Talk:Christian ethics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV tag added

I added a POV tag for the article. It seems nearly all the reliably sourced mention of origins of Christian ethics in the Old Testament and areas of the Old Testament that Christians draw from today for their decisions on right and wrong, save for the Ten Commandments, and penned by both Christian authors and independent sources, have been removed. The article is written from a point of view that Christian ethics come solely or nearly so from the New Testament. As entire books on Christian Ethics related to the Old Testament are easily found by a web search, it becomes apparent that other prominent points of view are missing. Thus, readers should be aware of this until addressed. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. You seem to be claiming that many Christian ethics are based on the Old Testament-- and of course, without any RS for your dubious POV. tahc ^chat 17:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Pretty audacious to just pull the tag off, especially since you are the one who deleted the section in this article some time ago on The Old Testament and the other reliably sourced passages on the Old Testament’s relation to Christian Ethics, apparently because they didn’t conform with your position. I’m not going to argue with you though. When I get some more time, I’ll start an RFC to get some additional opinions. Airborne84 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I've listed this at the Third Opinion page, although I suspect it may end up at an RFC in the end.

For any editor wishing to provide a Third Opinion, the issue is twofold: (1) I added a POV tag for the article because it is written from the POV that the New Testament is the focus point of Christian Ethics and the Old Testament has little relevance to the subject. User:Tahc summarily removed it the same day prior to resolving the issue through discussion as per WP:POV, and (2) the larger issue is as noted in the latter part of #1: much of the material related to the Old Testament and Christian Ethics has been removed in the past two years. There was actually a section called The Bible and Christian Ethics that drew from the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, but that section has been removed (with some of its material retained elsewhere) and much of the Old Testament material has been removed from the article. The lede in that version of the article also provided a more balanced coverage, but was changed in a way that reduces mention of the Old Testament.

I'll note that I'm not discussing further with User:Tahc as much of this has been discussed already in 2016 and we already had a third opinion prior to that on this talk page for the same reason. However, it was from a different, now inactive user, and I don't know if it's from the same person, so I'll solicit a third opinion for the same reason—again.

In summary, I believe the WP:POV tag should be on the article to advise readers until other significant points of view—most specifically the Old Testament's relation to Christian Ethics—are adequately addressed in the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have have removed the POV tag without new discussion (1) because Airborne84 had made no effort to discuss why he placed the tag it here since he placed the tag (2) because we have discussed this issue some in the past and (3) because no one has ever provided any good sources, even half-way good sources, for Airborne84's point of view-- but I am happy to discuss Airborne84's point of view with anyone again. tahc ^chat 02:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Airborne84 had made no effort to discuss why he placed the tag it here since he placed the tag."

Please see this section and the first paragraph at the top, which I placed immediately after the POV tag to discuss if anyone wanted to. Instead of discussing to address and resolve the concern, you just removed the tag (please see "When to remove" at Template:POV). You'll get your chance to discuss; I just wanted to correct the record. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment There is currently insufficient detail here to determine this issue. Giving specific pertinent RSs (modern theology text-books, I expect) and noting the amount of weight they give to the POV in question would help.—Aquegg (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Aquegg, for asking for sources. Books and text books on Christian ethics are many times arranged by ethical topic, or perhaps focus on examples of methods in Christian ethics, but The Sources of Christian Ethics, 3rd Edition by Servais Pinckaers has chapters about different writers used as sources in the topic. If you look at the table of contents is has sections of different NT authors, and on different authors in church history since then, but none on the OT authors or even the Ten Commandments. Looking at the index also confirms that the 489 page book has very few references to Old Testament. tahc ^chat 19:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion, POV tag added

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aquegg thanks for your interest. I had only linked to the sections above—including the previous consensus and the third opinion that the Old Testament is a relevant source to inform this article—but I understand it's a lot to weed through. I'll list some reliable sources below that link this topic to the Old Testament as a notable position that is largely absent from the article and that Tahc believes is not relevant here.

• D. Stephen Long's book Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, published by the Oxford University Press. It's first chapter is called "The Sources of Christian Ethics." The chapter is 39 pages long with 32 pages of Old Testament material and 7 pages of New Testament material. D. Stephen Long is a notable Christian author. Within this chapter he also states that: "Christian ethics finds its source in diverse means, but it primarily emerges from the biblical narrative and especially the call of Abraham and Sarah, etc....These sources were essential for the emergence of Christian ethics...Without it, Christian ethics would be unintelligible." Part of this passage remains in the article, but the wording after "Biblical narrative" pointing to Abraham and Sarah from the Old Testament was removed....
• The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics has a section called "The grounds of Christian ethics" with a chapter discussing "The Old Testament and Christian ethics" by John W. Rogerson, a Biblical scholar and ordained priest.
• Bruce C. Birch's book Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life has a chapter on "Foundations for Christian Ethics in the Old Testament." Birch is an ordained priest and served as Dean Emeritus of Wesley Theological Seminary for 38 years.
• The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics is an edited volume with A–Z articles on relevant topics. It references the Old Testament throughout the volume in many of the articles. However, even though there are articles on Divorce, Homosexuality, Sexual ethics, Slavery, and Wealth that point to the Old Testament, those sections of this Wikipedia article omit that point of view. Notable is the article in Westminster on sexual ethics that says "The Bible is the universal and fundamental source of specifically Christian ethics [emphasis in the original]. The OT (Hebrew Bible) presents procreative marriage as the norm." It is notable, I think, that the first sentence about the Bible and Christian ethics is followed directly by mention of the Old Testament. There is also an article on Old Testament Ethics in this volume.
• Westminster notes there are additional points of view as well, beyond the OT and NT: "comprehensive Christian ethical writings use four distinguishable sources: (1) the Bible and the Christian tradition, (2) philosophical principles and methods, (3) science and other sources of knowledge about the world, and (4) human experience broadly conceived." Most of the last three areas (potentially points of view by themselves) do not appear in the article, and only a focused part of the first one appears.
• Finally, Westminster directly links Christian ethics with Biblical ethics: "Fundamentalism's identification of the human words of scripture with the word of God has justified an identification of biblical ethics with Christian ethics." Certainly all Christians, past and present, are/were not fundamentalists, but that can't be excluded as some are. But Tahc deleted this passage here, apparently because it doesn't align with the point of view the article currently holds.

This is a short list. There are many more relevant sources available through a web search.

I fully understand Tahc's point of view and I personally know others who share it. It also appears above on this talk page with at least one other now-inactive editor. And it's the point of view that Tahc's offered source is written from: that the New Testament Jesus's teachings override the Old Testament as a source of Christian Ethics. And that POV should remain in the article. But this is only one notable point of view. It doesn't cancel out other notable points of view—at least on Wikipedia. We offer all notable points of view, and simply identify when points of view diverge or don't agree. And as this article is written primarily with that point of view, there should be a POV tag on it advising readers until all notable points of view are adequately covered, including the Old Testament as a source of Christian Ethics. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not claim Old Testament ethics are unrelated to Christian ethics. On some ethical issues, the two are the same, and on other issues they are very different. Also, when Jesus made statements on (what would become) Christian ethics, he was often asked first questions on (what we would now call) Old Testament ethics. But Christian ethics are very different Christian ethics, in the very same way that Hindu teachings are very different from Buddhist teachings, even as one came out of the culture of the other.

There might even be some authors that claim that Christian ethics are the same as Old Testament ethics, but I have never found such an author, and I do not think any major publisher, much less an academic publisher, would print such a view. It would be a fringe theory and should be treated as such.

Also note, none of the books Airborne84 named above, would be textbooks suitable for a course on Christian ethics, with the possible exception of the Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics and that would still be a nontypical textbook. It is a collection of essays by different authors, but if that one essay on "The Old Testament and Christian ethics" says that "Christian ethics are the same as Old Testament ethics" I will expect it to be quoted by Airborne84 here.

On Wikipedia, there might even be a case to sometimes give the view of Old Testament ethics for comparison or contrast in (a daughter article on) Christian ethics. (We also might give the view of pagan ethics of Paul's time for comparison or contrast.)

But what we cannot do is quote an Old Testament primary sources, and leave the impression that it is Christian ethics, or is the basis for Christian ethics. As a corollary to this-- the Christian ethics#Criticism section cannot have criticism of Old Testament ethics as if it is a criticism of Christian ethics. Such a argument is a classic straw man fallacy, and this was put in this article by Airborne84 in the past. Wikipedia already has a couple articles that such criticism of Old Testament ethics may fit into-- Ethics in the Bible and Criticism of the Bible, but to include it here is a mistake for multiple reasons. tahc ^chat 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're talking about the use of primary sources. Who has suggested that?

