submersion of candidates, as Baptists are inclined to believe, but biblical examples seem to indicate that a considerable quantity of water was required for the rite.

France, in the same passage of his that the article cites for the thesis that the New Testament mode of baptism was by full immersion, actually goes on to state:

The traditional depiction in Christian art of John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head may therefore be based on later Christian practice. But we need not assume that the actual method was always the same, nor that John's method was necessarily the same as that of later Christian practice, especially where the latter took place away from a major river such as the Jordan.

And then there are the scholars Stauffer (1994), Kunzler (2001) and Maxwell E. Johnson (2002) already cited in the article. Esoglou (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"One editor claims that scholars now agree that archeology proves that early Christians normally baptized by full immersion and that the question is now settled in scholarly literature": You are misrepresenting what I say. Please rephrase your sentence so that it is an accurate representation of what I am saying; quoting me directly would be preferable. Of the list of sources you provide, (a) several of them are not professional archaeological studies, (b), several of them say nothing whatever about the archaeological evidence, (c) several of them do not contradict what Ferguson et al. say, and (d) you are concealing information by omitting quotations from the studies I am citing (Ferguson, Picard, Ben Pechat, Heiser, Rice).--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well then, tell us what is the "agreement on the interpretation of the archaeological evidence" that you say "the latest professional archaeological studies have come to". If it is not what I thought you were claiming, perhaps there is really no disagreement between us.

Your clarification will also remove my puzzlement at the fact that your objections to the sources I have quoted (even a couple of them would be enough to show a lack of scholarly agreement on what I thought you were claiming) suggest that they do address your claim. Esoglou (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I have already told you. 2. I have not objected to the sources you quoted; I have objected to how you are using them here. 3. Please read my posts. Until you do me the simple courtesy of reading my posts, you are wasting my time.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my obtuseness and tell me again whatever it is you already told me is the agreement on the interpretation of the archeological evidence that the latest professional archeological studies have come to.

Excuse me also for writing "your objections to the sources I have quoted ..." instead of writing "your objections to the use of the sources I have quoted (the use of even a couple of them would be enough to show a lack of scholarly agreement on what I thought you were claiming) suggest that the use of them does address your claim". Esoglou (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I see no reason to repeat myself. 2. No, the sources you quote do not prove that the latest professional archaeological studies have come to no agreement on the subject, and your use of them for your argument is invalid. See my previous comments as to why.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence

Tboi, you have been BOLD, I have REVERTED, now DISCUSS. WP:BRD. Esoglou (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You can start by explaining your POV revert. Once more you failed to distinguish between scholarly and non-scholarly studies, once more you attempted to editorialize to mitigate the scholarly views given, and once more you concealed evidence from the reader.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the status quo ante, leaving in its original place, where you have caused it to grow much larger, the section about evidence for and against normative use of total-immersion baptism among early Christians. Esoglou (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What you have done is move an entire section on the history of archaeological studies of baptism, into an article with a much narrower scope. Why? Not only that, you have added massive editorializing which results in a section much larger than mine. Why? Nor have you answered my questions. Why?--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the article with the narrower scope. Immersion baptism, even if not narrowed further, to total-immersion baptism, is narrower than baptism in general. Esoglou (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is 'immersion baptism'. The subject of the archaeological section I wrote is 'baptism'. The archaeological section I wrote belongs in the general article, with only part of it here, the part specifically relevant to immersion baptism. I notice you are still not answering my questions or explaining your edits. It is time for me to seek intervention.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the section that you wrote, and that you wrote here, not in the more generic article, is the claim that the only form of baptism in normal use among the early Christians was immersion baptism, the form of baptism this more specific article is about. Esoglou (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the section I wrote is the archaeological investigation of baptism, not the claim that the only form of baptism in normal use among the early Christians was immersion baptism. That belongs in the main baptism article. The only section relevant to this, more specific article, is that which I posted here. Please indicate if you intend to continue refusing to answer my questions and explain your edits.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is under any obligation to respond to any questions you offer. I tend to see many of your questions as false dilemmas and are best left responded with a mu. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is under any obligation to answer my questions, but Wikipedia encourages editors to a) explain their edits, b) cooperate with other editors by discussing their edits. If neither of you want to do this, then you are being deliberately obstructive. An open ended question is not a false dilemma.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What Tboi wrote presents the question as a debate between what he called "anti-immersionists" and, on the other side, "the five most commonly cited professional archaeological studies carried out in the last twenty five years (who) agree on the same conclusions on the archaeological and literary evidence as Cote and Rice". Esoglou (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It does no such thing; several views are presented there. The fact that it concludes with the comments of the five most commonly cited professional archaeological studies carried out in the last twenty five years is simply a matter of concluding with the relevant scholarly agreement. You have not yet given any reasons for your edits, still less any reason for suppressing or distorting the information I provided.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The information you provided on views for and against the thesis that the baptism that the early Christians administered was by full immersion, while saying nothing of 21st-century views that disagreed with the view you favour. Esoglou (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have told you before that this has nothing to do with any view I favour, so please stop making that false accusation. Of the "21st century views" you quoted, none of them were professional archaeological studies. But regardless of that, none of them contradicted the findings of the five studies I cite:

• Houlden says baptism was sometimes by submersion, sometimes by partial immersion
• Marshall says in some areas Christian baptism was administered by affusion
• Porter and Cross say they agree with Marshall
• Guy says that the church most likely practiced full immersion, partial immersion and affusion at various times and places in the early centuries, without being more specific than this
• Johnson (and only Johnson, of those you cited), says there's not enough information to tell what was normative

So none of these views contradict the five studies I cited, all of which agreed that full immersion was the normative method of baptism by the Early Church (to the end of the fourth century). Johnson is minority view, and in any case is not speaking from the point of view of a professional archaeological study (nor is Guy, nor is Marshall, and nor are Porter & Cross). Once again you are breaching WP:WEIGHT, and you are trying to present the illusion of scholarly conflict on a position concerning which consensus actually exists.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So you see that they all disagree with the thesis that full immersion has been shown to be the normal early-Christian mode of baptism. Esoglou (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Please read what I wrote. That is the opposite of what I wrote. None of them say that. None of them disagree with the thesis that full immersion has been shown to be the normal early-Christian mode of baptism except for Johnson, whose view is clearly a minority (and who doesn't have WP:WEIGHT because he's not a professional archaeologist).--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Houlden, you wrote, says baptism was sometimes by partial immersion; Marshall, you wrote, says that in some areas Christian baptism was administered by affusion; Porter and Cross, you wrote, agree with Marshall; Guy, you wrote, says that the church most likely practised not only full immersion, but also partial immersion and affusion at various times and places; Johnson, you wrote, says there's not enough information to tell what was normative. They of course do not say that baptism was never administered by full immersion – for what source, if any, says that? But they do reject unanimously the notion that total immersion has been shown to have been the normal mode of baptism.

"Clinical baptism" was of course not seen as normal.

