Talk:Immersion baptism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Article seems to be incorrect

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move over the disambiguation page. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Immersion baptism → Submersion —

What is being described is submersion, not merely immersion. Please see baptism#Immersion to see the distinction. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like from that article that immersion is a broad term, including both submersion and partial immersion with pouring. Personally, I've most often heard immersion used synonymously with submersion by Baptists. Swampyank (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but baptism#Immersion indicates that the technical definition is "Immersion baptism (as distinguished from submersion) is a method of baptism ... whereby part of the candidate's body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder". That is not what is discussed here. What is discussed here is what baptism#Submersion describes. Is the incorrect use of the term immersion relevant? At the very least, the term baptism should not be attached. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As expected, Swampyank's attempt to water-down the definition in the larger article has been reverted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move It seems clear to me that this article covers both partial and total immersion. The terms "immersion" and "submersion" are clearly explained here. Amandajm (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But the definition is technically wrong whether discussing partial immersion (technically immersion) or total immersion (technically submersion). It would be like making an article about the diesel engine and wording it so that it could be about the internal combustion engine and then placing the article under the latter's title. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Many sources (dictionaries, etc.) I've found use the word immersion to mean submersion, so I think technically immersion can mean either form. If anything, the "baptism" article is misleading when describing the forms. I can try to correct that. Swampyank (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Are dictionary editors theologians? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Admin note: Independently of the merits of the above discussion whether the article covers "immersion" or "submersion" or both, please note that Submersion is already taken by a disambiguation page. Unless you wish to argue that submersion baptism is the "primary meaning" of the term "submersion" (which I'd find doubtful, given the other meanings cited there), please specify a suitably disambiguated target title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There could be two articles named "complete immersion" and "partial immersion," but I Oppose move and disagree with such an idea because the term "immersion" seems used much more commonly by denominations completely immersing the body during a believer baptism as it is defined by those practicing it....partial immersion is only done during believer baptisms (adult), therefore it is very rare today in modern denominations which predominantly practice infant baptism.Swampyank (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Submersion (baptism) and Immersion (baptism). As an encyclopedia, is our job to reflect common usage or reflect correct terminology? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A word is not always a single objective truth, but a symbol for something else (much like the act of baptism). A word can be "officially" defined by different denominations, especially the largest adult baptizers in the world (Southern Baptists in America) who define "immersion" as complete immersion of the body and do not use the term "submersion" with any frequency. British language writers in one religious dictionary, or an extinct, ancient Armenian sect can certainly define it differently based upon practice, usage, and English language/translations variations. This is not to delegitimatize their claims, but to recognize the subjectivity of certain "experts," and the fact that millions readers (living) will probably define something differently based upon how their faith defines it. Assuming that millions of people are incorrect because your sources have different opinions about a word strikes me as a tad arrogant. Swampyank (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Question to Walter Görlitz: by saying "Submersion (baptism) and Immersion (baptism)", are you saying that you think the article should in fact be split in two? If yes, that's not the same thing as moving it. Which is it to be:
  1. Move the whole existing article to submersion (baptism)?
  2. Leave the existing article at immersion baptism, but factor out a new split article to be written at submersion (baptism)?
  3. Move the existing article to submersion (baptism) but then factor out a new split article here at immersion baptism?
• Can you please clarify what you actually propose to do? Otherwise the move request will be impossible to process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

in reverse order, I propose nothing. I'm just wondering what the best direction might be. Common usage is obviously incorrect. People who are discuss submersion routinely refer to it as immersion or add an adjective (full immersion) to describe it. It reminds me of express checkouts in North America where the sign reads 12 items or less, which is grammatically incorrect (twelve items or fewer is correct). There are many instances of this sort of thing. My question was simply to discuss whether we should be reflecting usage or correct terminology. I would also suggest that this article, at the very least, should be moved to Immersion (baptism) and another article be created Submersion (baptism) only if required and other editors feel it is necessary. It could simply redirect to this article since both topics are discussed here. That is, however, not a proposal, just my opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, you are not proposing anything? Weren't you the person who filed this move request?

