Talk:Immersion baptism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

POV editorializing

Esoglou you are repeating your previous pattern of editing, right down to trying to represent sources as being unspecific. This is wrong:

The overwhelming majority of commentaries understand that the Didache indicates a preference for baptizing by some form of immersion, generally not specified.

The overwhelming majority of commentaries does not say "some form of immersion", and it is not for you to interpret for the reader what they mean by "immersion". I let the sources speak for themselves; they say "immersion", so I tell readers they say "immersion". This is also wrong:

verification needed

Verification is not needed, it has been provided. This is demonstrable. Brownson says that the Didache does not specify whether baptism in running water is to be by immersion or by pouring. In fact it does specify that baptism in running water is to be by immersion, and all the sources cited following "contrary to Brownson's claim" actually say this. This is also wrong:

[citation needed]

The ODCC's definition of "immersion" as "standing in water and having water poured over the head" is fringe. This is demonstrable. We already went through this. Look at the article itself:

• "The term is less commonly applied to some specific mode of baptism that involves partial, not total, immersion."
• "Modern, professional lexicography defines βαπτίζω as dip, plunge or immerse,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] but never as standing in water having water poured over the head, which standard Bible dictionaries define as affusion."

Your lengthy explanation of the ODCC's fringe definition of "immersion" could be half as long as it is, and wouldn't be necessary at all if WP:FRINGE were adhered to. It shouldn't even be in here, since it's such a wacky, way out interpretation of the Didache which isn't found in the overwhelming majority of commentaries on the Didache.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So you think it is false to say that the overwhelming majority of the sources do not specify the form of immersion envisaged by the Didache. What are those numerous sources that do specify the form of immersion envisaged by the Didache? - apart, that is, from the ODCC. Esoglou (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please address the points I raised. I said the overwhelming majority of commentaries does not say "some form of immersion", and it is not for you to interpret for the reader what they mean by "immersion". The sources say "immersion", so we should tell the reader they say "immersion" instead of giving the impression they are saying X or Y when they use the word "immersion".--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He did address what you raised time and time again, and time and time again, you are not listening. You are the one not addressing points raised. You repeately engage in original research and declare based on this original research that Browson is unusable, but as has been explained to you, no one gives a shit what you think. What I mean by that is that your personal studies and research are entirely and wholely irrelevant here. Even if you can prove beyond any doubt that you are the world's most preeminent scholar regarding the Didache, you have no more pull or say than anyone else. (though your published works might) So your claims that Browson is wrong means exactly dick. Is he an RS? Yes? Then that's it. end of story. Game over. Good bye. If you don't think he qualifies, then all you can do is take it to the RS noticeboard and ask them.Farsight001 (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou had no answer for the points I raised. Do you? Please identify all the WP:OR of mine to which you refer. I have not appealed to my own authority on the Didache, so your comment in this regard is groundless.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Brownson reference since I see no evidence that he is WP:NOTE, and his view is clearly WP:FRINGE. I have simplified the clarification of the ODCC's idiosyncratic definition of "immersion".--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think, Tboi, that, in view of the ambiguity of the word "immersion", an ambiguity pointed out in the lead, we should let the reader know in what sense the various sources apply it to the Didache? Of course, we mustn't interpret the sources: we must just quote any specifications they give, and indicate which sources do not specify. I have inserted the indications given by two of the sources; perhaps you can find indications in the other sources of the sense in which they apply the word "immersion" to the Didache.

I also have to attach "Failed verification" tags to the citations claimed to state that the Didache differentiates between pouring and immersion: whether the Didache does or does not differentiate, these sources do not say that it does. You could move the citations to the statement that the Didache permits pouring, a statement that they do support (although it needs no support, since it can be simply quoted). Esoglou (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We have been through this all before. You are starting up exactly the same argument you made weeks previously, which was rejected by several editors. If you really believed that the word "immersion" as used by the sources quoted was ambiguous, you wouldn't insist on adding text saying that they don't intend to be specific. They are using the word "immersion" not "pouring", which fact alone invalidates your "Failed verification" tags. I am the one who wants to let the source speak for themselves, whereas you want to add POV editorializing which tries to tell the reader what they mean by the words they use. You are trying to interpret the sources to the reader, by telling the reader that the sources aren't being specific. Of course you realise that by using the word "immersion" the sources are in fact being specific, and that if they meant "partial immersion" or "pouring" they would say so.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

They differentiate, but quote where any of them says that the Didache differentiates. Then it will be clear. Esoglou (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the sources, I have already told you. I am not going to bother with your repeated efforts to derail the article. It's as if I were to go to the article on hell and write "The Pope has never denied that hell is a place where the immortal souls of the wicked are sent to be tortured forever for their sins".--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone were to claim that a source made that statement about the Pope, that person would be expected to quote the words with which the source made the statement. If the sources you cite really made the statement that you attribute to them, it would be easy to quote them. Esoglou (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But no one is claiming that a source made that statement about the Pope, just as you didn't cite any source which says those WP:RS didn't specify what they meant by "immersion".--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course no one is making that claim. If they did make it, they would have to justify it by quoting. You, on the other hand, are making a claim about some sources, and your are refusing to justify it by quoting. Esoglou (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Taiwan boi, you should NOT be editing the section of the article under dispute until the dispute is resolved. I will give you this chance to self revert your deletion of Brownson and first provide some acceptable POLICY RELATED reason to disclude him. Then AFTER consensus is reached, the changes, if any, can be made.Farsight001 (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As I have already explained to you, Brownson is not WP:NOTE, and the overwhelming majority of WP:RS say something completely different, which makes him WP:FRINGE and invokes WP:WEIGHT. All I have to do to demonstrate that he is WP:FRINGE is to point to the overwhelming number of WP:RS already cited in that section. On the other hand, if you claim he is WP:NOTE then the burden rests on you to prove it. I await your evidence.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You will have noticed that I happily let pass your elimination of Brownson. Esoglou (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did. Since it was either that or try to get him passed on the WP:NOTE noticeboard, you were wise to make the sensible decision. As for the wording with regard to dictionaries, I have no problem with you referring to the other dictionaries as "standard English dictionaries", as I told you weeks before when we first went through this cycle. But you can't say "standard English dictionaries say X" and then contradict that with "standard English dictionaries say Y". The fact is that most standard English dictionaries say X, and two standard English dictionaries say Y, and we must make this clear, according to WP:WEIGHT.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Then it's best for me not to say why I was happy with the deletion. As for the standard English dictionaries, of course there are standard ones that say one thing and standard ones that say something else (in this case not something contradictory). Those listed are standard aren't they? And none of them say "No" to what is stated in the others. Esoglou (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of the English word immersion

Please do not remove properly cited material. The edit I made shows readers what the standard meaning of the English word "immersion" is, along with identifying its range as used in a number of standard English dictionaries. Removing the majority of these sources and giving weight to those couple of sources which identify "immersion" differently, is a breach of WP:WEIGHT.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

May we start by removing the puffery of "Standard English dictionaries" and the false assertion that "immersion" (which is English, not Late Latin) is the noun form of the Late Latin verb immergerre? Esoglou (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Citing sufficient sources to demonstrate standard usage is not puffery. The text about Latin wasn't mine, but I have corrected it anyway.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that "standard" isn't a word indicated anywhere on WP:PEA as "puffery", and previously you had absolutely no objection to it whatsoever. This is a contrived objection.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But it is puffery. Esoglou (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't have any argument as to why it's puffery, and you can't explain why you had absolutely no objection to it whatsoever.

If puffing up the importance of citations instead of letting them be judged on their own merits is not puffery, what is? Esoglou (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence of the puffing up of the importance of citations. You are still not explaining why you had no objections to this wording previously. Take it to the relevant noticeboard if you wish.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough said on this. Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Restored citations?