Is there any hope that you will say that even Ferguson does not hold that full immersion was the only mode that was normal? I suppose there is not. In that case, all these disagree with Ferguson. Esoglou (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, only one of the sources you quoted says anything about the normal mode of baptism, and that's Johnson whose view is a minority. None of the others deny that full immersion was the normal mode. If you have any statements from them which say that, please quote them. Not a single source you quoted says "total immersion may not have been the only normal mode of baptism among early Christians". One of your sources even says "Howard Marshall puts forward a compelling argument that, while immersion was the general rule for baptism in New Testament times", which is the opposite of what you are claiming.--Taiwan boi (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that two two of you agree on the facts. What you disagree on is what they say. Esoglou is stating that submersion was not the only method. Tb I don't know exactly what you mean by normative, whether that means most common or prescribed (both senses of the word exist) so perhaps you could focus on that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That submersion was not the only method has never been in dispute, ever. If you don't know what "normative" means, please see my previous comments on the subject when we had exactly the same discussion. On that occasion Esoglou agreed with me on the definition of "normative".--Taiwan boi (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what normative means. It seems that you two don't agree on the definition or that it should be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A clarification of the sense in which one uses a word can often overcome apparent differences. I hope it will prove so here. In the present context, I understand a "normal" mode to be one used in non-exceptional circumstances. For instance, a mode used for baptizing a bed-ridden dying person would not necessarily be a normal mode. But a mode used for conferring baptism on regular occasions such as the annual celebration of Easter would be a normal mode. Was only one mode (and which?) used throughout the early Christian Church on those regular occasions? It seems to me that there is no unanimity among scholars on that. Perhaps Tboi uses "normal" in some other sense, when he says that only one of the writers he speaks of "disagrees with the thesis that full immersion has been shown to be the normal early-Christian mode of baptism". Our apparent disagreement might then simply vanish. Is it too much to hope for? Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Proof

Please provide all the sources you can find which say there is no unanimity on the mode of baptism used on special occasions such as the celebration of Easter. Once again this is nothing to do with "one mode and only one mode" being used, it has to do with what was normally used. The term "used for non-exceptional circumstances" is a good definition of "normal".--Taiwan boi (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no proof that on the normal (not special, not exceptional, but regular, ordinary, periodic) Easter conferring of baptism on groups of neophytes, the rite was performed only by full immersion and in no other way? At least you have failed to provide any proof. At most, you have proved that full immersion was one way that was used on such normal occasions. Esoglou (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing from silence. The scholarly agreement I have presented (and which one of your sources corroborates), is that full immersion was the normative method of baptism in the Early Church. This does not exclude other methods being used at times, but it does mean they were exceptions. None of the sources either you or I have provided say that Easter was any exception to this, but since I have never argued that the Easter baptisms were performed only by full immersion and in no other way, your argument is irrelevant. What is notable is that you have not provided any WP:RS for your claims.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want the question to be presented as settled, as no longer open, the claim that only full-immersion baptism was normal in early Christianity is what requires proving. Esoglou (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The view under discussion is that full immersion baptism was normative in early Christianity. It is highly disingenuous to claim that this is what needs proving, when it is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles to prove or disprove a view, it is simply the purpose of Wikipedia to report what WP:RS say about a view. In this particular instance that view is the consensus of the five most commonly cited archaeological studies in the last 30 years (WP:RS), all of which provide proof for their case. No such wording as "only full-immersion baptism" has ever been used by me, or the sources I quoted, so this a complete distraction from the issue at hand.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to report the views of scholars about how early Christians normally administered baptism. You cannot on the basis of some form of original research present a view of some chosen five as the authoritative view. (Where is your non-OR proof?) You cannot on the basis of some form of original research declare that scholars who speak of early-Christian use of modes other than full immersion are referring merely to exceptional, non-normal, modes of baptism. (Where is your non-OR proof?) Wikipedia must report the views of scholars on the matter. Scholars do hold different views on it. Esoglou (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I have reported the views of scholars about how early Christians normally administered baptism. 2. I have done no original research. 3. I have said nothing about any "authoritative view". 4. I have never made any claims that your sources are "referring merely to exceptional, non-normal, modes of baptism". They are your sources, and your claims for them must be supported by proof you supply. 5. My edit does report the views of scholars about how early Christians normally administered baptism. The fact that the overwhelming majority of them come to a conclusion you don't like, is unfortunate for you but something you're going to have to live with.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were demanding proof that there are scholars who believe that modes of baptism other than full immersion were in normal regular use by early Christians. If you agree that there are serious scholars who hold this view, if you agree that there are more views than one on the question, what are we arguing about? Is there anything else you want changed other than insertion of your claim that one view is "overwhelming" (something that requires demonstration)? Esoglou (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to a claim you made concerning the mode of baptism at Easter, I asked you to provide all the sources you can find to support your claim there is no unanimity on the mode of baptism used on special occasions such as the celebration of Easter. I did not ask for proof that there are scholars who believe that modes of baptism other than full immersion were in normal regular use by early Christians. Back to the issue at hand, you haven't provided any evidence that the scholarly view that full immersion baptism was normative in early Christianity is anything but a majority view.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was asking the question as to what you were arguing about two days ago when Tb dismissed me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why should I provide evidence that what you call "the scholarly view that full-immersion baptism was normative in early Christianity" is anything but a majority view? I am not trying to prove anything about it. I have no objection to inclusion of that view. The description ("the scholarly", if by that you mean "the one and only scholarly") and the definition ("normative") with which you dignify the view must if course be clarified or verified. Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not ask you to provide evidence that the scholarly view that full-immersion baptism was normative in early Christianity is anything but a majority view. If you agree that this is the majority scholarly view, then you will not object to this fact being made totally clear in the article. The issue at hand has never been that you refuse to have this view represented in the article, the issue at hand has been that you have consistently attempted to marginalize its representation so that its majority position is concealed. As I have said repeatedly, I have never called this the one and only scholarly view, and the definition of "normative" was agreed on previously, by you.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never objected to inclusion in the article of the view that full immersion was the normal mode of baptism in early Christianity. I am only asking you to provide verification for your additional claim that the view is the majority scholarly view, a perhaps not impossible task. Previously, I was asking for verification of what then seemed to be a claim by you that this view was more than just the majority scholarly view, that it was the scholarly view, with consensus on it among scholars. This I think could not be verified. As for "normative", if you agree that in this context the word does not mean "preceptive", then we can surely employ a less ambiguous term to refer to whatever was the practice. Reliable sources can certainly be found to support the view that full immersion was the practice, but an additional claim that it was more than a practice, and was done specifically out of obedience to a binding rule, would also need to be supported by reliable sources. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out, you have consistently attempted to marginalize its representation so that its majority position is concealed. I have already supplied the five most commonly cited professional archaeological studies, all of which agree in saying that full immersion was the normal practice of the early church. As it that wasn't enough, out of all the additional scholarly sources (not liturgical or theological works), we've both quoted not one of them disputes this finding, and several of them support it. The onus is therefore on you to demonstrate that this is a less than majority view, something you have completely failed to do. One of your own sources says "Howard Marshall puts forward a compelling argument that, while immersion was the general rule for baptism in New Testament times", and Marshall himself says "it is clear that immersion was the general rule". You conceal all of this information. You also misrepresent Guy, using the quote "Numerous baptisteries have a depth even less than the one at Dura-Europos, and those therefore tend to rule out full immersion (though allowing for affusion or for the immersion of the head without the immersion of the whole body)", but concealing the fact that before this he says "Probably immersion was the norm. A number of factors point in this direction". Similarly, you cite Houlden's reference to affusion whilst concealing her reference to submersion. You are not representing the sources accurately. As for "normative", we have been through this before. The word is not ambiguous, and it implies nothing about a "binding rule". Alternatives which I have already suggested are those used by sources, including "general rule", "normal", or "most common".--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So do you two agree that "normative" does not mean "preceptive"? At least you two can get beyond that point. A simple yes or no (Matthew 5:37) would be the best way to start any response. You can then pile on the verbiage after that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, that was already agreed on more than two weeks ago. Esoglou has simply forgotten that we have had this conversation twice before and he agreed on the point earlier.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not since Esoglou was asking for clarification six hours ago. Cheers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No, he definitely agreed on it. He has simply forgotten what he said previously, and you've forgotten it too. Look at the archive and you'll find that he wrote this at 16:41, 2 November 2010:

"So, to judge by the quotations you appeal to, by "normative" you mean "normal", the common way, not a way imposed by rule? That would perhaps solve everything about the terminology."

I replied "Yes that's what I mean by "normative"". He has forgotten he already agreed on this, and now wants to have exactly the same discussion on the same point, all over again. It's clear you had forgotten all about this too.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to "normative" - since we agree on the reality of what is meant and are not aiming to get the article to say that a particular mode of baptism was obligatory, please use a less ambiguous word, so as to avoid misunderstandings.

I am not setting out to marginalize your claim that the full-immersion-mode view is the majority view among scholars. I am only asking you to provide the objective evidence, so that we can justify inserting your claim into the article. Please give the diff of the edit with which you showed that "five professional archaeological studies" demonstrate the majority status of that view. Or, better, let us start a new section here, under the heading "Majority view among scholars". On the basis of the objective evidence that I hope you will set forth, we can then insert the statement that the full-immersion-mode view is the view that most scholars hold. Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The word "normative" is not ambiguous, as you agreed previously. I already provided the studies previously. You are not reading my posts, and you are refusing to explain why you are trying to marginalize the representation of the majority position so that its status is concealed.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Full immersion is the normative mode of baptism for Baptists, a matter of obligation. For Anglicans it is an optional mode (one they can choose but don't have to), not a normative one in the sense of being preceptive. Affusion is excluded as a mode of baptism for Baptists. For Anglicans it is the usual mode and optional (they can choose it but don't have to), so that for them it is not normative in the sense of being preceptive. To insist on using the word "normative", when, you say, you only mean that it is the ordinary normal way of doing something, is unhelpful.

When demanding that an idea be included in a Wikipedia article, a refusal to indicate clearly the grounds for including it is unhelpful. Esoglou (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on Baptists and Anglicans are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have not insisted on the word "normative", I have given you several alternatives. I agree that when demanding that an idea be included in a Wikipedia article, a refusal to indicate clearly the grounds for including it is unhelpful. I have not done this. You have frequently done this, and Walter has actively claimed you are free to do this. I note that you are still doing this, refusing to answer my questions.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Majority view among scholars

The five most commonly cited professional archaeological studies carried out in the last twenty five years agree on the same conclusions on the archaeological and literary evidence. On the basis of archaeological and textual evidence, Sanford La Sor (1987), considers it likely that the archaeological evidence favours total immersion. Lothar Heiser (1986), likewise understands the literary and pictorial evidence to indicate total immersion. Jean-Charles Picard (1989), reaches the same conclusion, and so does Malka Ben Pechat (1989). The latest comprehensive survey of previous studies and examination of the archaeological and literary evidence in combination, a study by Everett Ferguson (2009), confirms the findings of La Sor, Heiser, Picard, and Pechat.

For a start, what are the five archaeological studies in question, and on what grounds are they described as the most quoted? Esoglou (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to be joking. We have been over this again and again. The five archaeological studies in question are named explicitly: La Sor, Heiser, Picard, Ben Pechat, and Ferguson. They are described as the most commonly cited on the basis of their presence in citation indexes and scholarly literature. See for yourself.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't understand that "the five" was proleptic. "They are described". Where? In a few hours I'll be back to see more. Esoglou (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already told you where. They are described in my edit of the article, following the sentence "The five most commonly cited professional archaeological studies carried out in the last twenty five years agree on the same conclusions on the archaeological and literary evidence".--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence 2

I also want to make the point that I am not the one who wants this section entitled "Majority view among scholars". I want the information to be included in the article under the title 'Archaeological evidence', as it is relevant to the views of those professionals who have considered the evidence directly (the five studies I cite), and those who rely on such studies (the encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other sources I quoted).--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan boi's citations are relevant and well researched. These are all modern studies by scholars who are preeminent in the field and address currently scholarly research on the the subject. The evidence should stay as written. Taiwan makes a good point that these are the "five most commonly cited professional archaeological studies." Citing denominational texts from 100 years ago is not quite the same, given archaeological developments in the 20th century. Swampyank (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Tb's edit (here, with his edit here) is far and away superior to Esoglou's (here, with his edit here). Esogolou's edit is an example of the terrible writing we get when editors aren't trying to inform the reader neutrally but rather are trying to confuse things to the point that the majority viewpoint is obscured. Leadwind (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As desired, a new heading for the discussion. Please explain to me how we know (where we find) that these sources are the "five most commonly cited" and, if they are the five most cited, why their view is therefore definitive. Apart from Sanford La Sor, who seems perhaps to be talking about Jewish archaeology rather than Christian, is it a fact that the "five most commonly cited" are simply Ferguson himself and writers whose views on what archaeology says of early Christian baptism are known to us only because Ferguson cited them: Ben-Pichat and Picard on p. 852, Heiser on p. 860? Esoglou (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have answered this question before. We know they are the five most commonly cited by looking through citation indexes and the relevant scholarly literature; that is what we are supposed to do when we locate sources for articles. No one has said that they are "definitive"; the issue is whether or not they represent the majority view. Thus far you have been unable to present any evidence at all that these views are not the majority view. I already provided evidence that Pechat's work is widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature. Here it is again.

• Christian archaeology in the Holy Land (1990)
• The archaeology of society in the Holy Land (1998)
• The Petra Church (2001)
• Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: the authorship of the Mystagogic (2001)
• Near Eastern archaeology: a reader (2003)
• Studies in the history and archaeology of Jordan (2004)
• Recent research on the late antique countryside (2004)
• Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land (2006)
• Washing in water: trajectories of ritual bathing in the Hebrew (2006)
• Early church architectural forms (2007)
• Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity (2010)

Likewise, I already demonstrated that Heiser's work is widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature.

• Bibliographia Patristica: Internationale Patristische Bibliographie (1985)
• Ostkirchliche Studien (1990)
• Sacramenta: bibliographia internationalis (1992)
• Frühchristliche Baptisterien (1998); by Sebastian Ristow, a study of the evidence for baptism in the early Church which is also cited repeatedly by Ferguson
• Tauffragen und Bekenntnis (1999)
• Theologische Realenzyklopädie (2001)
• Gnade in Welt: eine symboltheologische Sakramentenskizze (2002)
• Christentum: Von den Anfängen bis zur Konstantinischen Wende (2002)
• Spaltung der Christenheit (2004)

Now Picard, the only source for whom I didn't provide citations previously.