Yes. That the article be moved because it discusses the topic of submersion with a title of immersion. It's confusing. However, with that said, I'm not suggesting that it be done, it was starting a discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't think you have so far substantiated your basic premise that the usage that subsumes full submersion under "immersion" is "incorrect". According to the article, there is a well-documented official usage by at least some relevant church bodies that treats "immersion" as the proper term for what you want to be called "submersion". Other likewise well-documented usage treats full submersion as a special sub-type of immersion ("full immersion", with the extra qualifier). Both usages would evidently make it legitimate to treat full submersion under the same heading as immersion, together with the other (non-"full") types, as the article currently does. There is no obvious reason, other than your mere assertion, why one usage or the other should be regarded as "correct". If the article was to be split, how would those divergent terminological perspectives be treated, without confusing the reader and without passing a POV judgment on what is "correct" terminology? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is well-documented, official usage of 12 items or less as well. That does not mean it's grammatically correct. It's not POV to state that submersion, when used correctly is when something or someone is place below the surface water and immersion, when correctly used describes when something is place in water. There's no debating the correct use of the language. The other fact is the many people use the term incorrectly, as the article reflects. So now the question is do we go with common usage or do we reflect the definitions of the words? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'm a linguist. The argument that "12 items or less" is "grammatically incorrect" doesn't fly well with the likes of us. And I'm afraid using it as an argument by analogy for your submersion case isn't very convincing either. Even ignoring the fact that your argument is an example of the etymological fallacy, it fails even under your own premises. Even on the level of the original Latin meanings, "placing something so that it is fully under water" is in fact a special case of "placing something in water"; thus, the two meanings are not mutually exclusive, and "immersion" can validly be used as a cover term for both the full ("sub-") type and the others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey. It is grammatically incorrect. Sorry you don't understand. I don't understand your appeal to the Latin origins, either that or you don't understand the Latin origins. Sub is the Latin prefix for below. Im is the prefix for in or on. Something can be in water without being beneath it. It's just that simple, That's also the case here. Immerse means that it is the water and it's not necessarily beneath it. Submerse does not ever carry that meaning. It is always below the water. That is the point.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey. You missed the point. Sure, something can be "in" the water without being "beneath" it. But it cannot be "beneath" it without being "in" it, can it? "in" (im-) is the wider concept, the cover term. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I understood your point. You missed both my points. 1) If sub means beneath, then it is the primary term for the action and im is not. 2) What is the role of Wikipedia? Is it to reflect common usage or technical usage?--Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You can immerse or submerge your knees or your whole body. The words are certainly synonymous. To say that the broader term of "immersion" doesn't include full immersion (or as you call it "submersion") seems logically inconsistent and biased, considering millions of people disagree with you according to their official doctrine. You and your sock puppet have done quite a job on the baptism and immersion baptism articles to perpetuate your narrow definition. Swampyank (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They are not synonymous. By definition if you submerge your leg, it is completely under water. If you immerse your leg, is it completely under water or is it partially under water? You can only know by context. And if you reduce that to only your knee, you still don't know without context. You have to add full immersion to get the context.

As for sock puppets, User:Esoglou is an editor who showed some knowledge of baptism and I asked for assistance on this page. Check User talk:Esoglou. I am not User:Esoglou --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You clearly fail to understand the concept of a cover term here – it's been demonstrated that there is a wider term and a more specific term, and your insistence that only the more specific term can be "correct" simply doesn't reflect linguistic reality. But in any case, this is probably moot, since it's quite clear at this point that this move request isn't going to go anywhere. Somebody will soon close it. (I planned to do it myself, but now that I've let myself be drawn so much into the discussion, I probably shouldn't.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I can come back from that erudite and dismissive whatever, but here's my effort: you've missed my point so obviously I'm not making it. Where is the Sumbersion (baptism) article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

May I ask Walter: Now that the article explicitly distinguishes three distinct senses in which the phrase "immersion baptism" is shown to be in actual fact used (the technical sense, which is Walter's, the "equals submersion" sense, which is the one Swampyank is pushing, and the inclusive sense, a sense that has room enough to include both these senses, limiting itself to neither), the article is no longer as it was when he made his motion for a move, and should he not therefore withdraw his motion? There is no part of the article that is not about immersion baptism in one or more of these senses. Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could withdraw it, and suggest only that it be moved to immersion (baptism). I am also prepared to merge the two sections in the baptism article as well since there isn't the need for the distinction. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Terminology

There is every need to keep these two distinct methods of baptizing separate in the baptism article, precisely because they are two distinct methods, not one. It is only the word that is ambiguous. The title of the present article is "immersion baptism", which brings the verbal ambiguity to the fore. On the contrary, in the baptism article, the methods is what is discussed, and the choice of words used to label these two methods can be flexible. The sources that Swampyank prefers generally concentrate on the submersion meaning of "immersion" to the extent of saying nothing about the other method; they therefore use no term whatever for that other method. Sources that do discuss both methods in a technical or scientific manner - for instance, the ODCC - use the term "immersion" (in its technical meaning). For that reason, "immersion" (in its technical sense) seems to be the most appropriate term to use when Wikipedia discusses these two (out of the four) manners of baptizing as such. Only if a better word were found for that method of baptism could it be used in place of "immersion" (technical sense). In discussing in the baptism article the four methods of baptizing, there is certainly no need to apply the label "immersion" to the submersion method, since another quite unambiguous term exists and is already in use.

I don't think moving this article to "immersion (baptism)" would be an improvement, rather the contrary. Esoglou (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm very confused. Either there is a distinction between immersion and submersion and we should define it clearly, or there isn't. So which is it? This article speaks at length about the latter and to my eye does not clearly define the distinction. With that said, since the term immersion often carries subsumes (not imsumes I'll have you note) the meaning of submersion, it might be worthwhile to note the distinction for those who have one and also note the lack of distinction to others. I am speaking of the edit and reverting of the edit in the Baptism article now and not directly to this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "immersion" is one, but ambiguous. The methods of baptism to which it refers are two, and clearly distinct. One of these two methods is referred to both as submersion and as immersion (with or without the adjective "total"). The other is referred to only as immersion (sometimes with the adjective "partial". The word is ambiguous, but the realities are distinct. Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A Baptist would generally say that "immersion" baptism means completely covering the body with water (what you call submersion...although the term "submersion" is used infrequently in the vernacular even amongst outsiders. Submersion is beginning to feel like a pejorative towards speech you disagree with because you insist on using "submersion" instead of "immersion" or "complete immersion", the more commonly used terms...while you ignore the term partial immersion for Eastern baptism).