Your standard for use of sources in this article is beyond that required in WP:RS. All of the sources I noted above meet that requirement. Most, if not all, meet it in all three categories: the work, the author, and the publisher. In any case, this seems to be a theme on this page: some editors want to impose standards beyond that which Wikipedia requires. Thus, I will ask more outside editors to comment until we achieve resolution because I am only going to meet Wikipedia's requirements, not those of individual editors. Airborne84 (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The Third Opinion was inconclusive and so I'll list this at WP:RFC to get additional outside editors to weigh in. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You are claiming on your own that any third opinion would be inconclusive when Aquegg has not yet given an opinion . tahc ^chat 15:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The Third Opinion request was deleted because more than two editors became involved. Thus it was inconclusive. However, I asked Aquegg on his talk page to comment nonetheless. (S)he has not seen it or chosen to not do so. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 3 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ewang57.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment on inclusion of Old Testament material in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) The result is Yes. The Old Testament, officially held by both Christian and Judaic religions to be the Word of God, is the first part of the Christian Bibles (the second part being the New Testament) and the Bibles are the texts that the Christian religion regards as "divinely inspired" and thus constitute scripture.
The term "Christian ethics" denotes the ethics officially supported by the Christian religion; not by acolytes, priests, or other individuals. The official positions of the Christian religion are primarily expressed in their foundational texts, i.e. the Bibles. There is, understandably (as for every mass religion), a plethora of texts about Christian ethics. Some of them are proclamations of church officialdom, others are analyses by scholars, others still are articles by laymen, and so on. Which specific such texts are included in the pertinent articles in Wikipedia, such as this one, is a matter of discussion among editors, under the relevant guidelines (WP:LENGTH, WP:WEIGHT, etc). It should go without saying that the texts to which reference in made in Wikipedia should abide by WP:RS. But there can be no reasonable argument about excluding texts that refer to a foundational text of the subject religion. -The Gnome (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Should Old Testament material be allowed to inform the Christian Ethics article? --Airborne84 (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: Should material within WP:RS works about Christian Ethics (books, book chapters, articles, etc.) that draws from the Old Testament in the context of Christian ethics be allowed in this article? Airborne84 (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. I'll note that a previous consensus on this talk page and a Third Opinion has found that Old Testament material can be used in the article. However, as (1) this was primarily related to the Criticism section, (2) the entire article has been rewritten in the past two years to remove nearly all of the Old Testament material, and (3) another editor is arguing again that Old Testament material is not relevant to the article, I've decided to request additional outside opinions. I've listed below a shorter version of the secondary sources listed in the above section that qualify as verifiable, reliable sources within Wikipedia's policies that indicate the relation of the Old Testament and Christian Ethics. It's not a comprehensive list; many more sources are available. More info is in the section immediately above on "POV tag added", and further up in the talk page's history. Thanks for your interest.

• D. Stephen Long's book Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, published by the Oxford University Press. It's first chapter is called "The Sources of Christian Ethics." The chapter is 39 pages long with 32 pages of Old Testament material and 7 pages of New Testament material. D. Stephen Long is a notable Christian author. Within this chapter he also states that: "Christian ethics finds its source in diverse means, but it primarily emerges from the biblical narrative and especially the call of Abraham and Sarah, etc....These sources were essential for the emergence of Christian ethics...Without it, Christian ethics would be unintelligible." Part of this passage remains in the article, but the wording after "Biblical narrative" pointing to Abraham and Sarah from the Old Testament was removed....
• The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics has a section called "The grounds of Christian ethics" with a chapter discussing "The Old Testament and Christian ethics" by John W. Rogerson, a Biblical scholar and ordained priest.
• Bruce C. Birch's book Let Justice Roll Down: The Old Testament, Ethics, and Christian Life has a chapter on "Foundations for Christian Ethics in the Old Testament." Birch is an ordained priest and served as Dean Emeritus of Wesley Theological Seminary for 38 years.
• The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics is an edited volume with A–Z articles on relevant topics. It references the Old Testament throughout the volume in many of the articles. However, even though there are articles on Divorce, Homosexuality, Sexual ethics, Slavery, and Wealth that point to the Old Testament, those sections of this Wikipedia article omit that point of view. Notable is the article in Westminster on sexual ethics that says "The Bible is the universal and fundamental source of specifically Christian ethics [emphasis in the original]. The OT (Hebrew Bible) presents procreative marriage as the norm." It is notable, I think, that the first sentence about the Bible and Christian ethics is followed directly by mention of the Old Testament. There is also an article on Old Testament Ethics in this volume.
• Finally, Westminster directly links Christian ethics with Biblical ethics: "Fundamentalism's identification of the human words of scripture with the word of God has justified an identification of biblical ethics with Christian ethics." Certainly all Christians, past and present, are/were not fundamentalists, but that can't be excluded as some are/were. But Tahc deleted this passage here, apparently because it doesn't align with the point of view the article currently holds.

I fully understand the other editor's point of view and I personally know others who share it. It also appears above on this talk page with at least one other now-inactive editor. It's the point of view that the New Testament and Jesus's teachings override the Old Testament as a source of Christian Ethics. And that POV should remain in the article. But this is only one notable point of view. It doesn't cancel out other notable points of view—at least on Wikipedia. We offer all notable points of view, and simply identify when points of view diverge or don't agree. And as this article is written primarily with that point of view, there should be a POV tag on it advising readers until all notable points of view are adequately covered, including the Old Testament as a source of Christian Ethics. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Move to cancel the Request for Comment as unclear. Please note-- without any effort to discuss the issue recently, nor without any clue as to what "Old Testament material" Airborne84 wants included, Airborne84 called for a third opinion. Then, with User:Aquegg yet to give any third opinion-- he has claimed it would be inconclusive and skipped to a Request for Comment with a very misleading question.

As stated above, Airborne84 in the past has added criticism of Old Testament ethics in the Christian ethics#Criticism section as if it is a criticism of Christian ethics. Such a argument is a classic straw man fallacy and a mistake for multiple reasons. Any criticism Airborne84 has of Old Testament ethics can be put in article that are actually about it, such as Ethics in the Bible or Criticism of the Bible. To include any and all Old Testament ethics in this article (as if it was that same as Christian ethics) would require one or more very reliable sources to say that Christian ethics are the same as Old Testament ethics. But no one will ever find this because they are only related-- in the very same way that Hindu teachings related to, but very different from Buddhist teachings, as one came out of the culture of the other.

If Airborne84 only wants to mislead readers with permission to quote any and all Old Testament ethics, then we should stop now-- but if he wants to include only certain Old Testament ethics here-- like the Ten Commandments, or Old Testament ethics for contrast with Christian ethics-- then we should restart the discussion with that in mind. tahc ^chat 15:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I clarified above. And I recommend you stop lashing out at me with untrue statements. Besides being generally uncivil, the record is plain to see and editors here are going to see through it. You end up damaging your credibility. I recommend focusing instead on your argument. It should stand on its own merits. Of course, if your argument, in fact, has significant challenges ... then your best strategy may be to continue on the former path. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would agree that what is intended here (and in the article) is unclear. How can one bring together all the different contributors to the wide diversity of Christian ethics? Once these different sources are documented, it should be clear what greater or lesser generalizations can be made, including Old Testament and New Testament influences. Jzsj (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsj, I clarified what I'm asking at the top, which probably seems strange because I'm asking to do what Wikipedia allows. And I agree with you that all the sources should be brought to bear on this topic, OT, NT, and others. But Tahc has identified that Old Testament material, even within a WP:RS that is written about Christian Ethics, is really about Biblical Ethics and not relevant here. As a result, most of the reliably sourced OT material from sources writing about Christian Ethics has been removed from this article, creating a POV. This RFC is about allowing relevant material just as you state be included in the article, so it includes all notable opinions. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

In light of the clarification added after the statement of the question, it would seem dishonest not to mention Old Testament influences on the thought that is represented, as such influence is mentioned in the sources. I'm suggesting that all generalizations should be verified in the articles on Christian Ethics, which should control the content. Jzsj (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Further Clarification: Should material about Old Testament ethics be discussed (that is, criticized) under the term "Bible" as if it informative of or identical to the topic of the article, Christian ethics. This is exactly what Airborne84 has been doing since 2011. Now the quote of Simon Blackburn that Airborne84 is asking to include here could (in theory) be criticizing Old Testament ethics in contrast to Christian ethics, and thus quoted by Airborne84 out of context, but even if Blackburn himself is purposely conflating the two, Blackburn's small book is not a textbook on Christian ethics and he has not written any other books on Christian ethics. tahc ^chat 20:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Airborne84, If there is really any "reliably sourced OT material from sources writing about Christian Ethics" please bring it to our attention, showing how they are "reliably sourced" and "writing about Christian Ethics" and we can begin discussion of them. tahc ^chat 20:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about the Criticism section specifically. I'm talking about the entire article. And I have listed the sources above. If you're looking for specific passages, you can refer to those you have deleted from the article over the last two years in the lede and section called "The Bible and Christian Ethics", as examples. But I'm not interested in changing the scope of this RFC to focus on a specific passage or two. I'm saying if a reliable source is clearly writing about Christian Ethics, either by saying so outwardly, or including it in a book or book chapter or article or other work that is clearly about Christian Ethics by title and discusses the Old Testament as part of that, then that Old Testament material is permissible in this article. As would be New Testament material if included in such a work. Or ideas from other sources in such a work. Airborne84 (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• So you want editors to agree in advance that anything that mentions the "Old Testament" and mentions "Christian" and mentions "ethics"-- just as Blackburn's straw man fallacy does-- can called on topic for this article-- BUT you also want permission in advance to include any other passage you find that talks about those things, no mater how out of context and off-topic it is?

Why would anyone bother to give you a blank check to violate all Wikipedia policy so all sorts of unknown passages when you cannot give one even one example of how any of them would make the article better? Wikipedia policy should not be over-ridden even with a RfC. A RfC should only be to clarify how policy applies in this case-- but you have no case and no specifics examples. Because there are some books written that talk about the Christian ethics and also talk about the Old Testament, you want to quote anything you find from any work that is (in your own view) "clearly writing about Christian Ethics".

Unlike Old Testament ethics, New Testament ethics will (normally) be on-topic for Christian ethics-- but the scope of the article does not even allow all things on New Testament ethics to be included. That would make the article too long, and give WP:undue weight to the New Testament. There has been some 19 centuries of Christian ethics since the New Testament. But this issue would be all the worse to include anything you find on Old Testament ethics. No quote on Old Testament ethics is apt to useful, and you cannot be bother to discuss a single quote that you think would make the article better. tahc ^chat 06:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• This seems a good suggestion to me, that you propose one or more specific points from books on Christian ethics and how they trace it to the Old Testament rather than to Jesus and the New Testament. The article is not about the source of Jesus' ethics but the source of Christian ethics. Jzsj (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsi, that's not a problem, but I don't have any specific passages in mind. I'm not trying to get blanket permission in order to slip something in. My aim here is to allow editors to remove the POV from the article by introducing properly sourced Old Testament views on Christian ethics throughout the article, if identified as such by reliable sources. But the central issue here is that Tahc, in his own words, sees all New Testament material as automatically on-topic, while any Old Testament material even within a WP:RS that is clearly written about Christian Ethics, is off topic, and belongs elsewhere. That is clearly a point of view. And that point of view is written into the article, but it cannot remain the only one, as that violates WP:NPOV. So, since Tahc deleted the POV tag I added without resolving through discussion first (according to Wikipedia's guidelines), I've decided to ask for additional opinions to allow editors to address this violation of WP:NPOV.