• Le moyen âge: des origines au XIIIe siècle, p. 24 (1993)
• A history of liturgical books from the beginning to the thirteenth century, p. xxix (1998)
• Magnus Felix Ennodius: a gentleman of the church, p. 242 (2000)
• Theologische Realenzyklopädie: Spurgeon-Taylor, p. 744 (2001)
• Early Christian chapels in the west, p. 197 (2003)
• Archéologie et histoire de l'Église d'Afrique, p. 841 (2005)
• Housing in late antiquity: from palaces to shops, p. 128 (2007)

We have had this exact same conversation previously. You are again forgetting what you have said before. This discussion continues to go around in circles, with you recycling questions which have already been answered. It is also clear that two other editors support my edit, and yours is rightly identified as POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the "Archaeological evidence" section as per the agreement of three editors here on the Talk page, and I have left the POV tag which Esoglou placed on that section. Thus far it's clear that no one else supports Esoglou's view of that section as POV, so I don't expect that tag really needs to be there. Thoughts?--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Your most recent edit is definitive and lays the matter to rest in no uncertain terms. By contrast, Esoglou has clearly run out of arguments and now appears to be trolling. Sankari Suomi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

Thank you. Reading your post, along with those of Leadwind and Swampyank, I'm not seeing any support for Esoglou's edit. This does not surprise me.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the evidence points to Taiwan boi's edit, rather than Esoglou's, giving due weight to the majority view; it is preferable and should be used. --Woofboy (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to add: additionally, the POV tag is redundant and therefore should be removed. --Woofboy (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Woofboy, and thanks for the correction you made in the article. So that's four editors who agree with my edit, and who see no reason for the POV tag.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I have no desire to research the matter myself, I must accept Tboi's good faith in presenting his five selected sources as the only ones cited by others eleven (?) times - at any rate, more often than anybody else, making them "the five most commonly-cited professional archaeological studies carried out in the last twenty five years"; and now that the article recognizes the early-Christian use of forms of baptism other than full immersion in use in the early Church, I have of course no objection to its present text. Esoglou (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please try and represent what I say accurately. I have never said that those five are the only ones cited by others. Not only that, but the article always recognized the early Christian use of forms of baptism other than full immersion. Now you need to explain why you replaced my text in the Baptism article with your far lengthier editorialized text, which duplicates some of the information in the section. Why quote sources twice?--Taiwan boi (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that you did say your five are the most cited? I don't think I said they are the only ones cited. If I did, I apologize. I agree that duplicates should be removed. We can work on that now. I have been out almost the whole of this day and have not been able to attend to it yet. I think presenting the sources - so to speak - from the standpoint of Ferguson is a more serious editorializing than presenting them one by one on their own terms and in chronological order. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Again you are forgetting your own words. Yes I said these are the five most commonly cited studies. Yes, you said I was saying "only". Look at your own words, they're a paragraph above your previous post:

...I must accept Tboi's good faith in presenting his five selected sources as the only ones cited by others eleven (?) times...

I never said "only", as you falsely claim here. You can't even remember your own words, let alone mine.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not the only ones cited. The only ones cited that number of times. I think you did indicate that, when you said these are the most cited. If any others are cited that same number of times, then those five are not the most cited. Esoglou (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You're still making mistakes. I never said they were the only ones cited eleven times. I said that they are the most commonly cited. I didn't even reference the full number of times that they are cited. You're not making it any better for yourself, and you're just demonstrating that you can't even remember your previous arguments.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I put in a question mark to indicate that I too was not specifying the number of times. Whatever the number of times that you claim they were cited, you were saying that they were the only sources cited that number of times. Correct? Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No I wasn't. Why aren't you reading what I write? I said that they were the most commonly cited, and I gave samples of just how widely cited they are. I didn't say that this was the complete number of times that they are cited, and I didn't say that these were the only sources cited that number of times. You are wasting time with these misleading posts of yours. You attribute to me words I never used, and you can't even remember your own words.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that saying that the five are "the most commonly cited" and saying that they are not the only ones cited that frequently are contradictory. You think the opposite. Shall we leave it at that? Esoglou (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only are you changing what you said yet again, you are still not reproducing what I said accurately. I said that they are the five most commonly cited, that's it. I didn't say anything about them being the only ones cited X number of times, or the only ones not cited X number of times. There is no contradiction, because I only made one statement and I didn't deviate from it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox church

Esoglou, stop inserting an out of context statement in Ferguson into the section about the Orthodox Church, as if it's representative of normative practice in the Orthodox Church. In reality it is a statement by a Greek priest on the practice of infant baptism in the Greek Church. You are misrepresenting the entire quotation. Do not enter information about the EOC, since it's clear you're not capable of being neutral on the subject.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that Lothar Heiser, whom Ferguson quotes for the statement, was a Greek priest. His name certainly doesn't sound Greek. Greek priest or not, I think his statement about "the present practice of infant baptism in the Greek church" is reliable. Don't you? Esoglou (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that Heiser is a Greek priest. My point is that Ferguson represents this as a reference by one scholar to the practice of the Greek church, whereas you cut it out of context and represent it as the normative practice of the entire Orthodox Church. You are grossly misleading the reader and abusing the source.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement that you described as "by a Greek priest" indicates what is actual practice in the Greek church and what is the form of immersion that it actually practises. The Greek church is part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Its baptism is accepted by the other parts of the Eastern Orthodox (who, for all I - and probably you - know, have the same practice), and they thereby show that for the Eastern Orthodox Church total submersion is not obligatory. The information given by Ferguson, quoting Heiser, about the practice in the Greek church is surely worth mentioning, especially when the text in the article was giving the impression that the Eastern Orthodox Church, like the Baptists mentioned immediately before, considered total submersion obligatory. Esoglou (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are still not addressing the issues: 1) You quoted the text completely out of context, 2) in context it was not a statement made about the entire EOC, but about the Greek church; the Greek church is a subset of the OEC, the OEC is not a subset of the Greek Church. I trust the OEC editor LoveMonkey to represent the OEC position faithfully. You have already shown that you can't be trusted in that regard.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not removing it. Esoglou (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What I removed was your typical POV editorializing. Stop it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

: Who is the kettle? Who is the Pot? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Immersion as normative in various denominations

This section is reserved specifically for denominations in which immersion baptism is normative, such as the Baptists and the EOC. If you want to start a new section on immersion baptism in denominations in which it is not normative, do so by all means, but please stop changing the heading of a section created for a specific purpose.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it normative, prescriptive, the only primary choice? If you want to prove it's normative, do so. If you want to expand your vocabulary, do so. Your point is not made that is is normative so don't label the section as such. It is also not inclusive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me what you are talking about. This section is for those denominations in which immersion baptism is normative; that is, "usual", "normal", "the regular practice". You have not explained why you are objecting to such a section. It is not supposed to be inclusive, it's only supposed to contain those denominations in which immersion baptism is normative.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me what you're talking about. You don't have sufficient citations to indicate that it's "normative". I have no objections to the section simply to the use of "normative" in the heading since the case is not made. If I objected to the section, I would be deleting it, wouldn't I? And the fact that it is most common could also mean it's prescribed. It could mean that is the primary choice, or the only choice.