What do you mean by "restored citations"? You didn't restore any citations, you just duplicated citations which were already in the text. Why did you claim you were restoring them, when you weren't restoring them at all, you were just putting them in a second time? Now they're in twice.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am convinced that they were already cited in support of the statement that the Didache expresses a preference for immersion. Even if I am mistaken, there is as much or more reason for citing these sources as the others. They are reliable sources and they do make that statement about the preference. [[User:E--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)soglou|Esoglou]] (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

They were already in there. You haven't explained why you put them in twice while claiming to "restore" them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse the flat contradiction, but they are cited only once (thanks to me) for the statement that in the Didache the preference is for immersion. Esoglou (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not addressing what I wrote. You cited them twice and claimed you were "restoring" them. You were not restoring them, and you cited them twice. The fact that they were only cited once for the statement that in the Didache the preference is for immersion, was not in dispute. I notice that you have again added POV editorializing to the article. Weeks of discussion, 3PO, and input from other editors has proved that you refuse to listen to others and insist on your POV agenda. The correct procedure now is RfC.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I wanted them cited for the statement about the preference for immersion. Rightly or wrongly, I thought they had previously been cited for that. I think there is good reason for citing them for that. As for my additions to the article, I hope you will find that they are verifiable. For the sake of verifiability, I had to rearrange some citations to fit with statements corresponding to their contents. I also had to remove citations about βάπτω that were presented as citations about βαπτίζω. I must now remove two citations that are wrongly claimed to show that the form of immersion used in the Greek Orthodox Church is called "full", preserving, of course, the citations that do show that. Esoglou (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You now have re-introduced your misleading POV editorializing several times, in sections which have been discussed extensively on previous occasions. You are misrepresenting WP:RS, citing unreliable sources, misrepresenting non-authoritative sources as "authorities", and once more refusing to discuss your edits.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Immersion baptism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Immersion baptism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Understanding Four Views on Baptism":

• From Believer's baptism: Tom J. Nettles, Richard L. Pratt, Jr., John H. Armstrong, Robert Kolb, Understanding Four Views on Baptism, Zondervan, 2007, ISBN 0-310-26267-4, 978-0-310-26267-1, 222 pages
• From Churches of Christ: Tom J. Nettles, Richard L. Pratt, Jr., John H. Armstrong, Robert Kolb, Understanding Four Views on Baptism, Zondervan, 2007, ISBN 0-310-26267-4, 9780310262671, 222 pages
• From Baptism: Tom J. Nettles, Richard L. Pratt, Jr., John H. Armstrong, Robert Kolb, Understanding Four Views on Baptism, Zondervan, 2007, ISBN 0-310-26267-4, 9780310262671, 222 pages

Reference named "Who Are the churches of Christ":

• From Restoration Movement: Batsell Barrett Baxter, Who are the churches of Christ and what do they believe in? Available on-line here, here, here, here and here
• From Baptism: Batsell Barrett Baxter, Who are the churches of Christ and what do they believe in? Available on-line in a Archived January 31, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, and here [1], here [2] and here [3]
• From Churches of Christ: Batsell Barrett Baxter, Who are the churches of Christ and what do they believe in? Available on-line in an Archived June 16, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, and here, here and here

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

POV edit

This is Esoglou's latest attempt to introduce his POV to the article.

That in the New Testament βαπτίζω does not necessarily mean total submersion is, according to several authorities, shown by Luke 11:38, which applies the verb to a person. and with regard to Mark 7:4, which likewise uses the verb with reference to the Jews performing ablutions (literally, "being baptized") after being to the marketplace. The verb is used in figurative senses also in places such as Mark 10:38–39 and 1 Cor 10:2. With reference to the passages in Mark and Luke, H. O. Old says: "While in classical Greek baptism may have originally meant 'to submerge or sink', in the popular Greek of New Testament times it meant 'to wash'."

Esoglou falsely describes the following sources as "authorities" on the Greek word baptizo:

• Ritchie, The Regulative Principle of Worship, p. 301: a book by a Reformed Christian which presents the Reformed perspective of baptism, published by a self-publishing service, a clear breach of WP:RS; this is not even a WP:RS, still less an authority
• Hale and Thorson's Applied New Testament Commentary: Applying God's Word to Your Life: an amateur theological commentary of no academic standing whatsoever, published by a Christian ministry, a clear breach of WP:RS
• Pratt and Armstrong, Understanding Four Views on Baptism: the link given is to a Lutheran view which gives an opinion without any evidence whatsoever, and which is contradicted by standard professional lexical sources; the book itself is a WP:RS, but this article in the book is only a WP:RS for the Lutheran view, not for the meaning of the word baptizo, and it is certainly not an authority
• Thomas R. Schreiner, Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, p. 16: this work is a WP:RS, but it does not say "in the New Testament βαπτίζω does not necessarily mean total submersion", and the work is not an authority on the meaning of the word
• Joseph Stump, An Explanation of Luther's Small Catechism, p. 204: this is a Lutheran work published in 1910, providing a Lutheran commentary on Lutheran beliefs; it is not even a WP:RS, let alone an authority
• Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship: Reformed according to Scripture 2002, p. 10: this is a book by a Reformed Christian which presents the Reformed perspective of baptism; even worse, not only is it not an authority, the statement quoted is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, and is contradicted directly by the fourteen scholarly lexical sources cited earlier in this very section.

This is a typical example of POV editing, editorializing,and outright falsification, which repeatedly breaches Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Are any of the sources given above peer- reviewed or Greek sources? As the word is a Greek word. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost none of them are peer-reviewed sources (as usual for an Esoglou edit). None of them are authorities. He simply made that up. He has falsified every single one of these references.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that being a Reformed Christian or a Lutheran is sufficient grounds for classifying someone as a fool or a knave. And I don't see why you think Lindsay, whom you cite half a dozen or more times, does not suffer from the same supposed handicap, or why you suppose that the other writers you cite had no religious affiliation. Nor do I see why you restore, as evidence of the use of βαπτίζω in LXX, statements about a different verb: "In the LXX βάπτειν as a rendering of טָבַל, “to dip,” is used for the dipping of the morsel in wine at Ru. 2:14, of feet in the river at Jos. 3:15, of the finger in blood in the Torah of sacrifices at Lv. 4:6, 17 etc., of the dipping of unsanctified vessels in water in the laws of purification at Lv. 11:32 (בא hiph)", "Ex 12,22; Lv 4,6.17; 9,9; 11,32 to immerse sth in sth [פי וἴע פי] Lv 9,9; id. [פי ἔם פיםי] Dt 33,24; id. [פי ἀנ פיםןע] Ex 12,22; to plunge or to dip sb in sth [פיםב ἔם פיםי] Jb 9,31" (I leave uncorrected the wrong transcription of the Greek letters as if they were Hebrew), "In the LXX baptō usually translates the OT Heb. ṭāḇal, dip (13 times; on 3 occasions baptō represents other vbs.)" Nor do I see on what grounds you remove from a section headed "Meaning of the Greek word baptizo in the New Testament" the clear indication in Liddell and Scott that in the New Testament βαπτίζω does not necessarily mean total submersion. Esoglou (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As usual you are not addressing anything I wrote. I said nothing about anyone being a fool or a knave, have never denied Lindsay's religious affiliation, and I did not remove the fact that in the New Testament βαπτίζω does not necessarily mean total submersion; in fact I also direct the reader to an entire section on that subject in the Baptism article. Unlike you, I never claimed that Lindsay is "an authority" on the meaning of the Greek word baptizo. It's clear you have not even read the quote from TDNT properly, or you would understand why the TDNT uses Hebrew in the passage quoted. You are completely wrong to say that this is "the wrong transcription of the Greek letters as if they were Hebrew". On the contrary, it is a quotation of Hebrew, in Hebrew (the only font error was with the quote from GELS, which I have fixed because I can read Greek and I can tell Greek from Hebrew unlike some people). If you could read Greek, you would know that the statement "βαπτίζειν occurs only at 4 Βασ. 5:14" is talking about the verb βαπτίζω in the LXX. The text you quoted is not used in the article as evidence of the use of βαπτίζω in LXX. Why do you make these false claims? Why did you not address anything I wrote? Why did you deliberately represent these references falsely?--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You did seem to represent religious affiliation as one reason for rejecting the sources cited. And your rejection seemed to indicate that you judged the writers to be either mistaken (and so fools) or giving a slanted interpretation (and so knaves). Or was there some other reason for you to mention their religion? I did not cite Lindsay as an authority on the meaning of βαπτίζω. You cited him (although he was giving the view of a particular religious tradition) several times in the article. I still don't see why anyone should use Hebrew letters (mixed with a few Greek) [פי וἴע פי] ,[פי ἔם פיםי] ,[פי ἀנ פיםןע] ,[פיםב ἔם פיםי] when writing Greek words. You can read Greek and so you know that in my revision of the article I removed the talk about βάπτω, but not what was said about βαπτίζω in 4 Βασ./2 Kgs 5:14. But you restored the part about βάπτω, the part I quoted above. And your spelling correction indicates that you insist in presenting what is said about βάπτω as proof of the meaning of βαπτίζω in LXZ. Esoglou (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So once again you're attributing to me statements I never made. You cite Lindsay as an authority on the meaning of βαπτίζω. No Hebrew letters were used when writing Greek words. Can't you tell Hebrew from Greek? Hebrew letters are being used to write Hebrew words. I restored the part about βάπτω, because it was relevant to the article; it was not being used to represent what βαπτίζω means in the LXX (that claim of yours was completely false), and nor is it now. You have still not addressed a single one of the statements I have made, and you have now filled the section with completely unsubstantiated citation checks.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of immersion