Tahc has set him/herself up as the approver of all material, has discarded a previous consensus on this page above in favor of his position that Old Testament material is by default off topic here (without seeking a new consensus), and has argued in various cases that even though a reliable source is writing about Christian ethics, that they are mistaken—putting his/her opinion above that of WP:RSs. Since not many editors frequent this talk page, it will thus be very difficult to remove the POV of the article.

Again, I can provide examples if you'd like, (I'd start with the ones that Tahc has removed from the article, creating the WP:NPOV violation), but I'm concerned that this RFC would close with agreement on those specific passages and then in the future Tahc would continue to oppose the addition of properly sourced OT material written in the context of Christian ethics that (s)he personally disagrees with—saying that the WP:RS is incorrect to link Christian ethics to that Old Testament material. Without some consensus to follow Wikipedia's policies, this article will be hard to rebalance. Thanks for your interest. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• I said "New Testament ethics will (normally) be on-topic" which is quite different from "New Testament material as automatically on-topic".

I am also happy to discuss any new consensus, which could be different the current one, but it was Airborne84 that (in the section above) rejected any possible Third Opinion of User:Aquegg and currently hinders his own RfC by withholding all examples of what OT related material he thinks could make the article better. tahc ^chat 16:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• I keep getting confused about whether we are to allow people writing on Christian ethics to trace some points of Christian ethics to the Old Testament (yes!), or whether we are to include authors whose purpose is to establish that Christian ethics has Old Testament roots (no!). I think this is a distinction to make here. This article has enough to cover in staying close to its topic of Christian ethics, and not getting off on debating the importance of the Old Testament to Christian ethics. Let authors who are important contributors to Christian ethics speak for themselves on the issue. Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsj, just the former, which you affirmed. Thank you for your input. Airborne84 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Definitely yes - there are many different approaches to Christian ethics, and many of them draw on the Old Testament to some degree. Quite apart from the Ten Commandments, the "creation mandates" have also featured prominently. There are lots and lots and lots of reliable sources on this topic. This use of the Old Testament is woefully lacking in this article, to the point of being POV. StAnselm (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please consider adding material as appropriate on the creation mandates to improve the article, as I don't have the Murray book. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - The old testament is part of the Christian bible and parts of it are still used by Christians to justify various ethical positions. AlanS^talk 03:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse cancel this Request for Comment as unclear I recommend RfC-ers to read above sections about this seemingly long-term disagreement. Sources need to be specific that they are discussing Christian ethics or specific denominational ethics at least - the biblical justification (whether OT, NT or otherwise) is fairly irrelevant. Clearly Christian ethics is a massive subject embracing RC, Protestant, Eastern and Evangelical churches on a huge range of moral issues - and over two millenia. The article cannot possibly provide more than an overview of the main positions held. Different churches place different emphasis on different bible passages ("an eye for an eye" vs "love thy neighbour - offer the other cheek" being an obvious example) and interpret passages variously or rely more heavily on OT/NT. Even the most literal-minded US Evangelical church, chooses to ignore what the OT has to say about Rape in the OT, and because a passage is in the Bible, is not a clear indicator that it has significance for all, or even any Christians. Most people, including most modern Christians, find parts of the OT repellent and the danger of saying Yes to this RfC, is that it would become "criticisms of the presumed values of the Bible" - which is what most of the current Criticism section is at present. Given the breadth of the topic, I don't see how it could possibly be anything other than a broad overview of the ethical positions held by Christian churches and the denominational variations. Pincrete (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see the clarification below the original RfC question. It clarifies that the question is: "Should material within WP:RS works about Christian Ethics (books, book chapters, articles, etc.) that draws from the Old Testament in the context of Christian ethics be allowed in this article?" Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - The old testament is part of the Christian Bible and go back to the 4th Century an Athanasius. As Christianity is a direct outgrowth of Judaism, there is no question. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes – The Bible is the central book of Christianity so all material in it should be equally included. Seanbonner (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article violates NPOV

I re-added the POV tag that was deleted without the issue being resolved. For Tahc, please do not remove it until the concern is discussed and resolved, according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Removing it is actually counterproductive. WP:NPOV Dispute states that the tag is used "to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile." That is the case, and the POV tag will indicate to editors and readers that there is a concern and direct them to the talk page to discuss and resolve. Please also click on the italics text at the bottom of the banner: "Learn how and when to remove these template messages". You can read there the sections on "when to remove" and "when not to remove". I won't edit war with you if you decide to summarily delete it again with an unresolved POV concern. But I will take it to an admin for assistance. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In any case, since there is additional visibility on the article, we should be able to resolve this concern. I'll note my specific concerns here to continue the discussion on what I believe is the root problem: the perceived or real POV in the article (the RFC above is related to a mechanism to address it).

The article primarily focuses on the New Testament as the source and basis for decisions for Christian ethics. As an example, the section on "Historical development of Christian ethics", the Old Testament period is a very minor part. Yet, D. Stephen Long's book Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, published by the Oxford University Press provides 32 of 39 pages of coverage on the Old Testament and associated period in its chapter called "The Sources of Christian Ethics." There is clearly an imbalance between this reliable source and that section in the Wikipedia article.

The section called "Areas of applied Christian ethics" primarily draws from New Testament material. This ignores the material in reliable sources (such as those I've listed in the sections above) that state the Old Testament ideas that modern Christians draw from.

I think we've agreed above that as long as a reliable source draws from the Old Testament clearly in the context of Christian ethics, by title of work, section, chapter, or article or by stating that outwardly, these sources can be used in these sections.

I am also happy to list a few examples of potential additions for other editors to comment on if desired. And if agreeable, I'll make a few adjustments and we can remove the tag with concern resolved. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I've listed a few examples below in three categories: (1) "Sources" to identify additional sources of Christian ethics that do not appear prominently in the article, (2) "Scripture" to show the relevance to all Biblical scripture broadly, and (3) a representative example of material that can be added to one of the "Applied ethics" sections that currently omit mention of the Old Testament's influence.

Sources

• Various sources inform Christian ethics but "comprehensive Christian ethical writings use four distinguishable sources: (1) the Bible and the Christian tradition, (2) philosophical principles and methods, (3) science and other sources of knowledge about the world, and (4) human experience broadly conceived."
• Christian ethics also draws from ideas from "'Pagan' ethics" such as virtue and natural law from figures such as Plato and Aristotle. Jewish ethics also figure prominently.

• I find the two paragraphs above an improvement on the present "Sources" section. I might also include here the first paragraph of the "Scripture" topic below, and then go on to brief, well-referenced historical sections before taking up specific issues. I think you have enough to do if you cover all the specific issues active today, with points of disagreement and tracing varying influences where possible. Jzsj (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Scripture

• "There is no 'Christian ethics' that would deny the authority of the Bible, for apart from scripture the Christian church has no enduring identity.”
• "Christian ethics finds its source in diverse means, but it primarily emerges from the biblical narrative and especially the call of Abraham and Sarah and subsequent creation of the Jewish people who received certain sacred possessions from God.” “It also arises from the calling of Abraham, which is found in Genesis 12” within which ancient myths from other cultures are rewritten from “from the perspective of Israel’s call.”

• These generalizations seem to me to be distant from the specific tenets of Christian ethics and the sourcing of these tenets. If you're discussing a specific point of Christian ethics and an author explains the impact of the Old Testament on the Christian thinking on the point, then I would mention this at that point. Jzsj (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any reason why the latter could not be included in the section on "Sources" in the article? I can certainly itemize some of the details as the author elaborates for some dozens of pages; I am simply trying to address the POV in the article that the main or only source of Christian ethics is the New Testament. The latter passages in the above address that. I'll also note that the first part of the latter passage already appears in the article; Tahc simply deleted the Old Testament parts related to Abraham and Sarah and Genesis while rewriting the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why don't you first get a broad spectrum of sources on each point of modern Christian ethics? Then pick out how they trace these ideas (if at all). I don't think your POV problem is too much NT but the section does need work. The last three paragraphs will hardly stand without citations; here you do have a POV problem: "says who?". Again, on a huge topic like this, one needs to begin with several authoritative books from different Christian churches, and follow out what they are saying, beginning with the specific topics, which should validate generalizations. Jzsj (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Ethics (Example additions for a section in the Applied Ethics section)

• The Old Testament “presents procreative marriage as the norm”.
• Old Testament accounts related to sexual ethics include that of warnings against men lying with prostitutes, as well as prohibitions on sex outside of marriage, homosexual acts, adultery, besitality, incest, nakedness, and intercourse during menstruation—in some cases with severe penalties, including death. Various passages note that the original egalitarianism between men and women was overturned by “disobedience and sin” in the story of Adam and Eve (Gen 3), and the establishment of a “generally patriarchal framework” where females were suborned to or seen as the property of males. However, there are notable women commemorated in scripture, such as Rebekah, Sarah, Rachel, Leah, Zipporah, Deborah, Naomi, Ruth, Abigail, and Judith.