It is also not complete, but that's what Wikipedia is for, to make a space and to let other editors provide information.

Now adding to my argument: you don't have a section where immersion isn't prescribed, or the primary choice, but is an option and this section could be used to list those. Since Wikipedia can be edited by others, that would be the logical place to add it, but not if "normative" is returned to the section.

Stop using the term and you'll be fine with me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already told you what I'm talking about:"This section is reserved specifically for denominations in which immersion baptism is normative, such as the Baptists and the EOC". Sufficient evidence has been provided that immersion baptism is normative in these denominations; note that, in these denominations, not "in all denominations". I have already invited people to make a section for those denominations in which immersion isn't prescribed or isn't the primary choice. I have now made such a section myself, "Immersion in other denominations". You have yet to explain your objection to the word "normative" as applied to denominations in which immersion baptism is normative. I await your explanation.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no objection to "normative" in these concrete cases, in which immersion baptism (in some sense) is the obligatory rule, not just the usual, normal, regular practice. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, please tell that to Walter. By the way, "normative" meas the usual, normal, regular practice, as I have explained many times before.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, while, as you know, I have accepted the fact that you use the word in that way, I don't think Wikipedia articles should use it in that way in a context where it would lead to misunderstandings by those who understand it differently. For instance, I would not accept that, because baptism by affusion is the usual, normal, regular practice among Anglicans, it should be described as normative for them. Esoglou (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As one who is attending a Fellowship Baptist church I can say that it is the normal way that baptism is carried-out because its prescribed as such. When I attended a Mennonite Brethren church, it was prescribed that way as well. So why not leave "normative" out since it's the most-common way of baptising only because that's the way they understand scripture.

I fully understand what you mean, but it's not necessary.

The way it's titled now, it's more inclusive. For instance, in both the Lutheran Church I attended and the Anglican Church, they will perform immersion baptism if the subject requests it. Not all congregations will allow it. In fact, rector of the Anglican church I attended refused to perform weddings outside of the church building because of the dualism saw in the building: it was holy and "the world" wasn't. So an ocean-side or river baptism was out of the question for him, however other Anglican priests have been known to perform such activities. This should be discussed, all without creating a new section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the way the section is headed now is sufficient.

I don't think it would serve any purpose to have a discussion in the article about usage among Anglicans and ... and ... I believe that Anglicans have fonts suitable for complete immersion and partial (Portsmouth cathedral for the latter). Esoglou (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Other religions"

Sorry, Walter, I think your new heading for the Jehovah Witnesses alone cries out for specification. The heading you have given, "Immersion in other religions", raises loudly the question: Religions other than what? If you specify as "other than Christian", you are taking sides (POV) on their claim to be Christians. So how can you/we fix that problem? Esoglou (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is WP:POV and I changed it. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to offer it. They are not mainstream Christian denominations. "Other traditions" may be fine, but they're not a Christian denominations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly POV now, stating clearly that, in spite of their protestations, the JWs are not Christian. But I don't know how to fix it other than going back to the more generic "denominations", a word which has Christian overtones, but perhaps does not have to be taken as meaning exclusively Christians. Esoglou (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your religious prejudices, the JWs are regarded in standard reference sources as a Christian sect.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's quite sad. And I suppose those same references consider Christianity a Jewish sect. And both, along with Islam, are just Abarhamic sects. I don't really care. They are not Christian and every appologetic book I've seen has information about how to deal with JWs. Every cult book I've seen has a section on JWs. So I now have two additional references to your one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Try and understand that your POV is not relevant here; WP:RS are relevant. Sectarian apologetic works are not WP:RS where this subject is concerned, they are blatantly POV. Use secular references please. I don't have time for your endless inter-denominational squabbles and attempts to push POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Try to understand that it's not POV. Thanks. Also, please take a few minutes to look at the article instead of debating a subject that was resolved while you slept. Arguing something that has no basis in the article is not worth my time, but I have seen you do it so often. So now is the time to stop beating a dead horse. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is POV. Standard third party reference sources, as well as authoritative Christian reference sources (such as the Encyclopedia of Christianity), identify the JWs as a Christian sect. Only Christian sectarians identify them as a cult. It's clear the subject was not resolved, you've just both imposed your POV on the article by refusing to refer to the JWs as a Christian sect.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. What's done is done, and you're done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't leave it. I have removed Christian from the heading since no other religious groups are mentioned anyhow. I object to the use of the term regardless what your sources say and will not permit them to be called Christians on this page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a great example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sorry, what you do and don't like is irrelevant. WP:RS prevail.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I shouldn't impose my POV on this article. Therefore, I propose that there is no need to indicate the religion since it's not a catalogue of the practice in various religions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Check again!--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way Walter, one, two, three, four, all yours. You were saying?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that I hadn't broken WP:3RR, but at least I don't do it with the zeal and enthusiasm that you do and with blatant disregard for changes on a page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In the face of sources saying they are Christians and an editor's word that they are not, I'm taking sources. Sol (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that some equate them with Christianity, I won't list all the books and apologeticists that don't. Suffice it to say, that is not the primary point. There is no need to differentiate between Christian and Jewish when there is only a single Jewish practice listed, or Christian and other religion or various cultic practices. The list isn't large enough. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, your only objection is transparently POV. You keep changing your arguments, but you've already admitted the real reason. By the way, according to the NPOV noticeboard you are "just wrong". Sorry Walter, your POV does not belong here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done some research and for the sake of Wikipedia and other non-Christian writings, the JWs are considered Christian. I concede that point. But my recent objections are not POV. I'll ask you some straightforward questions, and to steal a page from your favourite playbook I will ask to please answer them:

How many faiths are listed the way you originally created it?

How many faiths are listed in second section you added recently?

Is it necessary to have so many divisions for such a small amount of content?

That is my POV. Whether a group states that any other group is Christian or not really doesn't enter into the equation no matter how much it irks me. You could just as easily have divided it into Western traditions and Eastern traditions and I would have asked for it to have been merged into a single group. The same goes for faith founded before 1500 AD and those after 1500 AD. There is no need to artificially divide the sections.

One more related question:

What is it with you and the word "normative"? Why do you feel it has to be included when the same heading without it makes just as much sense.

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll gladly answer all your questions: 1) Not as many as there will be by the time I've finished with it, 2) not as many as I intend to add, 3) sure, why not?. As for your last question, the same heading without it does not make just as much sense.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the questions in the present tense. You are obfuscating. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have answered all your questions without any obfuscation. I've been totally clear on the fact that I intend to enlarge that section. If my present tense answers weren't sufficiently clear, here are some more: 1) There currently are not (present tense), as many as there will be by the time I've finished with it, 2) there currently are not (present tense), as many as I intend to add, 3) sure it is (present tense), why not?. As for your last question, the same heading without it does not (present tense), make just as much sense.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your answers were future tense (what you plan on doing), now they are present tense (how I modified your headings), thanks. Once again obfuscating. Please answer the questions. To address your question in 3) above, even though I already have, there currently isn't enough information to have two level-two headings and two level-three headings, which is the way you designed it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

More to the point: why did you add them (and I assume will attempt to reinstate them in about twenty hours)? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My initial answers were in the present tense; the word 'not' in each case carries the implied present "to be" verb (you can't possibly interpret the "not" in those statements as a reference to the future), short for "are not". I've already answered your questions. I'm not particularly interested in whether or not you think there's sufficient information for the extra headings, because I know that's not your real objection. You already gave the game away, and your POV has been comprehensively rejected by the NPOV noticeboard.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your first answer is what you intend to do and so is future. My real objection is why there needs to be multiple headings for a simple number of items. Sorry you don't get that.