Esoglou claimed this definition of immersion baptism does not involve submersion:

"Immersion, however, depicts more clearly the symbolic aspect of baptism since its three steps—immersion (going into the water), submersion (going under the water), and emersion (coming out of the water)—more closely parallel the concept of entering into the death of Christ, experiencing the forgiveness of sins, and rising to walk in the newness of Christ’s resurrected life (Rom 6:4).' (Douglas, & Tenney (eds.)., 'New International Bible Dictionary ', 1987), p. 124

Immersion baptism here is described as having three steps: immersion (going into the water), submersion (going under the water), and emersion (coming out of the water). The claim that it does not refer to immersion baptism as involving submersion is false. This is yet another example of Esoglou deliberately writing falsehoods.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What I say is that it doesn't clearly make immersion and submersion synonyms. It explains immersion as going into the water (not yet submerged) and it explains submersion as going under the water. So I said it requires clarification. Doesn't it? Esoglou (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what you say, you're making up complete nonsense. It defines immersion baptism as an act which includes submersion.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

... and yet distinguishes immersion from submersion. Esoglou (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are still avoiding the point. It defines immersion baptism as an act which includes submersion. It is being used as a definition of the immersion baptism, and that is how it defines immersion baptism. This is the complete opposite of what you claimed, and is another example of you just making things up.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That I have not denied. The point that I raised is that the source's use of "immersion" in two senses calls for clarification. Doesn't it? Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The source is defining "immersion baptism", and defines what it means by "immersion baptism" with absolute clarity, including defining the three acts of immersion baptism, which are immersion/submersion/emersion.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So it defines "immersion" as three acts, of which "immersion" is one, thus using "immersion" in an inclusive, but also an exclusive sense. Right? Esoglou (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it defines immersion baptism as an act involving submersion. You are still not addressing this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not failing to address it. The quotation defines immersion as an act involving "submersion" (something I have never denied), and two other phases, the last being "emersion", the first being something that the quotation also calls "immersion". Seems obvious.

You seem to think that I denied that the quotation refers to submersion baptism. What made you think that? I only said that the quotation's use of "immersion" in what seems to be two different senses calls for clarification. It does. Esoglou (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming that you deny the quotation refers to submersion baptism. I am pointing out that you keep claiming its use of the word "immersion" requires clarification, when it defines both uses with absolute clarity. It defines what "immersion baptism" is, and it defines what "immersion" means as part of "immersion baptism". Your assertion is utterly groundless.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It defines what "immersion" means (not "immersion baptism" - read the text) as including submersion, and at the same time uses "immersion" as distinct from "submersion". Esoglou (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not reading it. It defines what immersion baptism is, and it defines what "immersion" means as part of "immersion baptism". That's it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I repeat the quotation as you yourself gave it at the start of this section. It says "immersion", not "immersion baptism", thus using "immersion" in two senses.

"Immersion, however, depicts more clearly the symbolic aspect of baptism since its three steps—immersion (going into the water), submersion (going under the water), and emersion (coming out of the water)—more closely parallel the concept of entering into the death of Christ, experiencing the forgiveness of sins, and rising to walk in the newness of Christ’s resurrected life (Rom 6:4).' (Douglas, & Tenney (eds.)., 'New International Bible Dictionary ', 1987), p. 124 Esoglou (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You are being obtuse. The word "immersion" at the start of the first sentence is being used in the context of baptism, in an article called "Baptism", in a sentence introduced by reference to "forms of baptism", giving "immersion" as a form of baptism ("immersion, sprinkling, or pouring"), used to refer to immersion baptism. Contrary to your false claim, this first use of "immersion" is defined precisely as immersion, submersion, and emersion, all of which words are defined specifically themselves. Your claim is blatantly false.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely you are not denying that, in the quotation, the word "immersion" is used, at one point, as inclusive of "submersion", and at another point as distinct from "submersion"? That is all I am saying. Esoglou (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations claimed to state that "immersion" means submersion

Four citations that do not use the word "submersion" are being presented as stating that "immersion" means submersion. Would the editor who removed the query tags about those citations explain how the statement, "The word baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo which means to plunge, to dip, or to immerse", shows that the writer understood baptism by immersion to be baptism by submersion. Esoglou (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you read my edit summary, you'll find the answer to that.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not much of an answer. Esoglou (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a perfect answer. Pouring water over the head of the baptizand does not involve dipping or plunging the baptizand. Submersion does involve dipping or plunging the baptizand.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dipping or plunging a child into water without submerging the child, as Eastern Orthodox do, is immersion baptism, but not submersion baptism. Esoglou (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

When you can show me that by "dipping or plunging" the sources quoted mean "Dipping or plunging a child into water without submerging the child, as Eastern Orthodox do", get back to me.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And when you, as the person who wants Wikipedia to make this declaration, can show that, when the quoted source says: "The word baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo which means to plunge, to dip, or to immerse", it means that submersion is what is understood by "baptism by immersion", get back to me or, preferably, put your proof in the article along with the citation. Esoglou (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already presented my evidence, and other editors agreed with me; you have been unable to contradict the fact that dipping and plunging is the act of submersion baptism, not the act of affusion. You have presented absolutely none for your claims. You're just making things up again. Why do you even bother?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan boi (talk • contribs)

Rather elusive your evidence about the citation in question. And at least as elusive is any evidence about a supposed "fact that dipping and plunging is the act of submersion baptism", seeing that Orthodox priests repeatedly do dipping and plunging as an act not of submersion, but of immersion. Esoglou (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to restore the query tags? Esoglou (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Immersion: "the act of immersing or the state of being immersed: as a : baptism by complete submersion of the person in water" That's according to the dictionary. Your source is On baptismal fonts: ancient and modern S. Anita Stauffer. That's probably a good source. It states that immersion does not necessarily mean submersion. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That "immersion" does not necessarily mean "submersion" has never been in dispute. Your refusal to read the previous discussions is resulting in you making irrelevant comments. If you wish to contribute to this article you should read the previous discussions.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Taiwan boi. And also, of course, to Becritical. Esoglou (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Most commonly-cited"

