Jump to content

Talk:Marcus Borg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similarities to Bishop Spong?

[edit]

I have read some of Borg's work and a little of Spong's. They both seem to advocate similar positions though Spong is clearly more of a populariser whereas Borg's work is more academic. Is there much difference of thought between the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.16.98 (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some differences between the two. Borg proposes a more mystical version of Christianity than Spong. Spong is better at demolishing whereas Borg has a better ability at reconstructing an emerging understanding of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.4.67 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are apostates and blasphemers out to destroy true Christianity! There's your similarity. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.177.237 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The copyrighted material I removed was from autobiography on the Westar Institute site. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

All but one of the external links were removed from this article with WP:EL cited as the rationale. I think several of these do actually meet the guidelines, but would like some discussion so we can come up with a consensus.

Here are all the removed links:

To me, these all seem to fall into the category of "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." The IMDb entry seems the weakest, so I won't argue with that one. Novaseminary or others, could you please clarify your issues with each of these links? It would be helpful if you went through them link by link and explained how you feel they fail to meet the guidelines. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember one of the overarching points to external links: Per WP:ELPOINTS: "3.Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum." The flipside is that WP:EL does not apply at all to inline citations. So, any that could or should be a reference should and can be cited and there is no problem (and no need to list them in the EL section). I do not think that these each fall within WP:ELYES #3. With that in mind, here are my thoughts on each link:
  • Video of Oregon State Socratic Club meeting featuring Marcus Borg discussing question, "What is the Heart of Christianity?" -- WP:ELNO #1. His views on "What is the Heart of Christianity" could be incorporated into the article if it is relevant to his scholarship or the like. If it is not relevant (like his thoughts on his favorite ice cream flavor would be), then it wouldn't add anything and should be out on that basis. This one also might violate WP:ELNO #13 because strictly speaking the subject of the video is not Marcus Borg as it is not autobiographical. As I understand it, video are most appropriate to show something that the article can't fully explain, like a video of a tornado or something.
  • Me & Jesus: The Journey Home, an autobiographical sketch by Marcus Borg -- WP:ELNO #1. His official site is already linked, so this is not that. Any autobiographical info that this could contain that is relevant would be in a featured article. This is not WP:ELYES #3 because it is not neutral. It might be considered under WP:ELMAYBE because it does contain info from an obviously knowledgeable source. But I don't think that overcomes the WP:ELNO #1 concern and doesn't strike me as a terribly compelling maybe so as to overcome the minimal links presumption.
  • Meeting God Again: An Interview with Marcus Borg -- Again a WP:ELMAYBE #4 at best. I don't know what it adds, though, to overcome ELNO #1 and ELNO #13 (since it is not about him per se, rather his take on certain issues)
  • Professional Credentials -- ELNO #1
  • A Portrait of Jesus, based on the works of Borg; includes Biographical notes about Marcus Borg -- Essentially a fansite and thus out per ELNO #11.
  • Interview with Marcus Borg on "The First Christmas" by ReadTheSpirit.com and Interview with Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan on "The First Paul" by ReadTheSpirit.com -- Same reasons as the Oregon State Socratic Club video and Meeting God Again, and maybe ELNO #11.
So, in my opinion, several are definite ELNOs, and some are ELMAYBEs for which no real case has been made. I would be quite ok with suggesting at the Open Directory Project that they create a Borg directory and then using template:dmoz to link to that. Then lots more interviews, videos, etc., could be added there.
Novaseminary (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you misunderstand "minimum" to mean "one official link"; if that was the intention of the policy, then that's what the guideline would say. 3-6 links seems like a good general goal for most articles, as that gives us the opportunity to share a couple of different supplemental resources providing different types of information. 10 is about the limit where I would say that we should start looking to trim down the number, and even that might be OK in certain situations. Citing "keep links to a minimum" as a reason for deleting dozens of links from dozens of articles isn't sufficient rationale, especially when they "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
Video of Oregon State Socratic Club meeting featuring Marcus Borg discussing question, "What is the Heart of Christianity?" You say "his views on the Heart of Christianity" aren't relevant. You do realize that's the name of one of his books, right? Are you honestly arguing that an author and scholar's views on his own publications are as irrelevant as his favorite ice cream flavor? If so, we are going to have a very long slog going through all your deletions in the many articles you've done. Even if it wasn't the title of his book, don't you think that a Christian scholar debating issues in which he is widely recognized as an expert is a bit more relevant than ice cream flavors?
Me & Jesus: The Journey Home, an autobiographical sketch by Marcus Borg is an article on the Westar Institute site, where Borg is a fellow and is involved in publishing. This is one of the "official" sites in which Borg is involved. For example, if a professor at a university has her own website, the "official" sites could be both her personal site and her bio at the university. An author often has an individual site plus information from the publisher. Do you really believe that an autobiography from a publisher isn't "official"? Do you really believe that Borg doesn't have control over his autobiography with an organization where he's a fellow?