A member of an Eastern denomination that baptizes adults would generally say kneeling in shallow water in conjunction with pouring is "immersion." (what is known amongst some outsiders as "partial immersion")

To say that one definition is strict and official is very misleading, because each denomination considers their definition correct. I have no doubt that you are already aware of my point. Swampyank (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in casual conversation I would use (and have on many occasions used) immersion to describe fully covering the body and head with water. I do understand the distinction and if I were writing on the subject would clearly distinguish between the two terms. That's why I have been trying to determine the stance that Wikipedia should be taking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If textbooks, dictionaries, theologians, official doctrines and common usage define "immersion" differently, this should be reflected very clearly in the baptism and immersion baptism articles, not explicitly favoring or confusing readers about one approach being "immersion." Swampyank (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For the two quite distinct methods of baptism in question, it seems best in an encyclopedic article to use the word "submersion" for the method unambiguously described by that term. Or is there an alternative unambiguous term to use instead? To indicate the other method, the article must choose some word. A term that has in fact been used encyclopedically as a technical term for it is "immersion". Is there a better term to use instead? Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oxford's Church dictionary says that "complete immersion" (or total immersion) is interchangeable with "submersion" in its definition. I think most Baptists would at least recognize the term "complete immersion" (this is not meant as an insult, to presume that other traditions are not complete...but simply a phrase that is used regularly, presumably by many encyclopedia readers). Eastern church members may not prefer "partial immersion." We need to differentiate or perhaps leave the definitions under different headings and define immersion separately. I'm not sure how to refer to the Eastern immersion tradition either without creating animosity. Swampyank (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is doubtless my fault that I do not fully understand what concrete terms you are proposing as replacements for "immersion" and "submersion" in Wikipedia articles on baptism. These two terms are in possession for quite some time. Since the matter is contentious, changing them will require consensus among editors. It would be good if you would present concrete proposals on the Talk:Baptism page. Esoglou (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be out of the question to create clear sections indicating the differences? It is not only Baptists but I would argue most denominations that come out of the anabaptist tradition would side with immersion equating with submersion. I was shocked to first see a distinction on the baptism article. I would argue that it doesn't matter to many in paedobaptists camp (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and those in the reform movement). It appears that there is a distinction between how anabaptists and Orthodox view the terms. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't the two existing sections in the Baptism article (Baptism#Immersion and Baptism#Submersion) clearly indicate the differences? Aren't the differences quite obvious also in the three images of immersion (technical term) - one of the 15th-century and two from early-Christian times - and the images of submersion in rivers or a large bathtub or tank? The differences exist objectively and at least for Baptists are important. Esoglou (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The baptism article does make a distinction, but then blurs the lines again as does this article. If the distinction is along denominational lines, perhaps we could make that more clear. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely it isn't the same thing to get yourself plunged under water and to go into a shallow pool and have water poured over your head? To me the difference seems altogether obvious. It must be obvious also to Baptists, who would find unacceptable the form of baptism pictured in the three "immersion" images. I see no blurring of the difference between being plunged beneath the water or just standing or kneeling in water and having water poured on you. In what way is that difference blurred? Esoglou (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I will have to read this article more closely before I comment again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that, before you make your next comment, which I will read tomorrow, you will notice that I have altered "this article" in an attempt to underline the clear difference there is between the two forms of baptism under consideration. Esoglou (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In respose to your earlier question, my suggestion is to not refer to complete dunking of the body as submersion, because Baptists generally do not (in thousands of books and articles), and this article is about "immersion" not another word. Baptists generally call it immersion or "complete immersion," which seem like less confusing terms to a Baptist reader (or other adult baptizer denominations). "Complete immersion" and "partial immersion" seem like simple ways to define "immersion," but it is unfair to call one immersion brushing aside thousands of books stating a contrary definition. Perhaps the two definitions of "immersion" would need to be defined separately under different headings (eg. Baptist immersion baptism, Eastern immersion baptism, rather than partial and submersion). "Submersion" to Baptists is probably as confusing and foreign as "partial immersion" is to Eastern church members (and other non-sprinkling denominations) reading this article, despite the so-called "technical" merits of the superiority of one side, which will create endless strife. Look in any English thesaurus, the submersion (submerge) and immersion (immerge) are synonyms, this "technical" claim is disputable...this article is about immersion baptism, not other forms types of immersion, submersion, or other related phrases.Swampyank (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And so perhaps, as I suggested above, providing two definitions: one for anabaptist (like you and me) and one for the various orthodox denominations. I don't know how to appease the rest (or if they care at all). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have split this long discussion, putting the heading "Terminology" at the point where it veered off from Walter's proposal to change the title of the article. Can we perhaps consider that proposal withdrawn and close its discussion? Walter said only: "I suppose I could withdraw it." Would he indicate now whether he has decided to do so?