The article calls five named studies "the five most commonly-cited professional archaeological studies carried out in the last twenty five years". It cites no reliable source for this opinion. Esoglou (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See previous discussion on the Talk page. I presented my evidence, and four independent editors agreed with me. We have already been through this and there is no need to go through it again. I invited you to find a single professional archaeological study which is cited more than these, and you said you couldn't be bothered. I've presented my evidence, so until you present yours there is nothing to say here. You're just wasting time with yet another false claim.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Puffery. Esoglou (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1. It does not meet the description of Puffery. 2. I provided evidence for the statement, which proves it is not Puffery. 3. You previously agreed to the description and said you would not contest it. Your objection has no merit whatsoever, not least because you present absolutely no evidence for your claim.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Most commonly-cited" certainly fits in with what is said of "words ... used without attribution ... neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as 'peacock terms' by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." To escape the comparison, use with attribution, or point to verifiable information that is plainly summarized in the expression - use facts and attribution to demonstrate the importance you attribute to your five chosen sources. Esoglou (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, wrong. It is "verifiable information", and I provided evidence verifying it. That evidence is still in the archive, go and read it please. Four independent editors agreed with me, and you yourself conceded that you had no evidence contradicting it. Until you do, I'm not interested in re-opening this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At this moment, the statement in the article is unverified. If the evidence exists, put it in. Esoglou (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement has already been verified. If you had any evidence to the contrary, you would have provided it. But you have already admitted you have no evidence to the contrary, and you know I already provided the evidence. I don't need to post forty sources in the article to prove a single point.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You may say it has been verified elsewhere. It is not verified in the article. Talking about posting forty sources (for each of the five? really?) sounds like original research. Including research into the non-existence of any rival to even the weakest of the five? In any case, original research. Esoglou (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it has been verified elsewhere. I verified it, and you conceded. Of course I'm not going to post forty sources (not "for each of the five", stop putting words in my mouth), into the article. I just told you that. No WP:OR is being introduced here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be verified in hundreds of books and academic studies, but until one of them is cited, it is unverified in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to restore the "cn" tag? Esoglou (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, I don't know how you can prove that statement without a source. If there are sources stating this, could you point me to them? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't read the previous extensive discussion and the sources I provided, which is now archived. Please read it. I have repeatedly invited Esoglou to provide any evidence contradicting the statement, which would be very easy to falsify if it were not true.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Statements in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. The burden of proof lies on those who want them inserted or kept. A generic "As cited in Google Scholar and Google Books" is not a valid demonstration. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim made is verifiable. I already gave a demonstration in our previous discussion, and you accepted that these were the five most commonly cited recent studies.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. It's even got its own shortcut WP:BURDEN. I'm not saying that you haven't provided such proof in the discussions you cite, just that it sounds like you haven't. What you'd need for this is a source actually stating that these are the most commonly cited studies in the field. Otherwise it's WP:OR. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 08:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the previous discussion yet? It sounds like you haven't.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Becritical lay under any obligation to read through the long and tortuous archived discussion. But thank you. Twboi, for modifying the text of the article, so that it no longer makes the astounding claim that we have been discussing here. Esoglou (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The claim is not "astounding", it was a claim I proved here. You even acknowledged the point and agreed to the wording.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read them because it was an open/shut case per policy of BURDEN and WP:PEACOCK and I would have been able to just accept it if you said you had a source saying what the text did. It was of course a minor point, but just taking care of those can have a very calming effect on an article like this. Your fix is fine. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you didn't read the previous discussion because that's exactly where I demonstrated the point, fulfilling WP:BURDEN and demonstrating that the statement was not WP:PEACOCK. As I already pointed out, at that time Esoglou acknowledged that evidence had been provided for the statement, and also acknowledged that he could not find any evidence contradicting it. If you wish to contribute to this article I suggest you read the usual Wikipedia guidelines, which include suggestions such as reading previous discussions of an article. Refusal to read previous discussions indicates that you are not interested in discussion at all, as has been demonstrated here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil. Esoglou (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi, I think you misunderstand the nature of "proof" and "sourcing". If you want to say "most famous", "most often-cited" or any kind of assertion that involves a quantitative assertion, then you really need to find a source that says explicitly that. Arguments that are based on Google Books search results are effectively original research. To beat the horse into the ground until it's quite dead, the problem is that we have to rely on your say-so that you did an appropriate Google Books search with the right search terms and discounted any inappropriate occurrences of the term, etc. etc. etc. Fundamentally, the question comes down to why should "J. Random Wikipedia Reader" have any confidence in the methodology of "J. Random Wikipedia Editor who goes by the moniker of Taiwan boi"? Answer? No defensible reason, whatsoever. At the end of the day, Wikipedia never, ever wants to rely on the credibility of any Wikipedia editors (no, not even the credibility of 1000 editors). It wants to be able to say "Verifiable and reliable source X said so". If you don't believe that X said it, here's the citation. If you don't believe what X asserted, well, that's your privilege. But X is reliable according to our reliable source policy. If there is a credibility problem, the problem lies with X, not with Wikipedia. Does that make sense? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the discussion and the facts, in order to avoid irrelevant comment. This issue was resolved days ago. There is no extant argument over the issue, I edited the article myself to remove the phrase in question.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK... sorry. My reading of the above discussion didn't see any indication on the Talk Page that the issue had been resolved and since arguments over sourcing are part of the RFC that you are preparing against Esoglou, it seemed relevant. I see now that, re-reading the discussion, User:Becritical said "Your fix is fine." I am guilty of having read too quickly and not carefully enough. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Richard, I appreciate that. Thank you also for your contributions to the RfC draft.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if he does bring it forward. Don't waste time on it. Esoglou (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox practice

As an Eastern Orthodox Christian myself, two of my children where baptized as infants and they were fully immersed. They where not put in water and had any poured over them. The videos are not any sign of consistency. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly so. The videos (which we may not cite in the article) and the books (which we may and should cite in the article) indicate that there is no strict consistency. Esoglou (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No not the way you depicted them they don't. As you have rewrote the article to reflect that according to two authors whom have no authority in the church what they say goes over what is stated by the OCA website. Thats how you reworded my additions in the article [4] as they appear to contradict what the actual statement of the church on the matter is. If there is variation or not, is not the point. The point is what a valid source from the church itself says. As I can search Google to find just about any source to say anything and out of context at that, does not change what the organization as a whole states is its policy. And that is how the wiki rids itself of POV by stating what is the church stance on a thing FROM THAT CHURCH. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well wouldn't the church policy be a primary source? We would ideally have it from an authoritative third party scholarly source. We could of course contrast church policy with that source. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. BINGO! God Bless the empirical skeptic! The policy states that primary sources are welcome. Esoglou's sources appear to contradict the churches. As Esoglou did not use an Orthodox source but it appears maybe an Orthodox source quoting a Protestant one. Thats my exact issue. As there is not subjectivity in quoting a primary source to confirm its practices. They are in the link I provided. I gave two SCOBA pages. OCA [5], and GOA [6] BTW the second one is the actual script of the entire ritual. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bishop Kallistos Ware is a Professor at Oxford. Here's what he said..

Ware writes, “Orthodox are greatly distressed by the fact that western Christendom, abandoning the primitive practice of Baptism by immersion, is now content merely to pour a little water over the candidate’s forehead. Orthodoxy regards immersion as essential (except in emergencies), for if there is no immersion the correspondence between outward sign and inward meaning is lost, and the symbolism of the sacrament is overthrown” (284) [7] LoveMonkey (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox, as Bishop Kallistos says, object to the practice of pouring without immersing. They demand immersing the body in water. They do not demand the body be completely submerged. In fact, they are in full accord with the statements by the ODCC and Ferguson. The church sources that LoveMonkey has cited speak only of immersion, not submersion. In the official ritual there is an interesting contrast between the rule for the anointing (of "the whole body") and the immediately following rule about immersing (with no indication of how deeply the body is to be immersed):

When he has anointed the whole body, the Priest baptizes him (her), holding him (her) erect, and looking towards the East, says:

The servant of God (Name) is baptized in the Name of the Father. Amen. And of the Son, Amen. And of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

At each invocation the Priest immerses him (her) and raises him (her) up again.

Esoglou (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

---

At each invocation the Priest immerses him (her) and raises him (her) up again.

