Talk:Christian ethics/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article, probably will take about a week. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am looking forward to working with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I admire you for taking on such a broad topic! So many GAs (including my own!) are about narrow topics which are easy to write. Summing up a tradition of 2000 years is a daunting task but you've written an excellent article. Of course I have suggestions for improvement, but I have no doubt this article will be a GA once we finish the review process. My comments below are in no particular order, if you disagree with any of them just say so! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sermon on the Mount: I think the article should emphasize the Sermon on the Mount more, as one of the keystones of Christian ethics. I like that you use the picture of it in the lead, later though in the "authority, force and personal conscience," you do have a couple quotes from Matthew 5 but I would emphasize that these are from the Sermon on the Mount. Change the second sentence to something like, In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commanded his disciples to "turn the other cheek" etc. And then make it clear that this was a departure from the "eye for an eye" principle in Judaism, that will highlight how Christian ethics is different from other systems.
  • Okay - I tried! See if that's what you had in mind or if you want something else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Old Covenant: A related point, but in the caption on that picture in the lead, you mention the Old and New Covenant. These concepts are not explained elsewhere in the article, I would either remove that part of the caption or add some info to the article.
  •  Done Someone else had added that image and I just left it, but you make a good point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Date style: Since the 1400s in the lead, I would change this to since the 15th century. Just a suggestion though, the MOS allows both styles.
  •  Done
• Controversies: You do a good job of discussing most of the difficult issues in a neutral way, like homosexuality, role of women, abortion. There are two things I would add. First is birth control, specifically the Catholic position on it. Second is the morality of the Old Testament. The second paragraph of Ethics in the Bible#Criticism is a summary of the issues I'm thinking of, such as perceived ethnic cleansing of the Philistines. Do you think it would make sense to cover the morality of the Old Testament in this article? Or is it outside the scope of what you're talking about?
  • First let me say there are any number of specifics missing from this article; birth control is not the only one. Others have also come along and asked, 'why don't you talk about such and so', and I have to answer that it is a small specific, related only to Pentecostals, or to Latin American Christians, or only Seventh Day Adventists, or only Church of Christ, or some other subgroup, and there is just not enough room on all of Wikipedia to discuss every one of them. Only those things that affect all are included here. Catholic issues that are common issues of Protestants as well are mentioned. If you want me to add a statement to that effect somewhere - if you can think of where it would be appropriate - I can do that, but I just don't see how it's viable to discuss one group's particular issues and no one else's.
  • Second, I oppose adding Old Testament ethics to this particular article, as I believe it is off topic and is covered in multiple other articles which are blue-linked here. I also wrote Ethics in the Bible that is heavily oriented toward the Old Testament, and discusses the Old Testament teachings on war, and hagiography of the time period and all those issues. There simply isn't room for all of that here, and it really is not an issue in Christian ethics. So I vote no on that one.
• Crusades: Crusade (which is not necessarily religious) can be seen as an attempt to set right a past act of aggression. Sure, but the historical Crusades are often used as an argument against Christianity, just like the Inquisition or how jihad is used as an argument against Islam. For the sake of balance I think you need a second sentence here, something like, The Catholic Church used Christian principles to justify the Crusades in the Middle Ages, proclaiming a religious obligation to retake the Holy Land. I don't have a source for that, just shooting from the hip.
  • If you wouldn't mind, please read this summary of current majority views: [[1]] and then we can discuss whether to enlarge this with the ongoing controversy.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wealth and poverty: Just my opinion, I think in this section it would be helpful to quote the verse about a camel entering the eye of a needle being more difficult than a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven.
  • And I could add the rich young ruler who was told to give away all he owned, and the widow who donated her two pennies, and Jesus', and James', and Peter's, and Paul's teachings on the poor, as the New Testament is pretty full of teachings about handling money, but I think their thoughts are all covered in the general statements, and that more detail would not add more real content. I have to avoid the sense of writing a sermon here and too many Bible references comes across that way.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• War and peace: Would it make sense to mention the verse about Jesus bringing not peace but a sword here, as a justification for war in Christianity? Or would that be taking it out of context?
  • That verse seems to be commonly misunderstood. Jesus is not advocating taking a sword to your family members. He is making the observation that following him will cause divisions that will sunder relationships as though they were cut with a sword: following him will sever mother from daughter, father from son, and so on. That is what happened. That verse has nothing to do with war and does not advocate violence. It is only seen that way by those that separate it from the explanation that follows it. To include it would be to include very bad hermeneutics which would immediately be challenged by others as there would be no source support.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That is all of the "big picture" content comments I have, everything else will just be specific stuff about the prose, references, images, or whatever. I'll get that stuff to you Monday. I haven't read the talk page discussions so I apologize if any of this has already been discussed. My personal POV is secular so the comments above may be biased against Christianity, if you think so let's talk about it and find a neutral middle ground. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Cerebellum I am glad your perspective is secular as this article must be readable from all points of view, and your input will help ensure that. I don't see any of your comments as biased against Christianity, but if you are, that's okay too, as this needs to stand up to that kind of scrutiny. I write all my articles with the view that all claims must be sufficiently supported in the sources to not only accurately represent the scholarly views but to stand up to opposition from those who personally disagree. If I haven't accomplished that, I hope you will catch it, and we will fix it together.
  • I want to thank you, especially, for the freedom to disagree and the room to explain why. Not all reviewers are okay with that. I hope my reasons make sense, and if you don't find them sufficient, then you too have the freedom to come back and explain your reasoning and assert the need for change again. I will listen, I promise. I have no doubt your input will improve the article because other points of view always do. I put this through peer review and am grateful to Ovinus and buidhe for their wonderful comments which did improve the article, so I am sure yours will as well. Thank you again. I know, I keep saying that, but I really am overwhelmingly grateful for your willingness to review such a long and somewhat complex article. I look forward to Monday. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I am going to be late finishing the review :( There is an internet outage at my house and I am not good at editing on mobile. Spectrum is coming tomorrow night to make repairs, so hopefully Wednesday I’ll finish the review. Your responses above all seem reasonable, none of that stuff should be an issue. —Cerebellum (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Cerebellum No worries mate! I hope it all works out swiftly and relatively easily. I will hear from you when I hear from you. Good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• I put a clarification needed on "Pauline virtues" since neither I nor WP (afaict) knows what that is. I've also been who-ing some of the in-text bare names, and adding some wikilinks. I wonder if all the redlinks are motivated, but they may be, I haven't tried to check or anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång I have now addressed that, to your satisfaction I hope, and removed the tag. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Aha, so WP did know: Theological virtues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed Gråbergs Gråa Sång WP knows all... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, sorry about the delay! On to the more formal portion of the review. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Definition and sources