As indicated in this article, the definitions of the word "immersion" are three, not two:

1. One definition of "immersion baptism" corresponds to the early Christian practice, still continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church and perhaps (I don't know) also among Armenian Protestants who claim to continue the Paulician tradition: the practice of pouring water on the head of someone standing or kneeling in shallow water. Those who call this form "immersion baptism" use the word "submersion" to describe the form of baptism in which someone is plunged under the water. In this, they are using the same technical terminology as in mathematics, medicine and language learning, whereby "immersion" is opposed to "submersion". In this technical terminology, something is either immersion or submersion, and cannot be both.
2. A second definition of "immersion baptism" takes it to mean plunging someone entirely under water and as having no other meaning. I suppose that many who use this definition of the phrase would have no particular name for the early Christian form of baptism, treating it simply as affusion baptism (pouring water on someone's head) and as no different from standing on stone, soil or flour.
3. Others use a third definition of "immersion baptism": for them, the term "immersion baptism" can be applied both to plunging someone under water (which they call total immersion), and to pouring water on someone standing in water (which they call partial immersion).

In order to speak clearly about the four different forms of baptism that experts have distinguished, the article on Baptism must use one of these three definitions as a working definition, while also indicating that other definitions exist. Walter's initial difficulty seems to have been the mention of the existence of different definitions. He spoke of "blurring". But now he wants two definitions (why not three?) to be given. As I said, in describing the different forms of baptism, one definition must be employed as a working definition. The definition that is at present used in the Baptism article (with a mention of the existence of others) is the first definition of the three, the one that distinguishes "immersion" from "submersion" and puts the two terms in opposition, as in other scientific fields. If someone wants to change the established usage of the Baptism article, he should make a formal proposal, not here, but on the Talk page of the Baptism article. For this article, which is not on all four forms of administering baptism, but on the ambiguous term "immersion baptism", we need do no more than indicate the three definitions that exist and the two forms of administerng baptism to which the three contrasting definitions refer. We don't have to pick any of them out as a working definition and can treat them all equally. Esoglou (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Division by denomination

Just re-read the article. It's much more balanced now. There are still a few places where I feel tempted to put a {{who}} in, but overall, it's a good article. Now my main concern is over the title. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Forgot to add, The divisions by denomination seems a bit more clear now although it's still limited. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Normative use"

The normative use of 'immersion' in standard English dictionaries and the relevant literature is submersion, not 'partial immersion'.

• 'Although the Eastern Orthodox Church immerses babies, the Baptist tradition has been the strongest advocate of immersion.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author notes that nonimmersionists argue that 'water was poured on the head of the baptismal candidate standing in a river or body of water', indicating that the author understands this act to be a nonimmersion:

• 'Nonimmersionists do not deem this exegetical evidence conclusive. They point out that baptizo is broader than its literal meaning, for it is used occasionally in a figurative sense (Mark 7:4; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 11:38; 1 Cor. 10:2). Further, although the descriptions of New Testament baptisms indicate that baptism occurred with both the officiator and the candidate standing in water, they do not state specifically what happened in the act. In fact, critics argue, early Christian art may indicate that water was poured on the head of the baptismal candidate standing in a river or body of water.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author identifies the word 'immerse' as synonymous with 'to dip':

• 'It has frequently been argued that the word baptizein invariably means "to dip or "immerse," and that therefore Christian baptism must have been performed originally by immersion only, and that the other two forms, affusion and aspersion, are invalid - that there can be no real baptism unless the method of immersion be used.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

The same author specifically distinguishes immersion not only from affusion, but from 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head'. The author actually defines affusion as 'standing in water while someone pours water on your head':

• 'It is a somewhat curious fact that if the evidence of the written texts, whether ancient canons or writings of the early fathers, be studied by themselves, the natural conclusion would seem to be that immersion was the almost universal form of administering the rite; but if the witness of the earliest pictorial representations be collected, then we must infer that affusion was the usual method, and that immersion was exceptional; for the pictorial representations, almost without exception , display baptism performed by affusion, i.e., the recipient is seen standing in water while the minister pours water on the head.' (Stanley J. Grenz, 'Theology for the Community of God', 1994)

This author identifies immersion as 'going underwater':

• 'The best parallel we have for the baptism of John may be the immersion of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip, which was clearly not a case of pouring but of going underwater in a natural flow or reservoir encountered by the travelers on the road between Jerusalem and Gaza.' (Joan E. Taylor, 'The Immerser', 1997)

This author (speaking of Jewish rituals), does the same:

• 'Presumably D5 and D6 apply to men and women alike; after completing the immersion (D5) - that is, after submerging totally in the water and emerging - the convert, whether male or female, is deemed to be like an Israelite in all respects (D6).' (Shaye J. D. Cohen, 'The Beginnings of Jewishness', 2001)

This author does the same:

• 'The baptism of John did have certain similarities to the ritual washings at Qumran: both involved withdrawal to the desert to await the lord; both were linked to an ascetic lifestyle; both included total immersion in water; and both had an eschatological context.' (Maxwell E. Johnson, 'Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation', 1995)

And again:

• 'This ritual is the ultimate source of the form of John's ritual which apparently involved total immersion in water.'(Maxwell E. Johnson, 'Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation', 1995)

Another author also distinguishes immersion from the traditional image of John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head:

• 'The fact that he chose a permanent and deep river suggests that more than a token quantity of water was needed, and both the preposition "in" (the Jordan) and the basic meaning of the verb "baptize" probably indicate immersion. In v. 16 Matthew will speak of Jesus "coming up out of the water." The traditional depiction in Christian art of John the Baptist pouring water over Jesus' head may therefore be based on later Christian practice.' (R. T. France, 'The Gospel of Matthew', 2007)

The same author makes it clear he is using the term 'immersion' as a reference to dipping, plunging, burying, not to any kind of partial immersion:

• 'BDAG translates baptizw as "plunge, dip, wash" as well as "baptize"; they mention non-Christian usage outside a ritual context as "to put or go under water in a variety of senses." The symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection found in later Christian baptism (Rom 6:3-4) also suggests immersion. See further R.L. Webb. John, 179-180. J.E. Taylor, John, 49-58, also argues for immersion (probably self-immersion) and translates Job's title as "John the Immerser."'

Again, same author (different work):

• 'This indicates that the metaphor is perhaps less surprising than we might first think, but none of these "liquid" references to the Spirit easily allows the idea of dipping or immersion.' (R. T. France, 'The Gospel of Mark', 2002)

Another author:

• 'Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that while the meal and table companionship after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension did remain distinguishing characteristics of the Christian community (cf. Acts 2:42), a community that came even to place the banquet table at the architectural center of its assembly places, rites called either baptisma (baptism, immersion, or dipping) or loutron (bath or washing) came almost immediately to serve as the means of initiation into this community.' (Maxwell E. Johnson, 'The Rites of Christian Initiation', 2007)

Even this author, hostile against submersion, uses 'immersion' to refer to submersion, not to any kind of partial immersion:

• 'In some cases, the width is also insufficient for the immersion of any but small children, despite the presence of large numbers of adult candidates in this early period.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)
• 'The baptismal fonts still found among the ruins of the most ancient Greek churches in Palestine, as at Tekoa and Gophna, and going back apparently to the very early times, are not large enough to admit of the baptism of adult persons by immersion, and were obviously never intended for that use.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)
• 'As can be seen from the Old Syriac Version of the New Testament, from the Didache, from the early baptismal fonts, and from the Catacombs, baptisms in the very early church, were done by pouring or sprinkling, not by immersion.' (Ralph E. Bass, Jr., Ralph E Bass, 'What about Baptism', 1999)

Yet another author identifying 'immersed in' as 'dipped in', not to any kind of partial immersion:

• 'There is a sense in v. 27 that in being dipped in (immersed in) the anointed, one envelops/dyes/covers oneself with the anointed.' (David W. Odell-Scott, 'Paul's Critique of Theocracy', 2003)

And yet another:

• 'Basil of Caesarea took the sign of Jonah a step further and interpreted Jonah's three days in the belly of the monster as a figure of the triple immersion in baptism. Since Christian baptism is itself a symbol of Jesus' passion, death, and resurrection, the baptismal connection would be logical even without the added detail of the water - water into which Jonah is tossed and the initiate is immersed. Jonah's nudity thus symbolizes the nudity of the candiates for baptism as they are dipped and "reborn" from the womb like waters of the baptismal font.' (Robin Margaret Jensen, 'Understanding Early Christian Art', 2000)--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about full immersion being the normative among English language sources, not a "partial immersion," which is much less common. I think we should change the article to state this, but I know a "wikiwar" will result. I'll fix it a bit it there is no opposition. Swampyank (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source to back it, one that is WP:V, no edit war should ensue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I just gave you a list of half a dozen such sources, with direct quotations. How many more do you want?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

ISBN numbers would be a good place to start. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever about the undoubted frequency of the use of the objectively ambiguous term "immersion" to refer to total immersion, don't you think it is useful to use it within the Wikipedia article in a more restricted technical sense, as the corresponding articles in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church do, to refer specifically to partial immersion, and to speak of total immersion as submersion? Otherwise, every mention of "immersion" might have to be accompanied by a note to indicate in which of its three possible senses the word is used: 1) total immersion ("submersion"); 2) merely partial immersion; 3) a generic sense that does not distinguish between partial and total submersion. Esoglou (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Walter, please tell me you're joking. If you can't find those works without ISBN numbers then you need remedial information literacy skills. If you're going to be deliberately obtuse I'll simply ignore you. Esoglou, the term 'immersion' is not ambiguous, and means 'submersion'. This is the meaning given in standard English dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Oxford, etc), as well as the meaning used in standard Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias (ISBE, EDB, EDCE, NNIBD, EoJ, TBD, EoC, NIDT, EPC, DJW, Mounce, let me know if you want direct quotations), and the relevant scholarly literature as I have listed (I can provide more on request). All we need is a note saying that the Catholic Church has its own definition of 'immerse' which is different the one everyone else uses (you are aware, surely, that the ODCC is a Catholic publication?). What we can't do on Wikipedia is treat a fringe definition motivated by theological concerns, as the standard meaning of the word; it's fringe, and should be treated as fringe.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that the Catholic Church has a definition of "immerse" different from that of everyone else? I am certainly not "aware that the ODCC is a Catholic publication". The publishers are not Catholic. The editors are not Catholic - at least, the late Frank L. Cross was clearly an Anglican: he "was the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford and Canon of Christ Church from 1944 to 1968"; and there seems to be no reason for thinking that his successor as editor, Elizabeth A. Livingstone, is a Roman Catholic. As for the contributors, they were, even by the 1997 edition - which was succeeded by the revised 2005 edition - "more than 480 from a myriad of denominational backgrounds". "With over 480 contributors, from a myriad of denominational backgrounds, this book has a completeness that is unrivalled. Scholars from Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic and other denominations, as well as Jewish and secular authorities from all over the world, have written or contributed to articles that reflect as best possible an unbiased and authoritative compilation of history, theology, liturgy, scriptural study, art, biographies, denominational and calendrical organisation, and inter-religious attitudes." This description doesn't fit the idea that the ODCC "is a Catholic publication".