Typical Esoglou, more conjecture, speculation and Esoglou interpretation. Find a source that states that what GOA and Ware are talking about is not immersion but something that does not mean immersion while they explicitly use the word immersion. As for Esoglou's videos, I originally added into this article that an infant had tragically be killed due to a priest improperly baptizing the child. [8] Due to the death it might well be in the videos for infants that non full immersion and the priest for now are being careful until they can confirm that Proper training is giving before any infants baptisms.[9] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Esoglou's source contradicts this Orthodox online source which is already in the article under the external links.

The Proper Form

There is a proper form and belief concerning baptism. As regards the form, we have received from the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers and the entire mind of the church that we always baptize by immersing three times in water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is no other acceptable form, and in particular, sprinkling is absolutely forbidden, and is uncanonical. The only time a person may be sprinkled is in case of extreme emergency, such as when they are bedridden with a fatal disease.[10] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the proper form, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, Bishop Kallistos, etc., etc., require immersion. They exclude mere sprinkling. They do not demand submersion. Esoglou (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Dipping and plunging

Esoglou, do you have any evidence that "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is a reference to affusion? If so, please provide it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I don't have evidence for this strange statement. Should your question perhaps be: Do you have any evidence that "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is never a reference to the kind of plunging, dipping or immersing practised in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and for which, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church there is evidence since at latest the second century? This practice is not just affusion, even if pouring was and, as the videos of actual baptisms show, still is combined with it. Certainly, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the ODCC and other sources call it immersion. So I presume, until or rather unless convincing contrary evidence is produced, that it is legitimate to call it immersion. Esoglou (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that you have no evidence that "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is a reference to affusion. Do you have any evidence that in the source quoted it is intended to refer to the Eastern Orthodox practice you describe? If so please present your evidence.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems the obvious meaning of "The rite is still found in the E. Church." And of course I never claimed that "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is a reference to affusion. Esoglou (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The phrase in question is "The word baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo which means to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" (Myers, 'The Eerdmans Bible dictionary', 1987, p. 123), which says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the Eastern Orthodox Church. So now you admit you don't have any evidence for that either. Thank you for admitting that you don't have any evidence for either position; remember that you based one of your edits on the claim that "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is not a reference to a form of baptism excluding affusion.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that "to plunge, to dip, or to immerge" is not necessarily a reference to a form of baptism excluding affusion. Don't you agree that the Eastern Orthodox plunging, dipping, immerging does not exclude affusion? They do plunge, dip and immerge in the font, but they sometimes add pouring, don't they? The source I was referring to, as I suppose you understand, is the ODCC. Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What "seems to you" is irrelevant. Until you can demonstrate that the source in question (the source I've been talking about all along, not the source you've decided to talk about), is describing affusion when it says "to plunge, to dip, or to immerge", then you have no argument.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You began this section without mentioning any source, but by instead suggesting that I hold the ridiculous idea that "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is a reference to affusion. I immediately called this a strange statement, as it surely is, since "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is to move Object X into something else, not to move something else to Object X, as in pouring something on Object X. The plunging, dipping, immersing may or may not be accompanied with numberless other actions, such as praying, singing, dancing, laughing, painting with Chinese characters, traditional or simplified - and pouring; but the plunging, dipping, immersing is none of those other actions.

Indeed, this discussion too is a strange one. May we just end it? Esoglou (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Any evidence yet for your belief that "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is a reference to affusion? Any evidence that in the source in question, "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is a reference to anything but submersion? Unless you can prove otherwise, it is correct to understand the source in question as using the words "to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" with their normative meanings, the same meanings used by the other sources cited. Evidence please.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not my belief that these verbs refer to affusion. Why do you keep insisting that I hold that strange idea that you keep attributing to me? It is my belief that they refer to immersion. It may be your belief that they refer exclusively to submersion, but that opinion of yours needs to be backed by a reliable source, if you want it in Wikipedia or if you want to build an argument, synthetic or not, on it in Wikipedia. Isn't that so? Esoglou (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the same thing Esoglou does all across Wikipedia. Here Esoglou has done this over and over again. This is the first time I experienced Esoglou's pedantic wrangling as a means to frustrate and run off editors from articles. Talk:East–West_Schism#Edit_warring_on_Papal_infallibility. It is almost the exact same argument only instead of dip, submerge etc it is the Papal authority and the 15 or so other terms I listed in the East-West schism article. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos

Esoglou, please demonstrate that Youtube videos of baptisms constitute WP:RS for the claim that a particular form of baptism is normative in the Eastern Rite. Please first read WP:RS and then WP:OR. You need at least a WP:RS saying "Various Youtube videos show that X is the normative form of baptism in the Eastern Rite".--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have understood my edit as claiming that the (slightly differing) forms shown in the videos are the only form admitted in the Eastern Orthodox Church. That was not my intention. I am fully aware that complete bodily submersion of children and doubtless also of adults is sometimes used in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Would you then accept the following?

That the "placing in water" that is considered normative does not require complete submersion of the person is shown in videos of ... Esoglou (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing about your edit claiming that the forms shown in the videos are the only form admitted. Please stop this repeated misrepresentation of what I write. You are not addressing the issue. Please demonstrate that Youtube videos of baptisms constitute WP:RS for the claim that a particular form of baptism is normative in the Eastern Rite. Please first read WP:RS and then WP:OR. You need at least a WP:RS saying "Various Youtube videos show that X is the normative form of baptism in the Eastern Rite".--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually claim that videos of actual Eastern Orthodox baptisms in which the person being baptized is not completely submerged in the water are not reliable sources for the statement that for the Eastern Orthodox complete submersion is not a requirement for baptism? Is that the issue? If not, what is the issue that you want discussed? The issue is certainly not a supposed claim that "a particular form of baptism is normative". That is not in fact claimed. What is claimed is that Eastern Orthodox practice shows that a particular form (complete submersion of the person) is not constitutive of what they consider normative. Do we perhaps misunderstand each other? Esoglou (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have checked that what is in the article is: That the "placing in water" that is considered normative does not require complete submersion of the person is shown in videos of actual Eastern Orthodox baptisms. That makes no claim that "a particular form of baptism is normative in the Eastern Rite", as you say. You could instead say that it is a claim that "one particular specific form of baptism (total submersion) is not normative in the baptismal rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church". Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou, as above where you were correct in asking for a source, this is an open/shut case of violating WP rules, in this case on WP:RS and WP:OR. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Becritical, since you say so, I tend to believe that I must have been wrong in thinking that videos of actual Eastern Orthodox baptisms were reliable sources for how Eastern Orthodox baptisms are actually administered, and in thinking that citing these videos was no more original research than citing, for instance, ritual books or articles or books describing practice. I hope you don't mind if I check on my wrongness by raising the matter on the two noticeboards. Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Becritical, for intervening. I have checked and, as I expected, the verdict is that you were and are right and I was wrong: although we can of course take account on Talk of what those videos show, we cannot cite them in Wikipedia articles, where we can only cite books such as Ferguson's and the ODCC, which explicitly state what the videos show, namely that the Eastern Orthodox do baptize by a combination of immersion and pouring. Esoglou (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No that is not what the ODCC and Ferguson say. Please do not misrepresent sources.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Taiwan boi is right in this, I am wrong again. But I can't help thinking 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" (Ferguson, p. 860); and
• the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church's statement that the rite "whereby part of the candidate's body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder ... is still found in the Eastern Church"