References

• Some of these points were not carried over into Christiana ethics. Please list some places where the author of a book on Christian ethics traces a specific point of Christian ethics to the Old Testament, then we can judge whether it is significant to mention in an article on Christian ethics. Jzsj (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jzsj, all of the points in the above appear in the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics—a book on the topic. However, the author also directly notes that she is discussing Christian ethics as all of the material in the "Sexual Ethics" entry that is listed above follows this topic sentence: "The Bible is the universal and fundamental source of specifically Christian ethics." The material above immediately follows that sentence in a very long paragraph. If you are saying that the Old Testament passages themselves that the author referenced should be stated, that's fine, as I omitted them. Just let me know and I'll add them below. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but is this article about Christian ethics today, with a secondary introduction on some of its antecedents? If so, I would begin with what a variety of authors say about sexual issues today and if they mention the roots of the thought then include some of that. Specifically, I don't see where this comes up in most Christian ethics: "nakedness, and intercourse during menstruation—in some cases with severe penalties, including death"; why bring it up? You seem to be working here more out of the OT than out of Christian ethics today. And the bit about a patriarchal framework has had little impact on ethics books; it's regarded more as a cultural thing than as a moral precept, at least by Catholics. Jzsj (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It's reasonable to find sources today that talk about these things to link it to current thought. But I will note that this same question of starting "with what a variety of authors say about sexual issues today" isn't applied to much of the included New Testament material. For example, the majority of the Divorce section simply notes what the New Testament has to say about the topic (the material comes from the same book and in the same manner the OT material above is from), without starting with current ethical positions of notable Christians or churches and then tracing these to the New Testament. The church positions afterward are not linked to the New Testament. Should these New Testament passages be removed or tagged for relevance then? It seems to me, at least, that each notable point of view should be subject to the same standard for inclusion. This is part of my frustration here, that some points of view are subjected to a higher standard for inclusion. Thanks again. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest that you stop and assess at this point what the focus of this article should be. All the specific topics in Christian ethics occupy long, separate articles: should this article be a brief, outline-like summary of all those articles? Would that do justice to the complexity of each topic? Or should this article focus on the history and development of Christian ethics? The section on the Bible should reference here. If it follows the pattern of Buddhist ethics it will probably far exceed the 78,000 bytes there, as Christian ethics has had a much more widespread and complex history. Catholic moral theology should also be referenced. I note Christian ethics began as an historical study; that may best suit its niche amongst the maze of articles that already exist. These articles might be included in the "See also" section, as at present. I'm suggesting that before proceeding you need to access the extent of the task you're taking on, and then be sure you have the library to do it justice. Jzsj (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• While there is some interest from other in the OT, the work "Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction" is not a good pattern to follow overall (just because you happen to own the book), for reasons already stated-- the other more reliable sources are not like this.
• The section called "Areas of applied Christian ethics" are each summarizes for the linked articles at each topic. If you think the linked articles are POV, then go fix them first in accordance with all Wikipedia policy, then we can consider rewording the summaries here. If you think the linked articles are fine but only the summaries are POV then anyone can propose a rewording on that basis.
• I did not here anyone else use you summary of what Old Testament related material can be added-- and if they did I still think it is full of vagueness that makes unclear for any policy. I still ask for examples for the editors comment on. Futhermore, no one agree to let you violate the many Wikipedia policies that can impact what is the best text for an article.
• If you want to include a statements on the sources for Christian ethics being to all scripture, then find statement in WP:RSs; you cannot infer such thing from your own WP:OR.
• Since you have been one to misinterpret text in the past I am going to ask you to quote the passages and its context for your sources. tahc ^chat 17:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• You quote in the The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics to say "Old Testament accounts... include that of warnings against ... nakedness, and intercourse during menstruation". Is there any where in the dictionary entry that says "all Old Testament ethics are followed today in Christian ethics" or even "these particular prohibitions are part of Christian ethics today"? I have seen books contrast NT ethics with pagan ethics, like Greek philosophy or Code of Hammurabi. While some Old Testament ethics (such as "do not murder") do match Christian ethics, we cannot assume they match just because we read about it in a book that says "Christian ethics" on the cover. A dictionary of Christian Ethics might have many other thing discussed besides Christian ethics. tahc ^chat 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful for you to read through WP:RS. It doesn't get much better than a work by a respected scholar on Christian Ethics like D. Stephen Long and published by the Oxford University Press. Please also read through WP:IDONTLIKEIT

The author of the "Sexual Ethics" article in the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, Lisa Sowle Cahill, didn't say "Christian Ethics as of this year". But the topic and first sentence of the paragraph with all of the relevant material I noted is "The Bible is the universal and fundamental source of specifically Christian ethics." The material I summarized above immediately follows that sentence in a very long paragraph. There is no reason to think she's talking about any timeframe other than the date of publication.

I have provided high quality sources that meet Wikipedia's standards. Your standard for inclusion of OT material continues to be much higher than Wikipedia requires. That you don't personally like them is not relevant. We use the opinions of reliable sources, not editors.

I also do not plan to try to edit a bunch of other articles before editing this one. There is nothing in Wikipedia's policies that requires that. The POV in this article can be addressed without addressing other articles.

Having said that, it's clear what your position is and I prefer to get the opinions of other editors. The RFC above will remain open for a total of 30 days unless it is clear what the consensus is before that (perhaps it is clear now). And other editors can comment here as well. The POV tag will continue to point readers and editors to this discussion. The more editors that comment, the easier it will be to get clarity on the way ahead. And if your arguments hold any merit, I'm sure others will see it—beyond the others who have commented who have not seen it. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• If you don't want to edit article on "Christian sexual ethics" that is fine, but there is also nothing in Wikipedia's policies that calls for two related articles say different things on the same topic. Wikipedia:Summary style says, "Each subtopic or child article... contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article." Since those articles should watched and read buy more people knowledgeable of Christian sexual ethics that this one, I think changing it there before here (1) makes more sense than letting the two say different things on the same topic and (2) makes more sense than trying to change it here first. This will also prevent the same fight (if any) from taking place on both pages. tahc ^chat 20:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

We can agree on that. If one is edited, both may as well be, although requiring that may dissuade some editors from trying to improve this or a child article. As a side note, some of the Applied ethics sections here have "child" articles. However, there doesn't appear to be one for comprehensive Christian sexual ethics. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

August

A bot will automatically close the RfC in the section above in a couple of days, when the 30-day mark is reached. It appears the previous consensus that Old Testament material can be used in this article in the context of Christian ethics has been fairly clearly reaffirmed.

I am willing to attempt addressing the lack of other POVs in the article by making some edits to re-introduce the Old Testament and other sources for Christian ethics into the "sources" sections as noted above (and that were removed some time ago in the re-write of the article), and a few of the topic sections where the New Testament POV can be augmented with other relevant POVs. However, Tahc, if you intend to continue to contest all edits with criteria outside of what Wikipedia requires, I will pass on slogging through the same arguments again until other editors are interested in actively editing to address the lack of other significant POVs. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, since no comments, I'll have a go at addressing the POV concern.--Airborne84 (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tahc, really? No response to my note above, and then simply revert ALL of the edits I made that draw from the extensive discussions above—remarking that there should be discussion first? I hope you don't think it's not clear to other editors at this point what you're doing. Let the record show that Tahc prefers to leave the article with a POV violation to fit his/her extensive rewriting. If no other editors want to get involved, then the article will remain as it is: an essay with Tahc's preferred thesis. I don't have the time to slog through with a tendentious editor protecting his/her article.--Airborne84 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies not noticing these comments before... looks like you began while I was on a short trip. I also do not see notice why "Article violates NPOV" is a new section from the rest.

Your effort to claim whatever victory you are claiming is quite optimistic and a little silly.

(1) You requested permission to "use" what you call "Old Testament material" under certain vague conditions that seem to mean (to you) something like "Airborne84 can use Old Testament material whenever he wants."

(2) I pointed out this and moved to cancel the RfC as fundamentally unclear.

(3) Some (but not all) people agreed to the the importance of the Old Testament in a various and general ways, but did define and rules for what this RfC could or should agree to.

(4) When we did talk about a particular issue and particular text-- Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics on Sexual Ethics-- your desire to misuse texts to fit your POV became clear to those involved: Jzsj and myself.

There was no "previous consensus" on Old Testament material of the sort you affirm, and there is no new consensus of the sort you ask for. But even if there had been a so-called consensus "give Airborne84 this or that", consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia policies. If you cannot gain consensus on any particular text, then why would pursue and claim general consensus? tahc ^chat 02:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a separate section because I purposefully started it as such—to direct interested editors and readers from the article's WP:NPOV tag. Please don't change other's edits on talk pages. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has some more helpful guidelines as well.

As for the above, you're making the same arguments that didn't convince others before as is plain in the RfC. The record is there for all to see. You are welcome to continue using them, but I'm no longer interested in engaging with them. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As a side note, I didn't add any material related to sexual ethics. I added some material that I proposed and Jzsi agreed in the discussion above was an improvement on the current article—adding relevant Old Testament context to the article. You however, decided that your POV is more important, and deleted those stated improvements in the discussion above, noting that controversial edits needed discussion first in the edit summary. (Some irony there and why it's clear to other editors what you're doing at this point.)

And I don't claim as you note in your straw man above that the RfC provides me or any other editor with carte blanche to add any Old Testament material. However, it does identify that other editors believe Old Testament material is relevant here. Given that there is a lack of that material, as you removed much of it in edits some time ago in favor of one position on this topic, the POV becomes clear.

Your concern was clear that Old Testament material needs to be clearly linked to Christian ethics, lest someone think Old Testament ethics are automatically Christian ethics. That's fine, and so I took care to note in the footnotes of my initial edits that the reliable sources clearly linked the passages to Christian Ethics. However, it's apparent now that your actual concern is just keeping Old Testament material out of the article. So the POV remains, and I'm just not going to take the time to rehash your arguments at every edit to address it. The tag on the article will identify that the article's neutrality remains disputed. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that some Old Testament material is relevant here... and the article already has some Old Testament material. Adding any more Old Testament material is entirely dependant (for starters) on what that material is.