As an authoritative publication giving up-to-date scholarly knowledge with precise terminology, the ODCC outweighs dictionaries that must include the less precise terminology used in less scholarly works, as also the terminology used in scholarly publications up to the first decades of the twentieth century, when it was still presumed that early Christian baptism was by submersion, a belief overthrown among scholars (even if not for everyone) by study of the archeological remains, as well as by a more attentive examination of the literary evidence. Esoglou (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

1. The RCC uses a definition of 'immerse' which is different from that of normative use (I grant that a couple of denominations share their view, but this only illustrates it is a fringe view). Just look at the use of 'immerse' and 'immersion' used in the sources I provided, and you'll see it's different to the Catholic use of 'immersion' as meaning something other than full submersion (see for example the Catholic Encyclopedia, 'The Oriental Churches have retained immersion, though not always in the sense of plunging the candidate's entire body below the water').

2. Contributions to the ODCC are overwhelmingly from Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican scholars, and articles must contain 'nothing contrary to the Catholic faith'.

3. You provide no evidence that the ODCC is 'an authoritative publication giving up-to-date scholarly knowledge with precise terminology', still less that the list of standard Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias I provided are 'less scholarly' or that the ODCC 'outweighs' all the sources I quoted (the ODCC has no such standing as you claim). This is particularly ironic given that the article as it stands appeals to works from 1536 (Calvin), 1881 (McKay), 1903 (Rogers), 1911 (Britannica), in support of Christian 'immersion' referring to something other than submersion. Not a single modern archaeological authority is appealed to (Rogers, 1903, is the only archaeological source provided for the claim).

It is now apparent that the ODCC is your single modern source for the claim that immersion does not refer to submersion, and this exposes the fact that you are supporting a fringe view. Either submit to standard Wiki policy, or we can take this to RfC.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm not joking and you're being rude. Thanks for your effort. I will now be ignoring your request. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have provided no valid objection to the sources I listed, and your request was clearly obstructionist.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And you are an arrogant twit. Add what you want. I"m not stopping you. There's no need to discuss it. All that is need is WP:V sources, which you appear to have, and some copy. Use Template:Cite book. Don't give the new additions undue weight and you won't have any problems. I recognize that this article has a lot of weight on Roman Catholic and other traditional church traditions, but then again, the make-up more than 75% of the world's Christian population. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to resort to personal abuse. I provided WP:V sources and some copy from each, not because I necessarily want all these sources referred to but to prove that the article is currently not representing accurately the meaning of 'immerse' as it is defined in standard dictionaries and as it is normatively used in the context of baptism. I don't object to the article carrying a considerable amount of references to Roman Catholic and other traditional church traditions, what I object to is the entire article being used as an apologetic for one narrow view which is not supported in the broader literature. I will consider which material to incorporate, and will use Template:Cite book as you suggested.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Speak to yourself Taiwan boi. You started by stating that I was being obstructionist when I was simply requesting for you to do a bit more work since you had the sources in front of you. In my opinion, you didn't actually provide sufficient information which is why I was asking for more. As you can see from my user page, I'm not from a mainline church, but I do understand their position. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell me, Tb, on what basis you claim that "the RCC uses a definition of 'immerse' which is different from that of normative use". The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia of the Robert Appleton Company of New York was not a document of the Roman Catholic Church, not even of the Catholic Church in the United States. What is your source for this claim?

Tell me where you got the quotation – you did use quotation marks – according to which articles in the ODCC "must contain 'nothing contrary to the Catholic faith'". I have failed to find that statement in the prefatory part of the volume. What is your source for this claim?

The article here states very clearly that some use "immersion" to mean submersion or at least to include it. Why aren't you satisfied with that? Nobody denies it. The article doesn't deny it. But do you seriously deny that some scholars use "immersion" and "submersion" as distinct technical terms? Not just the ODCC (to whose authoritative status you can easily find testimonials on the Internet from the periodicals The Review and Expositor, Library Journal, Christianity, Worship, the New York Times Booklist). To find some more scholars who make the distinction, just consult Google Books (first selecting 20th-century publications) for the three words "baptism", "submersion", "immersion". Those you will be presented with include, for instance, this one of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

I don't believe you can suggest better terms to indicate clearly the two distinct modes of baptism. As a replacement for "submersion", "immersion" is too ambiguous, especially in view of its technical use to indicate something distinct from "submersion". Examples of the distinction between "immersion" and "submersion" even in fields other than baptism are given in the article. An encyclopedia is expected to use precise technical vocabulary. It seems best to keep the present clear terminology, without messing it up. And it would be too cumbersome to use repeatedly "total immersion", "partial immersion", "total immersion", "partial immersion", "immersion (partial or total)" ... Esoglou (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So here's where we're at now.