I trust that you now understand that while you may think you're answering a question, it's not really meeting the needs of the person who is asking the question. Please also note that I am not demanding that you answer the question but requesting it. Please also note that you still haven't answered the question. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but my first answer was just as much in the present tense as my first. I have explained this already; the "not" was short for "are not" (present tense). Your real objection was already made perfectly clear; you don't think JWs are Christians. That has been rejected by the NPOV noticeboard. I have answered your questions twice. I'm sorry if that doesn't meet your needs. I'm more interested in improving the article. You can look forward to an exciting new enlargement of the material in that section, as well as a differentiation of the Christian groups (such as the JWs), from the other religions (such as Judaism).--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you still haven't answered the question so I'll simply state that the way the heading appear now Immersion in various groups is better than having four headings. The fact that you think this is about the JWs simply shows that you're either deluded or can't let go of issues. Let me emphatically say that's your issue now not mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you've forgotten what your questions were, you can just look further up the page to see what you wrote, and then read my two answers. I realise that you want the title to say "Immersion in various groups" because you don't believe the JWs are Christians, but as I've already pointed out that's POV and has been rejected by the NPOV noticeboard as a valid basis for an edit. It was called "just wrong". Once again, you've made yourself very clear on the reason for your preferred edit.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting the Ferguson quote

Esoglou misrepresented the Ferguson quote by: a) representing the sentence as starting with 'In' (changing the capitalization and concealing the fact that it was an attributed statement), b) completely omitting the text of the quotation which identifies this specifically as a reference to infant baptism.

• Ferguson's actual words: "He acknowledges that in the present practice of infant baptism in the Greek church the priest holds the child as far under the water as possible and scoops water over the head so as to be fully covered with water (pp. 300-301)."
• Esoglou's fabrication: "In the present practice of the Greek church the priest holds the child as far under the water as possible and scoops water over the head so as to be fully covered with water."

That was a deliberate falsification.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I apologize for it. When I spoke of falsification, I was referring to turning the Ferguson statement into "In the infant baptism practice of some Greek churches ..." That is what I meant, and I again apologize for my imperfect correction of it. Esoglou (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. No one actually turned the quotation into "In the infant baptism practice of some Greek churches"; that statement was never attributed to Ferguson. It was an interpretation of the statement in Ferguson, after much searching for any evidence at all to support it, and my having found absolutely none. I prefer my current edit anyway. The quotation should be identified as attributed to Heiser, and it should be identified as referring specifically to infant baptism.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that giving Ferguson as the source was attributing to him the statement that it was "some Greek churches", rather than "the Greek church", that had the practice. But I will not quibble. Esoglou (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

JW

I moved the JW's down to "other religion". I have them listed as a cult in Larson's book of Cults. I'm not one, but I'm not neccesarily unbiased either, so I voluntarily place myself on 1 RR on that change. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 17:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the response to this to Taiwan boi, who has strong views on the matter. For my part, I think that, while the Jehovah's Witnesses are in fact classified as a Christian cult or group, the reaction of more than one editor to the juxtaposition of "Christian" and "Jehovah's Witnesses" shows that it is provocative to use the unnecessary adjective "Christian" in this context. It is enough for the article to speak simply of groups that practise baptism, without specifying them as "Christian", for the general reader will interpret "baptism" in the sense given to it in Christianity (mainstream groups and cults). "Baptism", in the sense in which it is usually understood, does not include Jewish rites, and so the article would also be better without the "other religions" section. But this is one of the matters that, if others insist on them, I prefer to just let pass, as not sufficiently important to make it worthwhile to make them the object of a discussion that - experience shows - would almost certainly generate more heat than understanding. Esoglou (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussion. This has nothing to do with your view, or my view, or anyone else's view. It has to do with Wiki policy. According to standard reference sources, JWs are a Christian sect. Whether or not you, or I, or anyone else actually agrees with this is totally irrelevant as far as Wiki policy is concerned. We cannot write Wiki articles to suit the view of the reader. That is POV. If readers are outraged or find the article content provocative due to their personal POV, that's bad luck for them. The NPOV noticeboard already ruled that it is POV to exclude JWs from the "Christian" category. We don't have a choice about this. If you want to edit an online Wiki which lets you insert your POV, please go to Conservapedia.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I only questioned the need to include the word "Christian" (redundant, because the baptism context already indicates Christianity) in the section heading, may I take it that this strongly worded comment was not really directed against me? I explicitly classified Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian, thus indicating my POV on the matter. Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a response to KoshVorlon; check the indent, I posted it directly under his post, inline with yours.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

TaiwanBoi, Notice that I stated I have a book in front of me that states they're a cult. That's why I moved them down to "other". That had nothing to do with my POV, but what my reliable sources said. Are you sure you were responding to me ?

Anyrate, what sources show JW's are Christian ? KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 12:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The book to which you refer just confirms I was right. Bob Larson? That's 100% POV. Larson's book on cults is not a WP:RS. He's a right wing evangelical who believes satanic ritual abuse is real, and who fondly imagines that he exorcises demons. He's the last source to cite on a subject such as this. He is not remotely authoritative on this subject, and I wonder if he could rightly be said to be authoritative on any subject at all. If you read the previous discussion as I suggested, you'll find that the JWs are recognized as a Christian sect by proper academic works such as the Encyclopedia of Christianity (Brill), Encyclopedia of Religion and Society (Rowman & Littlefield), Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution (ABC-CLIO, The Encyclopedia of Protestantism (Taylor & Francis), Encyclopedia of Theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi (Continuum Publishing Group), and Historical Dictionary of the 1940s (ME Sharpe). These are scholarly works by publishers of academic works, which makes them WP:RS. Mr Larson does not qualify. He isn't even on the map. We have to defer to these reputable sources instead. Let me emphasize again that neither you nor I have any choice about this. It's Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

TaiwanBoi.... I'm not looking to argue, I have a reliable source that says "Yes" JW's are a cult, you have a few that say "No" they're not. (I note that the current cite for JW's is "The Watchtower" which is not RS at all - and I've placed myself on a voluntary 1 RR over here, so I won't go back abnd change a cite - but you may if you wish). I guess the next step is to decide how this should be presented, (2 opposing views from different reliable sources.) What's you take ?

KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 17:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I have half a dozen reliable sources which say that JWs are a Christian sect, and you have one completely unreliable source which says they are. There is no dispute about this, there are no opposing views from different reliable sources. The matter has already been settled at the Wikipedia NPOV noticeboard; see here. The Watchtower is a reliable source for JW beliefs, according to Wiki policy, and that's how they are being used in this article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Many religious groups, including Christianity, began as something that meets the sociological definition of cult. That's quite irrelevant to this page, which is about particular methods of baptism. In this article, Jehovah's Witnesses should not be treated differently from other denominations in lists of which practice what. This is not a forum for opinions about religious movements. Jonathunder (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A trivium

I was surprised at the restoration, in a quotation from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church of the asterisks that indicate that the book has specific articles on the terms to which the asterisks are attached, a significance that the Wikipedia reader can scarcely be expected to understand, but I recognize that tastes may legitimately differ on this trivial matter. On the other hand, I do much prefer what I take to be the usual capitalization of the titles of books, and have undone the change to "Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church". Esoglou (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Didache

Esoglou, please stop POV editing the section on the Didache. This was your latest attempt:

It does not explicitly indicate whether the baptism "in" water is to be by full immersion.

It's ridiculous of you to try and assert this when the section already has WP:RS citations saying that the Didache does in fact refer to immersion, and that it differentiates this from pouring. It's clear that Brownson's view is WP:FRINGE, and does not belong here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A proper citation was provided. That is all wikipedia cares about. As for the Didache referring to immersion - that does not mean full submersion, head under the water, etc. Once can be up to their neck in water and still be considered to be immersed in water. I highly suggest you look up the definitions of the words, as there are important distinctions between what you say they mean and what they actually mean. It is also an important distinction that one note that even if full immersion is said to be prefered by the Didache, that is still only *prefered*, not the sole method allowed. These are nuances in language that you seem to fail to grasp repeatedly, but are distinctions of the utmost importance here. One is accurate to the citations, and the other is simply flat out wrong.Farsight001 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The first is that the citation given did not support the statement made. The statement made was "It does not explicitly indicate whether the baptism "in" water is to be by full immersion", but the citation does not say this. The citation says "The Didache does not say, however, whether immersion or pouring is recommended when using running water". The second is that the cited work is simply wrong. The Didache states explicitly that immersion is preferred when using running water, and there are already WP:RS cited in the section which say this. Wikipedia cares about proper citations, and this was not a proper citation. The source was misrepresented, and the source was wrong. Your personal opinion about what the Didache means by baptizo is irrelevant, since you are not a WP:RS. What you write here is WP:OR and is contradicted by the WP:RS already cited. No one has tried to make this section say that the Didache only allows full immersion, so your objection is irrelevant. Since I can actually read the Greek, and you are misrepresenting the English, it's clear who is failing to grasp "nuances in language". I understand that as a Roman Catholic you want the section on the Didache to represent the Roman Catholic POV, but that kind of POV pushing is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

1 The citation does indeed support the statement made, though it would still be better to change the wording.

2 we are not allowed to care of the cited source is actually wrong. If every source on the planet said the world was a flat square, and you were editing from orbit where you could obviously see that the earth is basically spherical, you would still have to report that the world was a flat square.

3 Your personal opinion about what the Didache means by baptizo is irrelevant, since you are not a WP:RS either. You know what is relevant? The bloody dictionary, which I referred to when I pointed out the meaning of immersion. It was not my opinion.

4 Your previous words blatantly reveal that you wanted the article to say immersion only instead of just preferred. Anyone can read back a bit and see this, but, frankly, I bet you know that already.

5 No one cares that you can read the greek. Like you said, I do not qualify as an RS. Nor do you, even if Koine Greek was your first language. What do the RS say? Oh look. The dictionary supports me and not you. Is that perhaps why you suddenly pipe up that you know Greek? Because you don't want an RS used in this case?

6 I understand that as an anti-Catholic, you want the section on the Didache to represent an anti-Catholic POV, but that kind of POV pushing is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV. Farsight001 (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

1) The citation does not support the statement made at all. 2) Yes we are supposed to care if a cited source is wrong. If a cited source is wrong we are not supposed to cite it. If a cited source is WP:FRINGE, then it should not be used or at best it should be cited as fringe. Please read WP:RS and WP:BALANCE. 3) I agree my personal opinion about what the Didache means by baptizo is irrelevant. That's why I don't appeal to my personal point of view, I simply point to the WP:RS. 4) Please address what I write, and not what you think I want to write. No one has tried to make this section say that the Didache only allows full immersion, so your objection is irrelevant. 5) I didn't appeal to my understanding of Greek, I simply pointed out that your claim I didn't understand "nuances of language" was ironic given that you misrepresented both the English and the Greek, whereas I understand both. I don't know what dictionary you think you're referring to, but there's nothing in the WP:RS cited which supports you. I have not appealed to my understanding of Greek, I am simply pointing out what the WP:RS cited already say. I am entirely happy to have WP:RS used in this case, and have already used several. 6) False accusations that I am "anti-Catholic" are not civil. I realise you don't like what the WP:RS say, but Wiki policy doesn't permit conforming articles to your personal opinion. If you want to challenge the WP:RS already cited, and if you want to claim that your source is worth including, then let's take this to 3PO or the WP:RS noticeboard, preferably both.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

1 The citation most certainly supports the statement, albiet ackwardly. I guess we will have to wait for a third opinion.

2 Find me a relevant policy about this. I 100% guarantee that there is none. Again, if all reliable sources claim the earth is a flat square, then we, by policy, must report that the earth is a flat square, even if we know better. I suggest that you be the one to read WP:RS. BALANCE is not relevant to this specific issue.

3 If you really thought your opinion was irrelevant, you would not have presented it as though it had superior authenticity to mine.

4 Yes, you most certainly have. This is the third time I have checked and confirmed that this was your EXACT action. Perhaps you need a refresher regarding your own behavior?

5 I didn't try to represent Greek or even mention it in any way until you did, so in what world could I have misrepresented it? You are simply making shit up now.

6 You should note that all I did was copy and paste the end of your previous comment and stick "anti-" in front of all instances of Catholic to make a point that simplly making accusations of POV do not suffice. I have been accused of being rabidly pov before for not allowing sentences like "all priests didle kids" and "the pope thinks he's better than God" into articles before, so your accusations of pov do little to sway me. If there is a problem with what I typed, then there is equally a problem with what you typed, as all I really did was copy and paste what you typed.Farsight001 (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tboi, please take account of the undeniable fact that the Didache does not specify full immersion. Even if some source said that it did, you, of all people, should apply the rule that you yourself have enunciated (whatever I or others may think of your rule): "Yes we are supposed to care if a cited source is wrong. If a cited source is wrong we are not supposed to cite it."

When Brownson speaks of pouring in connection with baptism "in" water, is he not describing partial immersion, and saying that what the Didache says can be applied to that mode of baptism? Brownson only points out that the Didache does not specify the form of immersion; he takes no position on what was the form that the Didache actually envisaged. But one of the sources that you have cited and quoted does claim that the Didache envisaged partial, not full, immersion. It states that the mode of baptism envisaged in the Didache was either a) partial immersion; or b) pouring without immersion: "Baptism is by *immersion if possible, otherwise by threefold *affusion." The asterisk attached to the word "immersion", the asterisk on whose preservation you have insisted, links to that source's definition of "immersion", which it distinguishes from "submersion".