I am very glad to see you agree now that "Old Testament material needs to be clearly linked to Christian ethics...". If we can start there, then we can discuss adding particular material on that basis. tahc ^chat 20:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. That should be apparent in that in how I clarified the RfC and how I clearly stated in the notes to the added passages the linkage to Christian Ethics. In that light, you must have a different issue with them. We don't know what that is. Since you invoked WP:BRD but have not discussed your concern with the edits, perhaps you will identify then why you think them inappropriate? --Airborne84 (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

While you might think all your proposed changes are all equally clear and beneficial, there is no reason to discuss them simultaneously. If you want to gain consensus then you must discuss particular material-- as in, discuss one at a time. tahc ^chat 03:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You deleted all of the edits simultaneously. So you should have reviewed them and determined that they all are inappropriate edits. If that is the case, you should be able to advise what your problem is with all of them. For someone who cites "polices" (which Wikipedia has very few of and are not binding doctrine), you appear to have only a superficial understanding of them. You invoked WP:BRD, which says at the beginning that WP:BRD is an "optional method of achieving consensus". And bold editing as a "fundamental principle" is encouraged. It also says to "revert if an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." So, according to WP:BRD, you should have identified why the additions were not improvements and why they couldn't be refined, and only deleting them all was appropriate. Please see also Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary which provides further guidelines, including "bad reasons to revert". It says there that "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing." Your conduct is not encouraging editing, and you clearly favor the status quo of the article, which you have primarily written with a particular POV.

I could see if significant edits were out of the blue on a controversial topic that a revert of some of the material that didn't appear to improve the article might be appropriate, while keeping parts that were an improvement. But all of these edits except the removal of the primary source NT material (which should have a secondary source linking them to Christian Ethics, just as Old Testament ethics require in your words) have been discussed above, either the source and the ideas, or the specific passages directly.

At this point, I'm more concerned about your behavior which appears to be that of an editor who has written an article with a POV (also noted by StAnselm in the RfC), who wants to maintain the status quo, and is ignoring consensuses and concurrences by other editors (e.g., Jazi for three of the added passages) to maintain that status quo, while suggesting that all passages must be individually approved—"one at a time"—before adding to the article, which does not align with WP:BRD. As for your suggestion that there is "no reason" to discuss them all at once, there is. I don't have time to sit on this talk page for hours and hash out individual passages one at a time. The article needs significant improvements. Suggesting that is an indication of an editor who is trying to maintain the status quo of an article, and discourages editing, whereas Wikipedia promotes editing.

So, please advise. Did you actually follow the guideline you cited (WP:BRD) and look at the edits and determine that they all were "not an improvement, and [could not] be immediately fixed by refinement", or did you just revert in favor of the previous version without identifying concerns with the edits that you thought were so severe that they could not be refined and needed to be removed? If the previous, please share your analysis and concerns. If the latter, please identify that. In the latter case, I'll seek outside assistance on your conduct. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

On a separate but related topic, you keep stating that consensus cannot be used to violate Wikipedia's policies. This leads me to believe that no matter what consensuses we achieve here, you will just fall back on that assertion to maintain the status quo. WP:CONSENSUS is one of Wikipedia's few actual policies (versus guidelines). And it provide a list here on what consensus cannot affect. I don't see anything there relevant to what you're claiming. Perhaps you can clarify what Wikipedia policy supports your claim that a consensus on this page that an editor believes violates a policy should be ignored? --Airborne84 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that you "don't have time to [discuss] passages one at a time." Yet, I don't have time to detail all the problems with all the many passages, so that you can ignore the issues I raise, wasting our time. This is exactly what happened (for example) when you requested a "Third Opinion" and then began a RfC before Aquegg even gave an opinion.

Furthermore, the purpose of this page is discuss ways of improving this article. There is no reason for you to make purposely multiple controversial edits all at once, unless you want obscure the issues, none the less, I am being more that fair to discuss any edit you want on improving this article, but if you want to just debate policies that we might disagree at a later point, then we have nothing discuss. tahc ^chat 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. No response to my question above on whether you arbitrarily deleted the passages without reading them. I believe the answer is clear then. I'll notify an administrator about your conduct. It may take a day or two, but I'll advise you on your talk page when I do so you are aware. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

In response to your last addition two paragraphs above that you inserted inside the discussion beginning with "You claimed that":

Just because you don't have time to review an editor's edits, done IAW Wikipedia's policies and after extensive discussions, does not give you permission to simply delete them all without reading them in favor of the status quo.

Your edits are not "after extensive discussions"-- in fact, you admitted earlier that you did not even want to discuss particular passages before now. In fact, we lacked "extensive discussions" about any issues. We (unfortunately) mostly talked past each other. tahc ^chat 02:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

And I don't know why you're lashing out at me by stating I would ignore your concerns. I acknowledged your concerns which centered on ensuring there was a clear linkage between Old Testament scripture and Christian ethics. I took the time to research material in high-quality reliable sources that provided that link to improve the article, based on the consensuses and discussion above, addressing your concern, and taking pains to draw that link clearly in the notes of the edits. And you summarily deleted all of it, suggesting that there has been no discussion to date on them. And you are finding fault with me? I'm very comfortable with where the issue lies, to the point of taking it to an administrator.

I won't do that for a day or two though, as I don't have time right now. There is still time for you to collaborate to improve this article. I am willing, but you appear not to be. All you need to do is identify your concerns with my edits. I'll link to them again here. Another option is to undo your revert and follow WP:BRD by keeping the material that improves the article, making immediate changes where it seems needed, and identifying your concerns with whatever material you feel is simply inappropriate. If you need some additional time to review the edits and comment on them, that's fine as well; simply let me know how much time you need. But the option where you remove them all and insist I list the passages individually, "one at a time" here, is not acceptable. It smacks of ownership of the article, and has the effect of discouraging editing of this article by imposing requirements on editors that run contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines that encourage editing.

Again, I thought we had reached an area of agreement that allowed us to move forward. When you deleted all of my edits, I was actually in the process of going through references trying to find the best way to improve the article while addressing your concerns. But your way of moving forward is not the best way to get results at Wikipedia, and is not helping improve the article, unless you're simply interested in maintaining the article in its current Class B Start-Class, non-neutral status—the status quo. How we move forward is up to you. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not insert text in the middle of other editor's comments. It causes context to be lost. I've already asked you once to not modify other editor's comments. I'll ask you to shift your comment to the bottom of mine.

It's interesting that you still don't realize there have been extensive discussions. It's clear you never read the edits before deleting them. If you had read them you would have seen that they, either in concept, or for at least three of them are discussed above in this very thread, with Jzsi concurring with them as improvements. Sit tight. I'll advise when I notify an administrator on your conduct. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

However/But

I reverted Tahc's edit from the below version to what's in the article as the wording below may not reflect what the source is saying.

• Christians today "do not feel compelled to observe all 613 commandments" in the Torah, but the Ten Commandments often figure prominently in Christian ethics.

This is addressed in the Wikipdia Manual of Style where it warns against adding words like "but" between two statements to "imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second". As the source's wording has two separate sentences with the second beginning with "however", that is the most appropriate way to phrase it to ensure we don't add something to what the source wrote and didn't intend. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• "However" can imply a relationship just as much as "but". If you think "but" is a mistake, then so is "however". tahc ^chat 20:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

References

ANI

A complaint about editing of this page has been filed at WP:ANI#Disruptive editor at Christian ethics. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Information list for further use in improving the article (including WP:POV issue)

I'm not going to continue to try to improve the article. It takes much less effort to maintain the status quo then to try to improve the article when only two editors are involved on opposing ends. I'll reiterate that the article has a neutrality issue due to the relative lack of Old Testament material, as I and StAnselm (in the RfC) have noted. I'm listing below some sources and ways other editors can use in the future to address the neutrality issue and improve the article. Many have been discussed already. Since this is a reference list for future use, please discuss it as needed below the list to prevent breaking it apart.

1. Comprehensively identify the sources of Christian Ethics in the Old Testament (and other "sources" such as Greek philosophy, etc.)

• Various sources inform Christian ethics but "comprehensive Christian ethical writings use four distinguishable sources: (1) the Bible and the Christian tradition, (2) philosophical principles and methods, (3) science and other sources of knowledge about the world, and (4) human experience broadly conceived."
• Christian ethics also draws from ideas from "'Pagan' ethics" such as virtue and natural law from figures such as Plato and Aristotle. Jewish ethics also figure prominently.
• Christian ethics “also arises from the calling of Abraham, which is found in Genesis 12” within which ancient myths from other cultures are rewritten from “from the perspective of Israel’s call.”
• Bruce Birch identifies two important foundations of the "ethical witness of the Old Testament" in (1) "The Will, Activity, and Character, of God, and (2) "The Framework of Israel's Story." (This passage appears in Chapter 1 of Birch's book titled "The Role of the Old Testament in Christian Ethics." Birch notes in the introduction in a list of what the book is not: "1. This book is not a book on Old Testament ethics" (19))
• John Rogerson notes how the Old Testament has been used to inform various Christian ethical works such as the Apostolical Constitutions, and Maimonides' work The Guide of the Perplexed.

2. Identify how Christians handle Christian Ethics that draw from the Old Testament in different manners

• According to John Rogerson, questions on the extent to which members of the early church "should obey the Old Testament deeply divided" them and influenced the New Testament. He further states that modern uses of the Old Testament related to Christian Ethics "can broadly be divided into 'conservative' and 'liberal' approaches, with considerable diversity within each division." (Rogerson lays these approaches out in detail in his work.)
• Bruce C. Birch notes a frequent suggestion that the New Testament is "more formative and normative", and states that the Old Testament's "breadth and complexity" make it easier for many to suborn the Old Testament when applying to Christian life. (This passage appears in Chapter 1 of Birch's book titled "The Role of the Old Testament in Christian Ethics." Birch notes in the introduction in a list of what the book is not: "1. This book is not a book on Old Testament ethics" (19)).

3. Provide WP:RS secondary sources for any primary-source New Testament material in the article that links it to Christian Ethics (as is required for OT material).

• An example from the article: "The New Testament generally asserts that all morality flows from the Great Commandment, to love God with all one's heart, mind, strength, and soul, and to love one's neighbour as oneself. In this, Jesus was reaffirming a teachings of Deut 6:4-9 and Lev 19:18. Christ united these commands together and proposed himself as a model of the love required in John 13:12, known also as The New Commandment."