1. Your POV is that early Christian baptism was not by submersion, and you belive this has been established among scholars by study of the archeological remains, as well as by a more attentive examination of the literary evidence. That is your POV, and that explains why you want the article to reflect that POV. Needless to say, you provide no evidence for these claims.

2. You claim that the ODCC is an authoritative publication giving up-to-date scholarly knowledge with precise terminology, which outweighs all other scholarly works on the subject. Needless to say, you provide no evidence for these claims either, and the evidence is completely to the contary.

3. Of the periodicals you listed, only the Review & Expositor was worth mentioning; the others are totally irrelevant to a scholarly assessment of the ODCC. Having looked through my collection of journals, I have not been surprised to find reviews of the ODCC consistently criticizing it for its limited coverage, Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox bias, Catholic conventions (such as referring to Biblical writers and certain historical church figures as 'Saint'), factual errors, Eurocentricity, and hermeneutical bias. A few samples follow.

Deibler, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 132. 1975 (525) (86).

• 'Nevertheless, the point of view is principally British. The article on Puritanism, for example, gives no information on the development of that important tradition in the history of the church beyond the boundaries of England itself. It is not, therefore, and possibly could not be exhaustive in its treatment.'

Godfery, Westminster Theological Journal Volume 39. 1976 (1) (201–203).

• 'Some criticisms of the revision are in order, however. The Dictionary continues to be rather thin on American church history.'

• 'While the bibliographies, particularly on Calvin, have been greatly improved and updated, the articles themselves have not been changed at all. The same gross misrepresentations of Calvin and Calvinism are simply repeated.'

Lake, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 19. 1976 (2) (147–148).

• 'The Roman Catholic Church receives a large share of the new entries. A revised list of the popes is found at the end of the dictionary. Not only are outstanding Roman Catholic theologians and churchmen noted but such terms as “The Westward Position” and “Solemnitas” are defined. Entries on “Aggiornamento,” “Collegiality,” and the more important encyclical works such as “Humanae Vitae” are also included.'

• 'There is a listing for “Conservative Evangelicalism” but unfortunately no separate article; one is referred instead to the article on “Fundamentalism”! This item may lead us to some critical observations about the weakness of this standard reference work.'

• 'When one examines the larger list of contributors, one cannot but wonder about scholarly objectivity when such British evangelicals as Bruce, Guthrie, Stibbs, Douglas, Stott and Wiseman are not mentioned. Not a single American evangelical scholar contributes to this volume.'

• 'When the term “O Sapientia” can be cited, but not a single line is devoted to James Orr, one must raise questions about balance. This leads to the observation that The Oxford Dictionary possesses an undeserved preoccupation with the liturgical. This weakness was notable in the original, but it has been multiplied in this new edition.'

• 'And occasionally important sources are overlooked, such as the omission of reference to Carl Bangs’ work on Arminius from the Arminius article. The critical reader will also notice a High Church Anglicanism in many ecclesiastical articles.'

Pentecost, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1996.

• 'However the deficiency of the work in this realm lies in their concept of Scripture as revealed in the article on “Bible” where it is stated: “The more important critical conclusions are now so widely accepted by those qualified to judge as to be reckoned virtually assured. They are generally recognized as the only firm foundation for a true interpretation of the Scriptures.”'

• 'However, the liberal interpretations in the field of Biblical studies and theology will prevent the orthodox student from accepting its conclusions. It is recommended for the historical content, but cannot be commended to the Christian public as trustworthy in the Biblical and doctrinal areas.'

McCartney, Westminster Theological Journal Volume 59. 1997 (2) (335–337).

• 'The promotional literature claims that this edition also has expanded coverage of Evangelicals, but I could not detect much. Further, there are some even more surprising omissions.'

• 'Americans, American theological movements, and American missiological enterprises receive almost no notice at all except for the modernist fundamentalist controversy.'

• 'Those with special interest in Anglo-Catholicism will find it extremely helpful.'

Ingolfsland, Journal of Christian Apologetics Volume 1. 1997 (2) (117–118).

• 'One of the most serious deficiencies is the omission of many names and issues important to evangelicalism.'

• 'While the book contains articles on “Bibliolatry” and the “infallibility of the church,” information on the infallibility, inspiration, or inerrancy of the Bible is notably absent. Finally, writers generally ignore the views of evangelical scholarship in their articles on the books of the Bible.'

Contrary to your claim, the ODCC is not regarded in scholarly circles as the authoritative work by which others are judged.

4. Encyclopedias should use words with meanings which are normative to the subject covered by the article. This article has a completely irrelevant reference to the use of the word 'immerse' in scuba diving. That reference should be deleted, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. Encyclopedias should also use words with meanings which are normative to the language in which they are written.

In this case, the meaning of the English word 'immerse' is given as 'submerge' in standard English dictionaries (MW, Oxford), and it is used with this meaning in standard scholarly reference sources on the subject of baptism (ISBE, EDB, EDCE, NNIBD, EoJ, TBD, EoC, NIDT, EPC, DJW, Mounce, etc), as well as the relevant scholarly literature. It is not an ambiguous term, and is used to differentiate submersion from effusion and The article should therefore use the word 'immerse' with this meaning. The non-normative meaning used by a number of Christian groups should be referred to (I have already stated twice that I acknowledge various groups use the word in this sense, I have never denied it), but its fringe status must be identified. At present the article does not do this, and an artificial division has been made between 'immersion' and 'submersion, in order to accomodate your POV.