do indicate that the Eastern Orthodox do baptize by a combination of immersion and pouring - not that they never use any other mode, but that this is a mode that they do use. I really don't see what else Ferguson and the ODCC can mean. Esoglou (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your claim was "the Eastern Orthodox do baptize by a combination of immersion and pouring". Ferguson does not say this, and nor does the ODCC. Ferguson talks about the present practice of the Greek church, not the entire EOC, and the ODCC simply says that one particular method "is still found" in the EOC (indicating it is non-normative), not that "the Eastern Orthodox do baptize by a combination of immersion and pouring". As I have told you before, you should not make edits based on what you think EOC doctrine and practice is, because you consistently misrepresent it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Greek Church is still part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. What its priests do is something that Eastern Orthodox priests do. They immerse the child in the water and then scoop the water over the rest of the body, a form, surely, of pouring water from the hands over the top of the body. So immersing combined with pouring is a form used in the Eastern Orthodox Church, as the ODCC says also. Did someone say that this is the only form used in the Eastern Orthodox Church? If someone did, it wasn't me. You can see, just a few lines above, that I stressed that what the two cited sources show is: "not that they never use any other mode, but that this is a mode that they do use" (emphasis added, to draw attention to the little word "a"). The Eastern Orthodox do baptize by a combination of immersion and pouring - as well as by total submersion of infants. Is there any doubt about that? Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Greek Church is indeed part of the EOC; it is not itself the EOC. What its priests do is something that its priests do, not necessary something that EOC priests do. You need to let the sources speak for themselves, not misrepresent them. Ferguson does not say what you wrote, and nor does the ODCC.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So Greek Orthodox priests are not EOC priests?! The statement is about what (some) EOC priests (sometimes) do. It is not a claim about what all EOC priests do always. Esoglou (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I never said Greek Orthodox priests are not EOC priests. The statement is about what the priests in the Greek Church sometimes do. It is not a statement about what the EOC does as a whole. You have consistently misrepresented this quote. You consistently target and misrepresent EOC material in Wikipedia articles and make bad faith edits.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have said enough on this. Esoglou (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material 2

Maxwell Johnson states: "We do not know enough about specific baptismal practices within the various New Testament communities to suggest that one mode of baptismal administration was normatively practiced over another." <-- reference: E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (Liturgical Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-8146-6215-1), p. 34 --> Even among those who express a preference for one view or another, some indicate that they only consider that view likely or probable. An example is La Sor.<-- reference: "The philological evidence is technical and inconclusive. But the archaeological and Mishnaic evidence seems to support the argument for immersion. That is clearly what occurred in the contemporaneous Jewish miqva’ot, so that is probably what happened in early Jewish Christian baptism", Sanford La Sor, 'Discovering What Jewish Miqva’ot Can Tell Us About Christian Baptism', Biblical Archaeology Review, (1987), 13.01 --> Laurie Guy says immersion was probably the norm, but that at various times and places full immersion, partial immersion and affusion were probably in use.<-- reference: Guy, Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs, and Practices (2004), pp. 224-225 --> Tischler says that modes other than total immersion may also have been used.<-- reference:Tischler, ‘All Things in the Bible: An Encyclopedia of the Biblical World’, volume 1, 2006 --> "We are not told what method of baptism was used, whether it was by total immersion or by some form of pouring or sprinkling. Probably each of these was used at one time or another depending on the circumstances"; <--reference: Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship: Reformed according to Scripture, p. 10 --> "Although the descriptions of New Testament baptisms indicate that baptism occurred with both the officiator and the candidate standing in water, they do not state specifically what happened in the act"; <-- reference: Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994), p. 530 --> "It can be questioned whether the NT proves immersion was used at all"; "The New Testament considers it enough to establish it as the initiatory title of Christianity, outline its significance in broad touches, and let it go at that" <– reference: Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, p.148 --> - these are some of the expressions that others have used.

On what grounds is this material, which shows the tentative character of conclusions that the article otherwise presents as definitive, excluded from the article? Esoglou (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a fringe view. The only sources here which claim "We do not know enough about specific baptismal practices within the various New Testament communities to suggest that one mode of baptismal administration was normatively practiced over another" is Johnson. None of the other sources you cite say this, and though Grenze says something similar his view is equally fringe. Furthermore you are not telling the truth when you claim that this material is being excluded from the article; only Johnson and Grenze's comments are being excluded, the comments you quote here from La Sor, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Guy, and Tischler are all in the article. You are not telling the truth.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If your objection is that the other sources do not repeat exactly what Johnson says, that's easy to fix by not giving first place to his quotation, so as to remove the impression that the others were only cited in support of him. The essential thing is that they all, Johnson included, indicate uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, and some doubt that any particular mode was considered normative. I shall therefore rearrange the statement and insert it in that rearranged form, in the hope that you will then find it acceptable.

My objection was that you misrepresented the sources, and you made the false claim that these sources had been removed from the article. They have not been removed from the article. I also objected that only one made the claim "We do not know enough about specific baptismal practices within the various New Testament communities to suggest that one mode of baptismal administration was normatively practiced over another". Your rewrite continues to misrepresent the sources by quoting them out of context and attempting to cast doubt on what has been established as a majority position. For example, you quote the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible saying "Indeed, it can be questioned whether the NT proves immersion was used at all", but cut off the rest of the sentence, "though almost certainly it was". The purpose of this sentence is to inform the reader that immersion was almost certainly used, whereas you misrepresent the source as doubting that immersion was used at all. Your edit is blatantly misleading. Why are you misrepresenting the sources?--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(Saying that another editor "is not telling the truth" is uncivil. I presume you meant that you thought I was mistaken, or that what I said was inaccurate.) Esoglou (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I actually meant "not telling the truth". That is a verifiable matter of fact. Why did you not tell the truth?--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I presumed that you were not doing so, you have now confessed to actually accusing me of bad faith and of lying. I need make no comment.

I think the information I inserted is both accurate and sourced. If I am mistaken on any point, I am of course prepared to correct it. Since you insist on the phrase about "almost certainly", I have inserted it; that does not take from the statement (without any "almost") that "it can be argued that ...". Esoglou (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not made any confession such as you claim. The information you inserted was not accurate, and it used the sources in a misleading way. You not only truncated one sentence, you connected it artificially to a different sentence with a semi-colon which misrepresented it entirely.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you were misled, perhaps by my fault. I do not call you either stupid or a liar. Μὴ γένοιτο. Esoglou (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Article structure

Before you create a sensible article structure, all disputes over content will just be a waste of time. The best way to structure this article is:

• Early Christianity
  • New Testament, controversy, yadda, yadda
  • Late Antiquity, Archaeology, etc.
• Middle Ages
  • Eastern (Greek, Russian, Armenian, ...) and Roman Catholic practices and their history
• Reformation: Anababtists, Baptists, controversy, controversy
• Modern Protestantism, sectarianism galore
• Other (New religious movements, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, UFO cults, etc. etc.)

Once you have the New Testament controversy contained in a single section about New Testament exegesis, you can then focus on throwing out the non-scholarly sectarian sources and focus on the academic debate.

Any detailed discussion of the terms "immersion" and "baptism" themselves belong on Wiktionary. This article needs to assume the reader is familiar with these terms, we are not a dictionary. Begin with a discussion of terminology on the level of "immersion baptism" discussed in biblical scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! That would turn this into a duplicate of the "Baptism" and "Baptism in Early Christianity" articles. The subject of this article is immersion baptism, not the entire history of baptism.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

What appearance of justification can be presented for deleting the following sourced material?

A view that goes beyond accepting that immersion can be either total or partial differentiates immersion from submersion, applying the term "immersion" exclusively to forms of baptism that consist of either submerging only the head, but not the whole body, in water, or of placing someone partially in water and pouring water over the rest of the person's body. <- reference: "There have been four different modes of conferring baptism throughout history: (1) submersion, also called dipping, in which the candidate is completely submerged under the baptismal waters; (2) immersion, in which the candidate stands or kneels in rather shallow water, and the water is either poured over the head of the candidate or the candidate's head itself is pushed partially into the water; (3) affusion, in which water is poured over the head of the candidate; and (4) aspersion …" (S. Anita Stauffer, On Baptismal Fonts: Ancient and Modern. Grove Books 1994, pp. 9-10). --> <-- reference: "A method of Baptism, employed at least from the 2nd cent., whereby part of the candidate's body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder. The rite is still found in the E. Church. In the W. it began to be replaced from c. the 8th cent. by the method of affusion, though its use was still being encouraged in the 16th cent., as it still is in the Anglican and RC Churches" (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3, art. immersion).--> A commentator who was from 1989 to 2004 was a member of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Oxford <-- reference: Biography --> has stated that this distinction between "submersion baptism" and "immersion baptism" is made by "many modern writers". <-- reference: Woolfenden, "Orthodox Influences on Anglical Liturgy'" in Peter M. Doll (editor), Anglicanism and Orthodoxy 300 Years after the "Greek College" in Oxford (Peter Lang 2005 ISBN 9783039105809), p. 244 --> Representatives of this view are, apart from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and S. Anita Stauffer, already cited in this paragraph, John Gordon Davies, Charles Thomas, Steven J. Schloeder, Peter C. Bower, and Tony Meakin, who are mentioned in the lead.