4. Examples of how modern Christians draw from the Old Testament and apply it as guides to their actions today

• In his section "Contemporary uses of the Old Testament in Christian Ethics", John Rogerson identifies how Christians use the OT in Christian Ethics, listing how different authors treat the topic.
• "Lesson 2a: The Moral Teaching of the Mosaic Covenant" (a lesson explaining how Catholics draw from the Mosaic Covenant).
• "Lesson 2b: The Prophets and Old Testament Morality. The Old Testament not only gives us moral norms but exhorts and encourages us to live by these norms by its promise of happiness if they are observed and of the consequences of going on the Way of Death. Furthermore it gives many examples of how to apply these norms in different situations."
• And many other denominational position statements available online.

5. Ensure that the "Areas of applied Christian ethics" include where Christians draw from the Old Testament in Christian Ethics. (Especially those sections that begin and end with the New Testament.)

• The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics provides OT sources for each of these areas in an A-Z guide. Authoritative church statements from modern churches do as well. As an example, Westminster provides the following: "The Bible is the universal and fundamental source of specifically Christian ethics. The OT (Hebrew Bible) presents procreative marriage as the norm", etc.

6. Clarify misleading statements

• The article states that "Christians today 'do not feel compelled to observe all 613 commandments' in the Torah, but the Ten Commandments often figure prominently in Christian ethics." This is apparently asserted as evidence that Christians do not use the Old Testament except for the Ten Commandments, but John Rogerson states what should be obvious that "'Hebrew Bible' and 'Old Testament' are not synonymous."

Happy editing. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

outline

Jenhawk777 outline

I now have an offering of an outline:

• I. Definitions
• II. (Some) Historical background
• III. Meta-ethical themes

A. Metaphysical foundations (what is the nature of reality itself?)

a. The nature of God; the nature of reality, existence, life, human will and power: all as derived from Being itself: God;

b. the will of God: freewill and determinism; the ontology of divine command: the ontological status of moral norms as absolutes;

c. the axiological and aesthetic assumptions about the nature of value and beauty: (the nature of value, what makes something valuable? what kinds of things are valuable?)

B. epistemological foundations (how do we know? )

a. what is knowledge, truth, and belief: knowing through revelation and reason;

b. what are the criteria for moral discernment: virtue is knowledge, knowledge is virtue;

c. knowing through grace and law; moral authority/the will of God;

C. Meta-ethical assumptions (major beliefs - what Christian ethics is founded on)

a. the meaning of good and evil, and a sentence or two on theodicy;

b. Grace/love/mercy and Law/justice/personal responsibility; Christian as both new creation and fallen; ethics on respecting authority and personal autonomy; self-affirmation and self-denial;

c. nature, and the kingdom of God;

d. autonomy and service; goodness as virtue;

e. inclusivity and exclusivity: could include natural law/cultural pluralism and tolerance as virtue vs. belongingness and community exclusivity

D. Wells and Quash: universal, subversive, ecclesial ethics

• IV. Topics and applications

A. Politics

a. war and peace

b. civil disobedience

c. criminal justice

1. capital punishment

B. Relationships

a. covenantal community and loving one's neighbor

b. friendship and Platonic love

a. marriage and sexual love

b. divorce

c. abortion

C. Biomedical

a.( could put abortion here )

b. stem-cell research

c. euthanasia and assisted suicide

D. Environmental

a. ecology

b. animal rights

I think that covers most of what should be in an article on Christian ethics, though I may have missed some. Obviously we would be writing very short descriptions of these which are not much more than a mention. Even then, this will be a long article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• This outline is not bad, per se, but I think overly detailed for this sort of Wikipedia article.
• I think the "Topics and applications" would be better to be alphabetical. Then we don't have to have disagreements over the names of the 4 large topics and what goes in what.
• The meta-ethical themes also seems like a difficult thing for Wikipedia readers of all different Christian background to gain consensus on. Maybe a less detailed set of meta-ethical themes would work. I am sure there are also terms we can use that are more clear than "meta-ethical". We cannot assume readers will read the article l ike a book-- in order-- so each section should make as much sense as possible on its own. Do you find that many books on Christian ethics have a large section on meta-ethical themes? If so, how are Christian meta-ethical themes different from Christian ethical themes? tahc ^chat 23:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, we would have to keep a check on each other and be sure and not go into too much detail. I generally gauge my work toward the high school to the college sophomore, who might be writing a paper, taking a general survey class, something like that. What I think they need is a broad overview of the main points with nothing too in depth. Sort of like a Freshman college survey class: Intro to CE.
  • Alphabetical is fine - for everything we can, it's a good idea.
  • That's also a good point. Every book on Christian ethics does indeed discuss meta-ethical themes, but most often they do so without using the term. We should follow that example. We can just call that section 'Basic ethical assumptions', or 'Underlying ethical principles', or something that's a bit easier to understand. It's a way of organizing the principles of ethics from the big ideas that everything else is built on down to the particulars.
  • Applied ethics focuses on what is moral, meta-ethics focuses on what morality is. Norman Geisler's book that I mentioned above? It's entire Part one is dedicated to establishing that moral principles from God are absolutes: he defines what morality is for almost half the book yet he never says the term meta-ethic. But that's what it is.
  • You are right again, imo, that each section must make sense on its own. And if we write each section well, it will work out that way. In a wp article, we can't afford the space for repetition.
  • You will laugh, but looking at this and thinking of how long it will be, I am now thinking like you that a separate article on the history of Christian ethics is called for. Maybe a short paragraph here to summarize what that one says. We'll have to do it backwards - write the summary before the article - but it will be so general I doubt it will be a problem. I'll try working on the definition and the historical background paragraphs in my sandbox for a bit. What would you like to work on first? You have put so much into the topics already, perhaps you could start adding to them. I suggest War: Four Christian views by Clouse as a jump off for that section; there's a second book too. They're both good overviews of the topic of CE and war.
  • Thank you tahc, I know we will do great things together! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    • tahc I just want to ask that you don't panic since I am removing so much from CE right now! I am moving it all to my sandbox for writing the inevitable history of CE that I am hoping you will help with as well. I am stealing all your stuff to use there! I am doing my best to edit history down to as little as possible so we can have more on topics and themes instead. How are you doing? Are you working on something? Don't feel pressured, take your time, but I hope you will do this with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• If I were you, I would create the history of Christian ethics first, then write a lead section to summarize that article, and then reuse that lead section, or part of it, in this Christian ethics article. tahc ^chat 20:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• You know, you're right. Trying to write this history as small as possible is making me a little nuts! I should do exactly as you say, and I think I will, but since I started the reboot here, I will finish that first - leaving out history - then come back. Thank you! That helps! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Rfc