• beginning with obedience to a set of rules and laws (seen as divine commands) which are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. I think you can omit a few words here, I would change to beginning with obedience to a set of rules and laws which are seen as divine commands. It is evident that the rules and laws are morally required, and saying that they are forbidden or permitted is a little awkward; it is certain actions which are forbidden or permitted, not the rules themselves.
  •  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Natural-law ethic. Does the source say it that way? I would say natural law ethic.
  • You're right.  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• universally known independently. It's strange to have two adverbs sandwiching the verb, I would omit "universally". The rest of the sentence says that the laws are innate in all people so you won't lose any meaning.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Anabaptists: Here and in "modern Christian ethics" you link the Anabaptists to prophetic ethics, which you say developed either "by the twenty-first century" or "in the late twentieth century". But aren't the Anabaptists much older?
  • Yes they are. See if you like the change. I don't discuss any of the others, but you are no doubt right in thinking that needed clearing up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pinckaers: I know in academic writing you can just use the last name when citing someone, for Wikipedia I prefer using the full name. This occurs a couple other times in the article, others are Matthews and Dewitt and Gustafson.
  • I make it a rule to only do that for subsequent mentions after having first explained who they are, but this is a first mention, so it's a mistake on my part. Thank you for catching it!  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Link Plato and Aristotle at first mention.
  • Done, assuming Aristotle in lead "counts". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hellenist: Should be Hellenistic, and Hellenistic philosophy is specifically philosophy after the death of Alexander in 323 BC. If that's what you mean it's all good, if you're using it as a synonym for Greek you could just take it out.
  • Groan. I did not mean Hellenistic philosophy. I meant Hellenic. Good catch Cerebellum. Really good. That would have been an embarrassing mistake for a philosophy major to publish! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Historical background