Meeting God Again, as I'm sure you know, is the name of another of Borg's books. Again, we're back to you arguing that authors and scholars talking about their work is irrelevant. Are you really convinced that's a consensus position? The author talking in depth about his writing is more information than would be in the article if it were a featured article, but it's directly relevant to his work. That's what it adds.
Professional Credentials: Do you really think that this article should include a list of his honors and awards? That seems a bit detailed for here. Mentioning a few would be fine, but the bullet point list of everything seems a bit heavy-handed.
A Portrait of Jesus is a great summary of his work, but I'll agree with you that it probably fails ELNO 11 (even though it obviously passes ELNO #1, since this is more information about his body of work than would be included here if it was a featured article.
Interview with Marcus Borg on "The First Christmas" by ReadTheSpirit.com and Interview with Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan on "The First Paul" by ReadTheSpirit.com: Again, you're back to the argument of "we can't have anything where authors talk about what they've written." I don't think that is a consensus opinion. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take it down a notch. No need to slog it out! And for those interested, there is similar discussion at Talk:John_Dominic_Crossan#External links.
Oregon video -- I was unclear in my first statement about the Oregon video. Of course his views on Christianity are relevant (the ice cream analogy was meant to show not every video a person creates should end up on that person's Wikipedia page, even when it more directly relates to them as the subject). The Oregon video strikes me as at best an WP:ELMAYBE #4. And considering it was part of a debate and doesn't strike me as terribly compelling, I would leave it out. If it is truly unique or something (to tip the scale, since it is only a maybe inherently), let us know, and it can go back in. But there is no way it is an automatic include.
Me & Jesus -- This doesn't strike me as WP:ELOFFICIAL since it looks to have been written (and not updated) in almost 17 years for a journal or other publication and is presented as a reprint of the article. I don't doubt that he could ask them to take it down, but this is not like his personal website or even faculty website (both of which would be in as ELYES #1). He also does not hold the copyright per the page. That then also makes this a WP:ELMAYBE because it is not neutral to make it a WP:ELYES #3. If it were more up to date I would lean it toward the include. I could see it either way. Keep in mind, it is not that I am challenging the worth of these links, just the appropriateness of including them in wikipedia. Also, per WP:ELOFFICIAL, we need to be careful not to place "undue emphasis on what the subject says."
Professional Credentials -- Yes, his accolades, books, all of that would be part of a featured article. Maybe not his "special" study at University of Tübingen (but I don't know, maybe that, too). But this site is also out-of-date and incomplete. It doesn't include all of his books, for example. Accordingly, I'm not sure it adds much. And, since there is a purchase link prominently displayed on the page (before the list even begins), this might run contrary to WP:ELNO #5 (whether it is "primarily" to sell products is unclear, but since it is not a WP:ELYES, at best an WP:ELMAYBE, I would error toward exclusion of this one.
The interviews about the books -- I would note that the ReadTheSpirit interviews were added by an editor that added dozens of readthespirit.com links indiscriminately. That probably qualifies as link spamming. In fact, that is what brought me to this article. Regardless, linkspam or not, if the site qualifies and a non-COI editors think it should be in, it should be in. I don't think it qualifies, though. It is essentially a blog (a self-described "online magazine" not written so far as I can tell by a recognized authority as spelled out in WP:ELNO #11 (though it is a very interesting site, to be sure). To the extent it is autobiographical, we still have the WP:ELOFFICIAL undue weight issue, and at best it is an WP:ELMAYBE (of not prohibited by the various ELNOs it may fall under.
I'm not opposed to links, as I left a quasi-official link to his own blog per WP:ELYES #1. But this shouldn't become a list of his videos and interviews, no matter how interesting or useful. And some of these (lije his out-of-date professional credentials" are not terribly interesting or useful anyway. As I proposed before, why not submit him as a category on dmoz? I have to imagine he qualifies. Then, through a link to there (which still would only be an WP:ELMAYBE, but would tip to the include, I suggest), all of these links and many others would be just one extra click away, but would keep the Wikipedia article properly encyclopedic.
Novaseminary (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather sanitized

[edit]

The purge of supposed OR has also removed any acknowledgement that Borg is a figure of considerable controversy and, well, heterodox views. I'm strongly tempted simply to roll the article back to the purge and start forward again to improve the quality of citation rather than hide the controversy. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Marcus Borg/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I was hoping that someone could expand this article a bit. I would like to know more about Marcus Borg's teaching, beliefs, philosophy, life, etc. Specifically I want to know more about hist "historical metaphorical approach" to interpreting the Bible. 65.183.130.55 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Jessemon[reply]

Last edited at 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcus Borg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marcus Borg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcus Borg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcus Borg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marcus_Borg&oldid=1206377745"