Do you want this to be made explicit in the article? Esoglou (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I am writing. I have not tried to include the wording "full immersion", even though this is what many WP:RS understand the Didache to mean here. I agree that if a cited source is wrong we should care, and we should not cite it. Do you agree with that? Brownson isn't saying what the Didache wording can or can't be applied to, he is making an explicit statement that the Didache "does not say, however, whether immersion or pouring is recommended when using running water. He is wrong. The Didache states explicitly that the baptism in running water should be by immersion, and the WP:RS quoted in this section actually say this. I am aware that one of the sources quoted claims that the Didache envisaged partial immersion; it's a Catholic biased source, so of course we would expect that. None of the standard sources says this. But even so, pouring is not immersion, and the Didache makes a clear distinction between pouring and immersion. To say or imply that it does not, is simply false. Two completely different Greek words are used, and several WP:RS quoted in the article make this distinction clear. What I want is for people to let the sources speak for themselves instead of adding POV editorializing to make them say something they aren't. I would also prefer that inaccurate sources not be quoted as if they had any relevance. I also want you to stop inserting WP:OR. You say that the Didache uses baptizo "generically for all", which is completely false. It says baptizo like this, baptizo like this, and if you can't do that then ekcheo like this. Your cite no source for your claim "generically for all", you simply quote the Didache, which is WP:OR. You cannot insert your interpretation of the Didache here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that say that the baptizing in water of which the Didache spoke is not necessarily full-immersion baptism. As well as Brownson, Martin and Davids, whom you have cited and quoted, say "Some form of immersion is envisaged". (So on what grounds did you delete the sourced phrase "some form of"? It will have to be restored to the article.) There is also a reliable source, cited by yourself, that, unlike Brownson and Martin and Davids, actually says that what the Didache envisaged was baptism by partial immersion, not full-immersion baptism.

Your claim that in the Didache the verb baptizo cannot refer to partial immersion is only original research.

Your claim that "The Didache states explicitly that the baptism in running water should be by immersion" is simply unfounded, if by that you mean to exclude partial immersion. Esoglou (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You have again misrepresented the quote from Brownson. Your edit is "It does not explicitly indicate whether the baptism "in" water is to be by full immersion", but Brownson does not say this. Brownson says "The Didache does not say, however, whether immersion or pouring is recommended when using running water". He does not say "full immersion". The majority of sources say that the baptism of the Didache is by immersion, so that is what this section should say; "some form of" is not what the majority of sources says. Not one of the sources cited says that the baptism of the Didache was by "partial immersion". The ODCC has its own definition of "immersion", but that is not the definition of the majority of sources, the ODCC definition of "immersion" is pouring, which the Didache differentiates explicitly from immersion. I have never claimed that in the Didache the verb baptizo cannot refer to partial immersion, I have simply cited relevant WP:RS and let them speak for themselves. Please don't make inaccurate statements, you're just wasting time. What I mean by "The Didache states explicitly that the baptism in running water should be by immersion" is irrelevant, since this is not my statement, it is the statement of the sources. The reader is free to decide if by "immersion" the sources really mean "partial immersion" or "pouring", and they can make that decision by reading the quotations provided.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, you need to cut this "Catholic-biased source" crap and find an issue actually seated in policy. There is no policy that says we cannot use a source because it is biased. For the 10th time, it matters only if it qualifies as an RS. Bring a valid issue based on a real policy, or give it up, because you're not going to get anywhere. Play the game or get off the field.Farsight001 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)'

Please read what I wrote. I have never said that we cannot use a source because it is biased. Furthermore a WP:RS is a source which speaks accurately on the topic. A source which makes false statements is not a WP:RS. Please read WP:RS. If you really believe that we are free to include quotations which we know are false from sources which are inaccurate, then I invite you to try out that suggestion on the WP:RS noticeboard and see how far you get. Let me know how you go.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not say it, but your constant objecting to all sources Catholic or Catholic-friendly make your intent very obvious. And again, you really REALLY really need to read more closely. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Wikipedia is about verifiability, NOT truth. We can include it if we can verify it in a source that qualifies as an RS, EVEN IF WE KNOW THE SOURCE IS WRONG. (which I certainly wouldn't say it was wrong) Instead of asking me if I really mean this, even after I confirm it, perhaps you should actually look around at some policies as I have asked you to. The very first sentence of WP:VERIFIABILITY confirms what I'm saying. Was that hard?Farsight001 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please list all the occasions on which I have objected to the use of a "Catholic or Catholic-friendly" source. I suggest you read WP:VERIFIABILITY again. It is not saying what you think. It is not saying that we can represent statements we know are factually wrong, as if they are true. On the contrary, it says specifically "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". See also WP:AD, which is all about maintaining factual accuracy in articles. Again, if you really believe that we are free to include quotations which we know are false from sources which are inaccurate, then I invite you to try out that suggestion on the WP:RS noticeboard and see how far you get. Let me know how you go.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you would actually read what I typed, it would help us both communicate. I did not say that you have directly objected to the use of Catholic sources, but rather that it is obvious from your behavior and attitude that you have a problem with them. "Catholic pov" this and "Catholic pov" that. No. One. Cares.

Also, I am intimately aware of what verifiability says, and it does in fact say exactly what I thought. Published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy actually get things wrong all the time. The Encyclopedia Britannica is a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is it not? And yet at any given edition, there are between about 100 and 200 errors in it. Until those wrong things are corrected, we, the mindless machines of wikipedia, are, per policy, to report them wrong (barring a known BLP violation or other legal issue). Sucks, yes, but that's what it is. Wake up and smell the coffee and welcome to reality.Farsight001 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So when you wrote "your constant objecting to all sources Catholic or Catholic-friendly", you didn't mean I have objected to the use of Catholic sources? What did you mean? And I'm sorry but Wikipedia cares about POV even if you don't. Please read WP:POV; you should care about POV, it's Wiki policy. I'm glad to see you've read WP:VERIFIABILITY and are no longer asserting that when we find inaccurate statements in sources we must include them in articles. We are to use WP:RS, and where there is a conflict between statements made by WP:RS we are to weigh the various WP:RS and assess which are most reliable. Those which are not accurate are not to be used as statements of fact. They may be used to indicate WP:FRINGE views, taking WP:WEIGHT into account. Again, if you were really sure of your original claim with regard to WP:VERIFIABILITY you would have been prepared to have it scrutinized on the relevant noticeboard.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant exactly what I said. You simply do not understand, or choose to twist, what I said. And POV policy is another thing that you should read again instead of me. It says that we care about pov IN THE ARTICLES, NOT in the sources. It makes this important distinction for a reason. As for the rest of the shit you just typed, I am tired of you intentionally twisting and maligning what I'm saying. Start representing me accurately (as I never said what you attributed to me, nor did I even remotely imply it), or I will simply be forced to start treating you as a disruptive editor whose sole purpose is to troll. Try again.Farsight001 (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I quoted you directly, "your constant objecting to all sources Catholic or Catholic-friendly". It's up to you to explain what that meant. Yes, we are supposed to care about POV in the sources as well as in the articles. That's why POV sources have to be identified if they are to be used at all; "Christian apologist Gleason Archer", "Catholic theologian Hans Kung", etc.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)