Resolved

Is the topic of this page limited to current Christian ethics only? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Airborne84 Jzsj Xx78900 You have previously demonstrated an interest in this article, so I hope you will return and comment here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777-- Linking to only some editors of this article and not others, as you have done above, is a form of Wikipedia:Canvassing, and is generally considered disruptive to the normal consensus decision-making process. tahc chat 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Those were the only two three I found on this Talkpage. I looked because it is normal to ask for comments from those who have already contributed to the article. Canvassing is done "with the intention of influencing the outcome" and there is no such intent. How could there be? I don't know them. I don't know what they'll say. I pinged them because they were already here. You are welcome to go see who I missed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Copypasting my above comment: As a reader, I find it reasonable to find something about historical background in an article with this title, like in, say, Italy or Painting. The name indicate "Top level", it is not Modern CE or Contemporary CE. Even if "History of Christian ethics" is created I would expect to see a section on it in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Gråbergs Gråa Sång That would be a No from you then? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I never asked for all reference to history to be removed. As I said above, the section on sources of Christian ethics is (i) shows the sources to be rooted in (Christian) history and (ii) that section is mostly historical in format. My main object to the Rfc is how you have created it in a biased way. It is a false dichotomy to ask for no historical Christian ethics or some historical Christian ethics-- because your past efforts have been to rewrite the entire article as a history of Christian ethics. For example, your efforts (1) made the section on sources of Christian ethics a through mixture things both relevant and irrelevant to current Christian ethics, and (2) made the section on applied Christian ethics a mere addendum of the last historical time period. Since all your efforts were to create an article on the historical development of Christian ethics, it would be much better to give your efforts that name, or a similar name, instead of the name used here. I also object to creating this Rfc without first clarifying why you are avoid and ignoring this obvious solution. tahc chat 20:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC) tahc The question for the RFC is plain and simple. Please let it play out without interfering in the process - such as moving its section heading under reverts as you did here: [1]. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Adding to an existing article instead of creating a new one is not that outlandish, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) It is when dealing with a sense of ownership. The obvious solution is for everyone else to go away and leave his article alone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC) So if people ask for even more historical Christian ethics, you won't mind it being in its own section as Gråbergs Gråa Sång seems to indicate? Or maybe this Rfc about keeping the historical Christian ethics already in the article now? Your framing of the question does not make clear that it already has historical Christian ethics, but limited to relevant sources. How long should the section on other historical Christian ethics be permitted to get before its is made into a separate article? Should the criticism of Christian ethics be for both criticism of past Christian ethics (mostly past behavior) and criticism of current Christian ethics? If permitted, should the criticism of historical ethics be a subset of the historical Christian ethics section or a subset of the criticism of Christian ethics section? If you will not talk about it now, or even before this Rfc, will you just jump into a new Rfc when needed later? tahc chat 21:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC) none of these are pertinent until the topic is determined. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC) If it helps for clarity, I can write a bolded No as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Since that is the response others are giving, I would say yes, it does help. I will add mine in as well: No. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No, Christian ethics presumably has roughly 2000 years of history (and readers could probably benefit from learning about the background of precursors to Christian thought in ethics as well). It would be appropriate to spend a decent portion of the article describing the historical evolution of Christian ethics over time (and presumably across space, where applicable). signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC) @Rosguill: Please go look at the article (as it was and as it is now); it already does spend a decent portion of the article describing the historical evolution of Christian ethics over time-- my interest is avoiding all forms Christian ethics over all time. The veneration of Mary and medieval views on the Jews are considered relevant to Christian ethics today, and mixing in such factoids with genuine sources on Christian ethics is misleading or worse. It does not make the article better if the goal is to understand Christian ethics, as it would be taught today. tahc chat 21:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Christian ethics =/= Christian ethics as it would be taught today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "As it would be taught today" is the issue though isn't it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC) No The article has to cover 21 centuries of Christian history, and not emphasize the last few years. "Christian ethics as it would be taught today" is only a trivial aspect of the subject. Dimadick (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC) I wouldn't say trivial. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No. Besides the reasons already listed above, Wikipedia's Featured Article criteria requires that an article reaching that status "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". History adds to context. Airborne84 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No. Just my feeling, but the article does not seem to cover the academic field that the title is. The current article seems to focus on recent events/issues and actually [earlier versions] seemed to have a better perspective. Could add back much of that content, or else split off ‘current topics’ from the article about the field. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No. It's a monstrously large topic, but positions maintained today cannot be understood apart from their historical genesis. Jzsj (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC) No. Historical aspects are much more important than the present. Nyx86 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC) This Rfc is now closed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC) RFC discussion @Jzsj: So-- you think the current article ignores the historical genesis? Is there some other historical genesis besides the "New Testament" you wish was covered? Is there some part of "historical genesis" that would not fit under "sources". tahc chat 02:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC) tahc Please remain calm. This is a WP article, not real life. In answer to your question, yes, there is much of the historical genesis that cannot be covered under sources, and much development and evolution of CE not covered anywhere else in this article. CE is not just what it is now. That's kind of the whole point of this RFc that everyone else here readily recognizes. The people here want to produce the best work, for the best encyclopedia, and we do that by working together, by compromising, and by accepting and cooperating with consensus. Stay with me and work with me tahc. I did graduate study in ethics. I love this field. I will do you proud if you will just collaborate and not obstruct. We can work this through, but we have to do it here on the talk page, and we have to do it accepting that this article can't be limited to current Christian ethics. I always let other people edit me - just not revert without cause. If you can agree to that, we can do this, and there is no reason why we can't do so together. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC) I appreciate claims to want to collaborate and not just obstruct. If you limit forms of not assuming good faith-- such as sarcasm-- then I think that will make a big difference. I am sure your graduate study in ethics is helpful to the article, and know many facts about Christian ethics, but I think the article can be written in a way that is readily understandable to the layperson, and not just specialists. I find a RFC and sometimes attracts editors that look at the questions, answer it at face value, but do not really understand or address the actual difference in opinion that you and I (seem to) have. tahc chat 16:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC) tahc I assure you there is no sarcasm at all in my comment on working together. That's the way WP is supposed to work, and I genuinely believe that practice is what has produced an encyclopedia that has outlasted all others of its kind. The sentence in this Rfc is based on your reason given for your reverts, but if you think it doesn't cover our disagreement, then how would you state it? Let's see if we can agree on that, then we can see if we can work together here or not.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC) tahc I have just gone and asked one of the great and wonderful FA reviewers to take a look at this as I think the solution here will be in renaming this individual article or just transferring some of your material into a new "Current Christian ethics" or whatever he thinks it should be called, then writing sister articles for the different eras, and a final summary article titled what this one is titled. How would you feel about that approach? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC) In some ways the article "Christ" does (or did) cover mostly the same topic as the article "Christology", but Christology was more from an academic perspective, and Christ from a more layman's approach. Not every topic has a pair of terms to facilitate this distinction, but an ideal solution might (otherwise) be this. One Christian ethics article from an academic perspective-- and one from a layman's approach. This is still not a perfect analogy but maybe you get the idea. Assuming that will nor work, we could have (a) Christian ethics and historical Christian ethics (b) current Christian ethics and Christian ethics, or (c) current Christian ethics and historical Christian ethics. I would prefer "a" and assume you would prefer "b", but I am open to trying to find compromise. I think choosing between these options, or perhaps other options along these lines would have been a better question for the RFC. Maybe your "great and wonderful FA reviewer" could express a thoughtful view on these options. tahc chat 21:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC) This is good tahc, this is very good. It's progress of a kind! First, I can't choose 'a' or 'c' because there is no such animal as "historical Christian ethics" as a thing in itself. History 'of' something, and that same something being 'historical', are not the same because 'historical' also means "belonging to the past". There is no such thing as a "historical ethic", as such, because the ethic continues. It is not a thing of the past. Christian ethics is sometimes broken down into: "Early Christian Ethics", [2] which is pretty much limited to the first four centuries and it would include some history as context.[3] Then there are sometimes classes and books in the category of "Ethics of the Middle Ages", which is further broken down into early and late middle ages, and this would also include some history for context. [4] and [5] Then something like "Christian ethics in the modern and postmodern world". Here is a book you should definitely check out: Readings in Christian Ethics Theory and Method [6] All of these would include some history. Without history, we run the risk of disconnecting ethics from its roots, and making people think the modern era invented its own ethic out of thin air. The connection between past and present should always be discussed and shown, in every era, but not excessively, I agree. I cannot agree to a layman's vs. an academic approach either. Christian ethics can be made accessible to non-academics, and indeed, that is part of what we do here on WP, and part of what every teacher does. We explain physics to first graders, and complex concepts to high school sophomores. I'm used to that. If anyone doesn't understand something I've written, all that's required is to say something and I will change it. It's how we roll on WP. But we cannot breakdown articles based on that kind of division. We are left with breaking them down by era, including some limited history in each one, then making a summary article of them all titled "Christian ethics". Christian ethics is the broad big topic. Any article with that title must cover the whole topic and not be limited to one of its eras. WP guidelines indicate an article that covers the topic "Current Christian ethics" must be titled accordingly: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles... Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article,[7] Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia has a certain bias for an academic point of view but there is a limit to this. Sometimes a word has one meaning in an academic field but a different meaning in a different context. Wikipedia has to address all situations, not just interpret all terms as academic terms, merely because it can be a academic term. I also have to disagree with your view that there are no historical ethics. As I said above, we could find another term to use-- but some ethics do belong in the past. People no any longer go on Christian crusades, nor should people go on crusades. This ethic belongs in the past. We just might not always agree on which ethics "belong in the past" It is this very fact-- that some ethics belong in the past-- that causes me to prefer modern Christian ethics. There is some use to understanding bad ethics, but not as much use as understanding good ethics. If you study Christian ethics at some (secular) schools, it might be all descriptive. If you study Christian ethics at a seminary I expect it would be more prescriptive. tahc chat 02:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC) tahc Sometimes a word has one meaning in an academic field but a different meaning in a different context. But words still have defined meanings. Find me a valid source that defines Christian ethics as current Christian ethics and does not include the history of ethics somewhere in its description, and post it here, please, so that I can go read it. I will want to see that. What you are referring to as historical ethics are not ethics, they are morals: concrete individual positions - particular applications - of ethics. You are right in saying some of those have passed away, just as the context that created a requirement for them is no more. Some of them may even have been bad, though I don't think I would use a modern judgment to say which. But the system of Christian ethics is ancient and ongoing and continues into the modern day with m ost of its ethical principles intact. Your example of crusade is a good one to make that point. People were called to go on crusade as an act of Christian love, to help those in need, to aid fellow Christians who were being persecuted and killed because they were Christian. We may not go on crusade using that word anymore, but we do still put out the same call to aid the persecuted for the same reasons. Application have changed with context. The underlying ethical principles have not. Christian ethics is not historical, it is not past, it is ancient and it is also ongoing, and this article should convey that. Its current applications are not all it is. Herin lies the problem: It is this very fact-- that some ethics belong in the past-- that causes me to prefer modern Christian ethics. There is some use to understanding bad ethics, but not as much use as understanding good ethics. If you study Christian ethics at some (secular) schools, it might be all descriptive. If you study Christian ethics at a seminary I expect it would be more prescriptive. What you prefer cannot define this article. It isn't yours. It belongs to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has requirements. What we write must be defined by what the sources say and not by what we think or prefer. We cannot write our personal preferences or opinions or feelings or beliefs. That's called blogging. It is not our place to make judgments. It is our place to present information, all the pertinent information, in a neutral manner. Going to seminary is no doubt prescriptive, but Wikipedia is not a seminary. Wikipedia is not the place for advocating or denigrating any particular set of views. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: [[8]] Please demonstrate some willingness to accept these WP requirements. References Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC) i. But words still have defined meanings. No, not always. Words always have meanings that can be defined-- but you cannot always find a "valid source" for the meaning that a term does have. tahc If you can't find a source for your definition you can't use it on wikipedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Your comment seems to purposely misunderstand my point. Please try to understand my comment in context. Not every word needs an explicit definition. tahc chat 02:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC) I have no idea what your point is beyond that you get to define things as you please without having to reference any source or meet any standard beyond your own preferences and biases.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC) ii. While you claim "what we write must be defined by what the sources say, WP:Article titles-- as you quote above-- merely says that "the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject". A goal is an ideal, but not a "must be." Splitting hairs. This is the standard and ignoring it is grounds for deletion of an article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Now you are just making groundless threats. You don't get to claim you summery of of a policy is the actual Wikipedia policy. Again taking you this out of context does not help. tahc chat 02:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC) tahc I intended no threat. The list of content policies is here: [[9]]. At WP:deletion policies it says: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles. This article was tagged for both of those failings. When I added content, I removed those tags, but when you removed my content you did not replace them. Either content or tags need to go back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC) iii. Notwithstanding my caveats above-- I am willing to consider a defined meaning for Christian ethics if you can find one in its suitable context. If you think that "what we write must be defined by what the sources say" then show us what you think they say.tahc chat 20:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) I do not follow your point about Crusades, but maybe we don't need to if you just want to rely of what a book defines Christian ethics to be. I have never yet tried find a book define the scope of Christian ethics per se, but I am somewhat sceptical of the process. Some subjects-- like Christian history-- or high school biology-- you can pick any book on the topic and the table of contents each look fairly similar. But Christian ethics does not seem like that; I have looked a number of different books on Christian ethics and the table of contents of each look very different. tahc chat 20:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC) It's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Definitions aren't found in the Table of contents, they are found in content. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Please do not break-up other editors comments in this way. By including numbers such "i. ii. iii..." you can now refer to them below without breaking them up with yours. At the very least, do not put breaks in the middle of my paragraphs. It is comments like these... advice on where to locate definitions... that comes across as sarcasm, rather than your comments on working together. tahc chat 02:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC) tahc I apologize for distressing you. I am in the middle of a FAC review and a GA review, both going on at the same time, and this is how you answer their comments - where they say i, you answer with one additional indent directly beneath i; where they say ii, you answer directly beneath ii and so on. It makes it easier to keep track and follow what goes with what in long discussions like this. So that's what I automatically did here with you. It's just easier. I assure you there was no sarcasm intended in my comment on locating definitions. I was just offering information you didn't seem to have. I apologize if that was an error on my part. I meant well. RFC definitions tahc In answer to your request: On encyclpedia.com [10] it says: "Christian ethics operates on the level of the theoretical and the scientific and tries to explain the Christian moral life in a thematic, systematic, coherent, and consistent manner. ... The subject matter of Christian ethics is the Christian moral life and teaching, which is much broader than biblical moral life and teaching. ... Contemporary ethicists speak about three generally accepted formal approaches to ethics..." Please note it separates contemporary ethics from the rest. Brittanica does as well. Norman Geisler has a book titled Christian Ethics Contemporary Issues & Options, which lists many of the same issues you list in this article. The title let's readers know, up front, this book is limited to "current" issues. [[11]] In this book: [[12]] Servais Pinckaers has four Catholic definitions. First, it begins by saying "definition carries with it a choice of direction" (page 3) which is all that WP acknowledges with its own standards about this. They all include, "Christian ethics is a branch of theology that studies human action subject to moral law in the light of revelation". None of them say anything about current or contemporary ethics. Christian Ethics Moral Theology in Light of Vatican II: General Moral Theology · Volume 1 [[13]] has the same definition as Pinckaers on page 3. The Divine Imperative: A Study in Christian Ethics [[14]] has a truly interesting discussion of what CE isn't and is in the second paragraph on page 85. It's essentially the same as above. [[15]] says that it "Redefines the field of Christian ethics along three strands: universal (ethics for anyone), subversive (ethics for the excluded), and ecclesial (ethics for the church). It is a contemporary redefinition, but it begins with history on page 1. Moral Discernment in the Christian Life: Essays in Theological Ethics [16] defines Christian ethics on page 7 as "faith doing". I particularly like that one. It's simple and elegant. I cannot find a definition of Christian ethics anywhere that limits it to the current or contemporary ethic that does not specifically say it is contemporary Christian ethics. Christian ethics in general is not limited in that manner. Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction [[17]] includes history. An Introduction to Christian Ethics[[18]] includes history. Introducing Christian Ethics[[19]] includes history. There are obviously many more. Christian ethics includes the whole field, including some history, by definition. But you know, honestly I wouldn't mind creating a separate article titled History of Christian ethics if you could also agree to renaming this article Contemporary Christian ethics then allowing Christian ethics to be that summary overview that includes both and more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC) I think that renaming the current article Contemporary Christian ethics would tempt editor to remove the many elements on the sources of Christian ethics found in it that are based in history. As far as I can see, none of these possible definitions above require that a Wikipedia article on Christian ethics to be entirely divided into ethics by time period, which you did, nor do they seem to require that a Wikipedia article include uncurrent Christian ethics-- like the Crusades-- which you did. It seems to me, that if we both want to have a main Christian ethics article, then what we really need is a way to agree on the outline for a Christian ethics article, and I can think of a much more natural way to approach this then a starting with a definition. I am sure your efforts in this way are intended to be helpful, but as of today, I find so many to be frustrating look at. Why don't you tell me which one of these you think would be the most helpful for me to look at. If you really think starting with a so-called definition, you will need to start with picking one to discuss first. tahc chat 02:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC) tahc Please follow proper indenting. It makes it hard to follow when you don't. I think that renaming the current article Contemporary Christian ethics would tempt editor to remove the many elements on the sources of Christian ethics found in it that are based in history. I doubt that would happen, but let's say it did. You would come to the talk page and tell them why that is a wrong revert, and why some history is necessary. You could point to this Rfc where everyone agreed history is necessary. And then put your material back. Hopefully they would be reasonable and cooperate. If not, you could always call for another Rfc yourself, and then put your material back. You would have a leg to stand on in doing that, and if they were still uncooperative, you could take them to arbitration, and if they persisted, you could get them banned from the article altogether by pointing to the results of multiple Rfcs. But that isn't how we are supposed to work on WP. Surely working together to find a compromise always produces the best result. I would assume that is the approach you would take to any potential future issues. After all, it's not like this article hasn't had one problem after another as it is. Changing its name would prevent those problems that have actually occurred; the possibility of hypothetical problems isn't really a good reason not to change its name. :As far as I can see, none of these possible definitions above require that a Wikipedia article on Christian ethics to be entirely divided into ethics by time period, which you did, nor do they seem to require that a Wikipedia article include uncurrent Christian ethics-- like the Crusades-- which you did. It does not have to be divided into time periods. You are absolutely right. I did that here because the article was already divided that way. It began with sources, went to Early Christianity, skipped a bit then went to Thomism and scholasticism in the middle ages, skipped a lot then went to modern - in chronological order. I just filled in some of what had been skipped over, that's all. I didn't change the structure. The crusades matter because they were motivated by the Christian ethic of love and responsibility for one's neighbor. It's a conundrum that bears discussing. There are at least four different views on war in Christian ethics, yet all that's in this article is pacifism. Other views aren't even mentioned, but they do exist. The crusades also created changes in Christian ethics by inventing chivalry and contributing to the veneration of Mary. Those values remain part of current Christian ethics. War remains an issue. It is inadequately covered here, and including some contemporary scholarship on the crusades would be appropriate for expanding that discussion. An article on ethics is more easily divided by ethical concepts and not by era. When I wrote Ethics in the Bible, that's how I sectioned it. It contains history, but it is not divided by era. It's divided by topic - and by definitions. It seems to me, that if we both want to have a main Christian ethics article, then what we really need is a way to agree on the outline for a Christian ethics article, and I can think of a much more natural way to approach this then a starting with a definition. We can both have the main article. We'll move it to draft space, and there is absolutely no reason why we can't collaborate and work on it together. I like collaboration with cooperative people. It's fun. I have worked on several articles that way. But there is no getting around the need for definition. All philosophy - and ethics is one of the three fields of philosophy - begins with a definition. Everyone has to agree on what they are talking about before talking. Otherwise, assumptions are made, that others won't make, and people get talking crosswise past each other, and it all ends up in the dumpster. Christian ethics is not just current Christian ethics. You want an article that focuses on current Christian ethics. That is actually a good idea, but the title should reflect that. Titling an article that talks about a small piece of an idea, as if it talked about the whole big idea, is misleading and dishonest and just plain bad scholarship. Do you agree that current Christian ethics is only one aspect of the much larger concept of Christian ethics? On what basis can you justify using a title that includes the whole pie when you only want to talk about one piece of that pie? I am sure your efforts in this way are intended to be helpful, but as of today, I find so many to be frustrating look at. Why don't you tell me which one of these you think would be the most helpful for me to look at. If you really think starting with a so-called definition, you will need to start with picking one to discuss first. It is not on me to make a decision between them. It was on me to find what the sources say, and I did. For this article, I would write a short paragraph on definition and include them all. I'm sorry you are frustrated, but I did as you asked. Look at all of them - I did - and I don't know why you should do less - or look at none of them, I don't care much anymore. The Rfc clearly supports putting back the historical material you removed. The sources all support including historical background in an article on Christian ethics. There is no source that limits Christian ethics to its contemporary forms and issues that doesn't specify that it is about contemporary ethics only. You have produced no source that supports your view. If you want to keep this article's content as it is, it needs renamimg; if you want to keep the name, it needs new content. You can't legitimately hold on to both as is. You make your choice. I will accept either one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC) areas of agreement The Rfc does not "clearly supports putting back the historical material you removed", because the RFC did not ask that question, and I am sure very few (if any) of the commenters even looked and difference between the two versions. None the less, I think we are much closer to an agreement now. Please consider that we want the same things in the article, but that we have not used the same terms to do so. A. I can support a (main) Christian ethics article with a different outline that the current outline. Neither of us find a historical outline to be necessary or even best, so I assume we can work something out. A new outline for the article is the main thing I would like to discuss next. B. I can agree to having some sort of definition for Christian ethics in the article based on the items you found, and thus not explicitly calling Christian ethics to be contemporary Christian ethics. Write whatever want and I expect it will be fine. C. Because of the sad state that I found the article in-- many years ago-- I objected to promoting (things like) the Crusades as Christian ethics as for simplicity (and other reasons). I primarily object to them being inaccurate Christian ethics. But if we assume that the Crusades do demonstrate accurate Christian ethics (and that this is supported by RSs) then that good enough for me... as accurate (or contemporary) Christian ethics-- in principal-- for the general article on Christian ethics. In practice, it would seem there would be more some other more clear way to discuss Christian love, or whatever Christian ethic is involved. If there is anything else that we did disagree on, I don't know what it would be. tahc chat 17:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC) tahc A. Agreed. B. Agreed. C. I do not promote the crusades as ethics, but they were a demonstration of the ethic of the time, and we have no right in our world today to claim them accurate or inaccurate. That's a logical fallacy called presentism as an act can only be fairly judged within its context. Within its context, the crusaders were noble and good and acted on a genuine ethic that we still attempt to figure out how to practice today. If defending the weak is wrong, what's right in that circumstance? Anyway, the crusades are part of history, and I agree to them staying there. Also agree to better ways to discuss love. So! This is wonderful! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)