I have of course removed from the text unfounded claims that the removing editor himself inserted into the text and that he has not defended after I had questioned them: that this is merely a "fringe" view, and that Hegoumen Gregory (secular name: Graham Woolfenden) was an Anglican. Esoglou (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read my edit summaries. You have still not provided any evidence that the view you introduced is WP:NOTE and not WP:FRINGE. That burden is yours. I have already demonstrated that the overwhelming scholarly view is otherwise--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC).

It is obvious that a view held by so many writers and published by respected publishing houses deserves mention. Esoglou (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You are conflating two separate issues, and you are failing to address what I have already written. This view is already mentioned in the article (in the lede), which you have admitted yourself. I am objecting to you repeating this material later in the article, in the section under "Scholarly reference sources". There is no evidence that this is anything but a fringe view within scholarly reference sources.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, the trouble is your excluding from the article sources that are clearly, in Wikipedia terms, reliable sources. Wikipedia does not limit reliable sources to those that are "scholarly", and if an editor wants to set up a special classification of scholarly, as opposed to non-scholarly, sources, he will need to base his classification on a reliable source, not on his own say-so or synthesis. Esoglou (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out, your accusation is completely false. I am not excluding from the article any sources on the grounds that they are not "scholarly", nor have I ever claimed that Wikipedia only limits reliable sources to those which are "scholarly". Stauffer, Meakin, Davies, Thomas, Schloeder, the ODCC, and Bower are already included in the article. When you claim I am excluding them from the article on the basis that they are not "scholarly", you are not telling the truth; they are already in the article. Why are you not telling the truth?--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you not excluding them from this section? Esoglou (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you are changing the subject. This was not your original claim. You originally claimed that I was excluding them from the article on the grounds that they are insufficiently scholarly. Do you admit that I am not excluding from the article any sources on the grounds that they are not "scholarly", nor have I ever claimed that Wikipedia only limits reliable sources to those which are "scholarly"?--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I was claiming that you had excised these sources from the arricle as a whole. I was only talking about the section from which the sourced material was removed. Esoglou (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your question was "What appearance of justification can be presented for deleting the following sourced material?", when in fact the following sourced material had not been deleted from the article. Your claim was "the trouble is your excluding from the article sources". Thank you for finally acknowledging that this was false.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well then, if in spite of the rider that I added about having modified the text for accuracy my question was inaccurately phrased, I accept your suggestion to modify it thus: "What appearance of justification can be presented for excluding the following sourced material?" Can we now discuss substance rather than formalities? Esoglou (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are still misrepresenting me. Your claim is false. The sourced material you cite is not being excluded. It is already in the article. I have already explained more than once why I don't believe it needs to be in the article twice.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You have no problem with putting certain other things in the article much more than twice. But I will let this matter drop. Esoglou (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Persistent removal of unanswered tag

The "Failed verification" tag is being repeatedly removed from the claim that the citation "The word baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo which means to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" is an instance of a source that understands baptism by immersion as submersion. Since something can be plunged, dipped, or immersed in something else without being quite submersed in it, the claim should be removed or else the tag should remain. Esoglou (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to my previous comments on this, which you have anot answered. The standard use of "immersion" is as a reference to submersion, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that the word "immersion" is being used here in an unusual sense.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one way of understanding "immersion". Wikipedia cannot accept a claim that one alone of these ways is "the standard use" unless that claim is based on a reliable source, not on an editor's say-so or a synthesis by him. Esoglou (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether or not there is more than one way of understanding "immersion". We already discussed in detail the standard use of the word "immersion" months ago, and WP:RS were provided demonstrating overwhelmingly that it is typically used in the sense "submersion". This information is even in the article, properly referenced. Your objection is completely spurious, and is merely disruptive.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you really hold that it has been shown verifiably that any use of "immersion" other than in the sense of "submersion" is non-standard or wrong? Where in the article? Unless you can show that this is a verifiable fact, you cannot demand that "immersion" be understood only to mean "submersion". Esoglou (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You misrepresent me again. I have never said that any use of "immersion" other than in the sense of "submersion" is wrong. Nor have I demanded that "immersion" be understood only to mean "submersion". Your claims are false. Please read the actual article. This was settled months ago. Look at the lede:

• "Immersion baptism (also known as baptism by immersion or, if the immersion is total, baptism by submersion) is a method of baptism that is distinguished from baptism by affusion (pouring) and by aspersion (sprinkling), sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial,[1][2][3][4][5] but very commonly with the indication that the person baptized is immersed completely"
• "The term is less commonly applied to some specific mode of baptism that involves partial, not total, immersion."

In this case the onus is on you to prove that the less common usage is intended by the source.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

""Immersion baptism ... is a method of baptism that is distinguished from baptism by affusion (pouring) and by aspersion (sprinkling), sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial" - that is the sense in which I understand the passage, not in the (less commonly applied) sense defined by, for example, the ODCC, nor in the sense of identical with submersion. What I am questioning is the assumption that it is used in the sense of identical with submersion. I would also question any assumption that it is used in the ODCC (and others') sense. There are no grounds for sying it must be understood in the sense of identical with submersion. Esoglou (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not addressing what I wrote; how you understand the passage is irrelevant, that is POV. In this case we know what the common usage of the term is, and the onus is on you to prove that the less common usage is intended by the source. Please do so.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I say that the questioned claim that a certain phrase means what "the majority view" says may be tagged until justified. Taiwan boi says that in the article the phrase should continue to appear unquestioned (without tag) unless it is proved that the phrase means what "the minority view" says. It seems that only an intervention by a third party can resolve this impasse. Esoglou (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The statement has been justified. I have provided evidence for the statement. You have provided no evidence against it, nor have you provided any evidence for your claim that the view I identify as fringe is not fringe.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi claims (again) that "the standard use of 'immersion' is as a reference to submersion" and therefore says that, unless the contrary is proved, this particular mention of "plunge, dip, or immerse" refers to submersion. I say there is not in fact a one-and-only "standard use" of the word "immersion", and that it is original research to make Wikipedia declare that this particular mention refers to submersion. We need input from others.

Besides, does the article really need to discuss whether one of the different existing views on the meaning of "immersion baptism" is "standard" and "typical"? Is it not enough to outline those different existing views? Esoglou (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not my claim. It has already been proven. You even agreed to it. Look at the lede:

• "Immersion baptism (also known as baptism by immersion or, if the immersion is total, baptism by submersion) is a method of baptism that is distinguished from baptism by affusion (pouring) and by aspersion (sprinkling), sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial,[1][2][3][4][5] but very commonly with the indication that the person baptized is immersed completely"
• "The term is less commonly applied to some specific mode of baptism that involves partial, not total, immersion."

The difference here is that I have provided overwhelming evidence for the statement, but you have provided absolutely none for yours. None at all.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The "less commonly" that you stress concerns the usage of "immersion baptism" in the sense of one or other of two specific forms of partial immersion. It does not concern "immersion baptism" as meaning immersion "sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial". On the contrary, you are maintaining that the reference in Myers is to total, not partial immersion. You have not produced "overwhelming evidence" for your claim that the immersion Myers speaks of is specified as total, and yet you have continued to remove the tag that asks for evidence. Esoglou (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

• "Several sources indicate that there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, and some doubt that any particular mode was considered normative."