• It emerged from Judaism still dependent on the Hebrew canon, and the legacies of ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy. This sentence is a little confusing to me and doesn't read smoothly, could you omit still dependent on the Hebrew canon? It's evident that Judaism depends on the Hebrew canon. Or maybe revert back to an earlier version, it used to say It emerged out of the heritage shared by both Judaism and Christianity, and depended upon the Hebrew canon as well as important legacies from Greek and Hellenistic philosophy. I thought that was pretty clear.
  • Oh bless you and thank you. This was one of several changes made by a recent editor (who didn't know as much as you do about philosophy as you do) and so she introduced errors and made changes like this that just seemed to muddy the water imo. I asked her to revert herself but she said if I didn't like her changes I could do it myself. I tried to go through and find them all, and tried to rewrite what I could without totally reverting her, but I agree, the original sentence was clearer. Thank you.  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• abstain from blood. I'm not sure what that means; eating blood?
  • Old Testament food laws required cutting the throat of a slaughtered animal and draining the blood from the carcass before cooking and eating the meat. I find these old laws fascinating since they all came about before people ever conceived of germs or diseases transmitted by blood. Christianity left behind most of the over 600 laws of Judaism, yet kept that one. Islam also has it. Interesting don't you think?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• "with the marked exception of Visigothic Spain in the seventh century, Jews in Latin Christendom lived relatively peacefully with their Christian neighbors through most of the Middle Ages" Since there are two footnotes here, it's not clear which one the quote is from.
  • How do you want me to fix that? The quote is in the foirst reference but it is discussed in more detail in the second one. I hate to remove it but I can if you think it's best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Middle Ages: Sometimes this is capitalized sometimes not, I think it should be capitalized.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• "one of the outstanding achievements of the High Middle Ages" MOS:QUOTE says that " The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion", I'm on the fence here since you could say that the status of the Summa is a fact not an opinion. What do you think?
  • I don't believe you will find a source anywhere that would say otherwise. It is as accepted a historical fact as historical facts get. Aquinas is still taught, in secular schools not just Catholic ones, in political science, philosophy, ethics, law and several other areas. Anyone who studies natural law - human rights, social justice, etc. - studies Aquinas at some point. He kind of founded a lot of our Federal ethics that make democracy possible. Yeah, if that statement is just opinion it's an uncontested one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Riley-Smith: Needs full name, and I would capitalize and link Crusades.
  • Damn! Second one! This comes from writing in my sandbox and then only using part of what was written. Thank you for catching yet another one. I am so thankful!  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Seven deadly sins: This is a pretty influential concept, would it be worth listing them?
  • I will let you decide, but in order to make your decision more difficult :-) I will add that I am also writing a new article on the history of Christian ethics which will go into more detail on all of these and does list them there. (It's in my sandbox if you want to peek). In this article I was attempting to keep the history to as short a summary as I could make it and still create context. But you tell me what you think. I can go either way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• that eventually became the school of thought known as Thomism Can you omit this? Doesn't seem relevant to this article.
  • Well, it is relevant if you're Catholic. Their Christian ethics are all based in Thomist theology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Luther: full name and link. I would do the same for Zwingli, and Kant and Hume later in the article.
  •  DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• early modern Christian ethicists: The early modern period ends around 1800, maybe change to 19th century?
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• was determining the nature of human nature I think {tq|was the study of human nature}} sounds better.
  • Awwww.  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Meyer asserts the answer to this difficulty: This is just my opinion, feel free to ignore. What you wrote is grammatically correct, but I prefer Meyer asserts that. I just think it sounds better, here is some background on the issue.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Philosophical core

• Four basic points: Aesthetically I don't like the format of (a) (metaphysics). What about making this a bulleted list?
  • Your wish is my command:  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• "It is arguably one of Judaism's greatest contributions to the history of religions to assert that the divine Reality is communicated to mankind through words." Raw quote with no context :( I would provide attribution or rephrase in your own words.
  •  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• There is tension between inclusivity and exclusivity inherent in all the Abrahamic traditions. I would rephrase as {There is an inherent tension between inclusivity and exclusivity in all the Abrahamic traditions.

 DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• had significant moral and legal questions: Change to faced significant moral and legal questions.
• Song of Songs: link.
  • Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Applied ethics

• Poll tax: I don't think poll should be capitalized.
  •  Done
• Counter-terrorism is a kind of preventive war. I would omit this, not relevant to the article.
  • I strongly disagree. Relevant examples are absolutely necessary to communicate that this isn't just something that happened in the past that we are now over. It is something current and happening right now. I feel strongly about this, please don't make me take it out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Early key elements in criminal justice: Change to Early criminal justice.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need": This is a common saying, but I think since it is a quote it needs a source.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• In most ancient religions the primary focus is on humankind's relationship to nature: The source does say this, but I don't really believe it and the source is from 1889; could you find a more modern source if it is true?
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• When the Pharisee asked Jesus: "Who is my neighbor?" Maybe add Bible citation, When the Pharisee asked Jesus: "Who is my neighbor?" in the Gospel of X.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ontologically equal, Functionally different: Does this need to be capitalized?
  • It's like their slogan, but here, no, you are right, so  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Cahill concludes that, "Personal autonomy and mutual consent are almost the only criteria now commonly accepted in governing our sexual behavior. Is this the case within Christianity, or the non-Christian world?
  • The world where we all live. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Novella 142: Link if it has an article, I would also link Saint Patrick.
  • It doesn't. Novellae Constitutiones exists, but the sentence already has Roman law and Justinian. SP linked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• sacrifices to free slaves: Might be silly, but since this is an article about religion a reader might confuse sacrifices of one's money with animal sacrifices; maybe change to something like "used their personal resources to free slaves." Or maybe it's clear from the context.
  •  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Stories of racial violence over the last decades: Can change to Racial violence during the last decades.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Charges of abuses of technology in neo-natal intensive care units have already been leveled. Weasel words? Since the text doesn't say who leveled these charges. I would rephrase or remove.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Manipulating the genetic code can prevent inheritable diseases and also produce, for those rich enough, designer babies "destined to be taller, faster and smarter than their classmates." You don't need this here, since genetic engineering has its own section.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• rooted in covenant fidelity I don't know what this means, and if you omitted it the sentence would still make sense.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• actions that can be seen as unconditionally wrong, when they are acts of maximal love toward another, become unconditionally right. I would omit both uses of "unconditionally", doesn't seem to add meaning.
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• P. Singer: Change to Peter Singer, with link.
  • Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Still, many American Christians have become polarized over these issues with a number of conservatives responding in opposition because of fear concerning the perceived threat that modern pluralism poses to their values. Does the source really say that? In the abstract I see fears that “stewardship” of God’s creation is drifting toward neo-pagan nature worship, and from apocalyptic beliefs about “end times” that make it pointless to worry about global warming, which isn't quite the same thing. I think this sentence is an overly broad generalization, I would remove everything after "opposition".
  •  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Misc

• See also: Move "Buddhist ethics" under "ethics in religion."
  •  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Images: all are free or tagged, no issues.
• References: The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak; I did not do a thorough source review. Only things I have for your are to italicize the title in ref #20, and decapitalize the title of refs #48 and 101. Ref #113 confused me, is it just a faculty bio?
  • 103 and yes 115 was a personal reference, my friend likes to add those because he wants to know why we should care what someone says if they don't have a blue link, but I removed it. These are  Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Cerebellum I'm responsible for 113, I put it there to ref that Stanley K. Stowers is professor of religious studies. When I do who?-ing, I feel it's improvement to add a ref if necessary (if it's a blue-linked person I trust WP unless someone points out that I shouldn't). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• External links: Not checked, tool is down.

@Jenhawk777: Sorry for the long review :( Hope it is helpful. I will place the article on hold for now, take as long as you need to work on it before I close the review. More important to improve the article than meet an arbitrary deadline. Once again I'm humbled by the amount of effort you and other editors have put into this article. If you ever get tired of working on it perhaps it will help to reflect that it got 12,000 page views last month, probably a broader reach than the average PhD dissertation! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Cerebellum It was not an overly long review at all - it is a long article - and all your comments were relevant and valuable and definitely improved the article. There is no need to place the review on hold, as you can see, all your concerns have been met. Thank you for your kind comments. The best way to reward me is by awarding the article the status it deserves. Thank you again for doing this and for your intelligent and helpful input. I hope we run across each other again some time. You are easy to work with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Did not expect you to work that fast! Pass. Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for your help as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-reviewer

• Steve Wilkins in the lead. IMO, articles like this should try to avoid mentioning/quoting modern scholars in the lead, it gives them a strange "top-dog" position. So my personal preference would be to get him out of there. Also, I get no good google-hits on him, who is he? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here at his publisher [2], InterVarsity Press. Professor at Azusa Pacific University. Ok-ish I guess, but no Thomas Aquinas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's for sure, but I liked its summary for the context. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)