Jump to content

Talk:Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

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

Embedded lists

[edit]

To my reading of the embedded lists policy page, a table of contents is a natural embedded list. I'm quite happy to reformat it as prose text, but I'm sure that would seem odd to people.

"RBMW starts with a preface followed by a chapter called "xyz" by John Piper, which leads into the first of five major sections. The five sections are called "abc", "def", "ghi" ... The first of the sections, "abc" contains X chapters, called: "pqr" by John Doe of So-and-so Seminary (chapter 1), "qrs" by Joe Bloggs of This-or-that College (chapter 2)."

Alternatively, we could move the article to List of chapters in RBMW as a navigation aid and review each chapter separately.

I'm happy to hear other suggestions of how to present a table of contents in an article on a book, including the suggestion that tables of contents should never be provided, or that these should be provided at the end of the article (as per the embedded lists guide, which doesn't seem to have book reviews in mind).

Given that Wiki articles default to presenting embedded lists of their own contents, it would appear it is well established that TOCs are valuable aids to readers right up front. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a vanilla table of contents is a good use of space here -- this is the Wikipedia, not Amazon.com. Rather, each section of the book could be summarized along the lines of, say, History of Western Philosophy (Russell), but in more detail. A separate contributor list could be limited to those who currently (or should, under WP:N) have WP pages. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article for guidelines on non-fiction. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

[edit]

I'll restore the endorsements section when I provide a bibliography of scholastic reviews. (Sourced text is sourced text, whether or not one agrees with the sub-heading describing it.) Endorsements are often taken from material published elsewhere. If that is so of the endorsements for RBMW, we won't need them at all. If it's not, then they are part of the printed text of the book, specifically designed to orient a reader to supportive expert comment. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed these because they were bald quotations that looked like they were copied from book endorsements, which are solicited by the author/publisher to help promote the book. If they do come from published reviews, then they can be summarized (not merely quoted) under the reception and/or critical reaction section. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workspace

[edit]

The following are complementarian sources that cite essays in RBMW. CBE and other egalitarians will be collated in due course, or left to encourage collaboration.

Cite Ortlund
Cite Borland
  • to be continued

Alastair Haines (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation

[edit]

I think this must be the only article I've seen with three levels of indentation, where the top level goes straight from Contents (which I thought we'd agreed we weren't going to have) straight to See also.

Given the way 3rd level divisions don't show up clearly in the current implementation of the Wiki software, I now find it really hard to know which heading relates to which section ... and I wrote them! And I know the book itself inside out!

Perhaps it is now obvious why I wanted a table of contents in the first place. Still, now I've gone to the trouble of working around that, I want those nice big horizontal lines between first level divisions.

I'm sorry Flex, thanks for the idea, but please meditate on just how hard it is to tell which are major and minor divisions, 'cause I'm going to have to change things back, even if it's only short term so I can find my way around the article while I'm writing it. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of having a summary of the contents of the book, but not a bald table of contents. A hidden table is an acceptable compromise for now, but it will probably be obsolete by the time that you're done.
As for the display, it depends on your configuration and taste. The appearance is different with different browsers, screens, and skins (see [1]), and one man's "hard to tell" is another man's "clear cut." You should indent it the way it should be indented and leave the formatting to the skins. Another option is to reduce the number of subsections. I presume you intend to expand some/all of the short ones, but surely some could be combined. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Preface and Appendices are as complete as there will ever be space for them. Same for Biology. It's a huge book and each chapter is a stand-alone. Not only that, each writer presents his case in a different way, so needs a different type of summary. I expect some of the chapters may end up spinning off into free standing articles (like What's the Difference and the kephale debate).
As I see it, the main point of the article is to give people some idea of the contents of an almost 600 page resource volume which is likely to be online forever, and to make some of the key works of its humungous bibliography explicit for people in a hurry.
As an analogy, What's the Difference and The Meaning of Kephale are to RBMW like Genesis and Revelation are to the Bible.
I think you may have expectations that are not in keeping with the volume of material being dealt with. My suggestion for a List of articles in RBMW was not just an exaggeration. Several are notable in their own right.
Unless you can suggest half a dozen top level divisions that warrant more space than description of articles themselves, I'll be pressing a claim for that space. It is also worth noting that RBMW is not criticised, the articles are; however, the articles get less praise than the overall volume. So, your changes make the possibility of meaningful inclusion of critical interaction more difficult. That's fine by me, I'm not falling over myself to include much of that, since RBMW is substantially a critical work itself.
Anyway, we'll see what we will see. Even what I contribute to this article is going to take months, there's no hurry. And if others are going to help, they'll either know the book well already, or be willing to read a good proportion of its hundreds of pages. That also will take time. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a big deal to me, and I'll reserve further judgment until you flesh it out more. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Flex. I'll be stalling on adding text soon for a while, but some of it is proving to be reasonably easy. My current aim is to write up about eight more chapters this weekend, then come back after a lengthy break. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:WTD2008.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women were Christian leaders well before feminism

[edit]

I toned down claims that Male leadership was unambigiously accepted in the lede. E.g. see Christianity by Owen Chadwick where he says women led the church almost as much as men untill the 6th century. The Bible shows women in leadership positions both before and after Christ, e.g. see Judges 4 & 5 for the story of Deborah who for a while ably led the Jews in Judea long before Christ's sacrafice, and for after Christ see Acts 18: 24-26 or Romans 16:1-16. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags ??

[edit]

Book of the Year for 1993.[2][unreliable source?] Amazon.com is not reliable source?

[3][self-published source?] equip.org did not write nor publish the book.

What are you talking about?

Telecine Guy 08:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


  1. New topics go at the bottom of the page -- that's what the 'new section' link is for.
  2. No, Amazon/publishers/bookcover blurbs are not WP:RSs, this is longstanding WP:RSN consensus.
  3. Please read WP:SPS (which is in fact linked-to by that tag).

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as to your claim on your user talk that the referencing was "fixed", no it wasn't. The article is still mostly referenced to the book itself. And neither self-references, Amazon blurbs nor mentions in apologetics websites count as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per WP:GNG). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recovering_Biblical_Manhood_and_Womanhood&oldid=1206465304"