No, one source doubts that there is any particular mode which was normative. Another source doubts that we can even know what was practiced at all. Both of these are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of scholarly sources.

• "We are not told what method of baptism was used, whether it was by total immersion or by some form of pouring or sprinkling. Probably each of these was used at one time or another depending on the circumstances"; Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship: Reformed according to Scripture, p. 10

This does not say there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, or that any particular mode was considered normative.

• "Although the descriptions of New Testament baptisms indicate that baptism occurred with both the officiator and the candidate standing in water, they do not state specifically what happened in the act"; Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994), p. 530

This does not say there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, or that any particular mode was considered normative. Furthermore, it is in a section which talks about what non-immersionists claim. Esoglou has concealed the fact that this source also discusses what immersionists claim, and the evidence for their position. On the very next page we find Grenz's conclusion, which Esoglou has concealed in a blatant misrepresentation:

"Nevertheless, we conclude that of the three modes immersion caries the strongest case - exegetically, historically, and theologically. Therefore under normal circumstances it ought to be the preferred, even the sole, practice of the church."

This is the exact opposite of what Esoglou represented the source to be saying. Grenz is not uncertain, he is absolutely certain to the point of being dogmatic.

• "It can be questioned whether the NT proves immersion was used at all (though almost certainly it was)"; Eerdmans 2009 ISBN 978-0-8028-2748-7), Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 148]

This does not say there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, or that any particular mode was considered normative. On the contrary, it says it is almost certain that immersion was used.

• "The New Testament considers it enough to establish it as the initiatory title of Christianity, outline its significance in broad touches, and let it go at that." Fred G. Zaspel, Sinclair B. Ferguson (editors), The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway 2010), pp. 525-526

• "Maxwell Johnson says: "We do not know enough about specific baptismal practices within the various New Testament communities to suggest that one mode of baptismal administration was normatively practiced over another." E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (Liturgical Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-8146-6215-1), p. 34"

These both represent a fringe view which is not found in the majority of other sources. There is overwhelming agreement in the relevant scholarly literature that immersion was the normative practice, and this has already been cited in the article.

• "Even among those who express a preference for one view or another, some indicate that they only consider that view likely or probable. An example is La Sor. "The philological evidence is technical and inconclusive. But the archaeological and Mishnaic evidence seems to support the argument for immersion. That is clearly what occurred in the contemporaneous Jewish miqva’ot, so that is probably what happened in early Jewish Christian baptism", Sanford La Sor, 'Discovering What Jewish Miqva’ot Can Tell Us About Christian Baptism', Biblical Archaeology Review, (1987), 13.01"

This is a misrepresentation of La Sor. He is not using the word "probable" to express doubt, but to express likelihood.

• "Tischler says that total immersion may not have been the only mode in use. Tischler, ‘All Things in the Bible: An Encyclopedia of the Biblical World’, volume 1, 2006"

This is a misrepresentation of Tischler. He also says "In the early days of the Church, total immersion, often in streams or rivers, seems to have been most commonly used (Mark 1:9; Acts 8:3)", so it is completely misleading to offer this quote out of context as evidence that "Even among those who express a preference for one view or another, some indicate that they only consider that view likely or probable", which Tischler never says.

• "Laurie Guy says that at various times and places full immersion, partial immersion and affusion were "most likely" in use. Guy, Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs, and Practices (2004), pp. 224-225

This is a misrepresentation of Guy, because it omits to mention the fact that Guy also says "Probably immersion was the norm".--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Old says that we don't know what mode was used, and that various modes were probably used – since we don't know what mode was actually used, there is uncertainty about it. Still less is there certainty that any particular mode was normative.
2. I presume that Taiwan voi is right about Grenz, and that Grenz should not be included. I haven't checked.
3. The Eerdmans Dictionary says it can be questioned whether NT proves immersion was used at all, indicating that it is still less certain that immersion was the only, the chief or the usual mode among those earliest of Christians, still less that it was not just usual but actually normative.
4. Zaspel and Ferguson's book also indicates that the NT does not specify the mode used by the earliest Christians.
5. Johnson, using the term "normatively" – hardly any other source speaks of a mode as having been normative, rather than just predominant – does say we lack knowledge to assign that position to any particular mode.
6. La Sor speaks of the archaeological evidence as "seeming" to support a view about what "probably" happened in Christian baptism – less than a declaration of certainty, surely.
7. Tischler is another who speaks only of what "seems" to have been most commonly used, and, by saying that other modes may also have been in use, indicates that he sees what was most commonly used as not necessarily normative.
8. Guy says immersion was "probably" the norm, but he distinguishes between full immersion and partial immersion and says both forms of immersion (and affusion too) were "most likely" in use.

It may well be that the statement of what these sources say could and should be expressed more clearly. But they do all indicate that there are indeed obscurities about the thesis that baptism by total immersion was a rule that early Christians observed, that it was normative for them, or even about the thesis that it was just the prevailing mode among them. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1. You are saying something which Old never says. He says we are not told which mode was used, not that we don't or can't know. Most importantly, he does not say there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, or that any particular mode was considered normative. 2. Yes I am right about Grenz. You admit that you didn't even check. You misrepresented this source completely. 3. The Eerdmans Dictionary does not say there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, or that any particular mode was considered normative. On the contrary, it says that immersion was "almost certainly" used. The intent of this statement is to express certainty; you misrepresent it as expressing uncertainty. 3. Neither Zaspel or Ferguson say there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, or that any particular mode was considered normative. What they say is that it was Warfield's view that "The New Testament considers it enough to establish it as the initiatory title of Christianity, outline its significance in broad touches, and let it go at that". You have misrepresented this source as well. 4. La Sor does not say there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, or that any particular mode was considered normative. The intent of his statement is to express certainty; you misrepresent it as expressing uncertainty. 5. Tischler does not say there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, or that any particular mode was considered normative. On the contrary, he states explicitly that one particular mode seems to have been most commonly used. The intent of his statement is to express certainty; you misrepresent it as expressing uncertainty. 6. Guy does not say there is uncertainty about what was the usual mode of baptism among early Christians, or that any particular mode was considered normative. On the contrary, Guy says "Probably immersion was the norm". The intent of his statement is to express certainty; you misrepresent it as expressing uncertainty. You have misrepresented these sources completely. None of the sources I list here say what you claimed of them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE: "Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." It's clear that the view expressed by Maxwell Johnson is "rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects". If you believe otherwise, let's see the evidence.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi supposes that, although Old says we are not told what mode was used, Old may still believe that somehow we do know what mode was used, and that Old indicates no uncertainty about the question. Taiwan boi supposes that, although the Eerdmans Dictionary says it can be questioned whether the NT proves immersion was used at all and that it almost certainly was used, it may really consider that there is absolutely no doubt about the question. Taiwan boi supposes that, although the view expressed in the Zaspel-Ferguson book declares that the NT says nothing about the mode of baptism, it too may hold that there is no uncertainty about the mode. Taiwan boi states that, although La Sor spoke in terms only in terms of seeming and probability, and although Tischler spoke in terms of "seems" and "may have been", and although Guy spoke in terms of "probably", in each of these cases "the intent of his statement is to express certainty". On the other hand, I think that all of these express something less than certainty about these questions.

Does the article really need to discuss whether one of the different existing views on early Christian baptismal practice is correct and the others wrong? Is it not enough to outline those different existing views? Esoglou (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you are misrepresenting me. I never made any of those statements. I notice that you have failed completely to address what I wrote, and in particular you have failed to address the fact that you misrepresented statements expressing certainty as statements expressing uncertainty. Do also address the text from WP:FRINGE. Furthermore, as I have told you before, the article is not discussing whether one of the different existing views on early Christian baptismal practice is correct and the others wrong. It is only discussing what various WP:RS say about early Christian baptismal practice.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean you are making the article accept your unsourced judgement on the value of various reliable sources. Esoglou (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)