5. References to the publisher of the Catholic Encyclopedia are completely irrelevant to what I wrote. If you don't understand the purpose of the CE, its function of explaining matters from the point of view of the official Catholic doctrine, and why it received a nihil obstat and imprimatur, please read the CE article on Wikipedia.

6. There is no need to use terms such as total immersion, partial immersion, total immersion, partial immersion, immersion (partial or total), becuase 'immerse' in the context of Christian baptism normatively means 'submerge'. Following standard scholarly usage, we should use this term for baptism involving submersion, affusion for the pouring of water over the head (whether standing in water or not), and aspersion for sprinkling. For someone supposedly intent on using correct technical terminology, you are showing an unreasonable refusal to use the scholarly terminology normative to this subject.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your multiple, relevant scholarly sources Tawain Boi. This article needs to be revamped to conform with the normative usage to avoid misleading readers about the terms submersion and immersion. Swampyank (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome Swampyank. Let's see if we can get this article up to encyclopedic standard by using proper modern scholarly sources, instead of offtopic references (scuba diving and language immersion!), outdated sources masquerading as modern sources (a recent reprint of a 1903 work!), and unreliable sources representing fringe views.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You must be making reference to the incorrect usage of the term "immersion" to be synonymous with "submersion". If you could clear that up, it would be wonderful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tb, instead of providing citations to support the statements by you that I asked about, you went and made yet another statement of the same kind, claiming that my "POV is that early Christian baptism was not by submersion". That is something I never said - only that there were other forms of baptism in use, as is generally admitted for the last hundred years. After seeing this further similar claim of yours, I found it best not to read the rest of what you wrote to me and just to let you know that I am letting this discussion drop. Esoglou (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You have made some good changes Taiwan boi

But you added an inaccuracy with this edit. Please see the above discussion on the difference between immersion and submersion and correct your error. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see any errors there. I've used the normative meaning of 'immersion', as found in standard English dictionaries (MW, Oxford), standard scholarly reference sources on the subject of baptism (ISBE, EDB, EDCE, NNIBD, EoJ, TBD, EoC, NIDT, EPC, DJW, Mounce, etc), as well as the relevant scholarly literature. You are welcome to continue discussing the issue here in the Talk page, but you will need to provide some proper scholarly references to support your claim. You will note of course that I have retained a reference to the non-normative use of 'immersion' by some Christian groups, so everyone should be happy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The error is that the normative meaning is not the correct meaning and you don't differentiate them. There will be copy edits if you don't make them. As for scholarly references, the dictionaries referenced above are quite scholarly. I don't think you had the time to read all of the discussion in five minutes. I suggest you take the time now and make the necessary changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that you believe the normative meaning is not the correct meaning. We can't include your view in this article, that's POV. We must use the normative meaning. I have differentiated the normative meaning from the non-normative meaning, and made it clear that those who use the non-normative meaning believe it to be the correct meaning. I took a lot longer than five minutes to read the previous discussion when I came to this article, and it's clear that Esoglou has appealed to only one dictionary (ODCC), which is demonstrably not in agreement with standard English dictionaries (MW, Oxford), standard scholarly reference sources on the subject of baptism (ISBE, EDB, EDCE, NNIBD, EoJ, TBD, EoC, NIDT, EPC, DJW, Mounce, etc), or the relevant scholarly literature. We need to be using reliable sources which are representative of the scholarly consensus.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

Let's stay with WP:RS in this article please. Calvin's claim that the Greek word in question does not indicate a mode, is irrelevant next to standard modern professional Greek lexicons. Calvin is not a WP:RS for the meaning of the Greek word in question. The 1911 Britannica is not a reliable source on the subject at all. It is not in agreement with the modern scholarly consensus, and the article cited contains blatant suppression of information, as well as factual inaccuracies. Here it is.

'3. Immersion or Aspersion.--The Didach[=e] bids us "pour water on the head," and Christian pictures and sculptures ranging from the 1st to the 10th century represent the baptized as standing in the water, while the baptizer pours water from his hand or from a bowl over his head. Even if we allow for the difficulty of representing complete submersion in art, it is nevertheless clear that it was not insisted on; nor were the earliest fonts, to judge from the ruins of them, large and deep enough for such an usage. The earliest literary notices of baptism are far from conclusive in favour of submersion, and are often to be regarded as merely rhetorical. The rubrics of the MSS., it is true, enjoin total immersion, but it only came into general vogue in the 7th century, "when the growing rarity of adult baptism made the Gr. word [Greek: baptizô]) patient of an interpretation that suited that of infants only."[2]'

• 1. This makes no reference whatever to the fact that the Didache states explicitly that baptism should be by immersion, and that pouring water on the head should only be performed in extremis. This is a suppression of information which is entirely misleading. Modern scholarly commentary makes the point (and I have quoted it), that the Didache insists on baptism by immersion, and that pouring water on the head should only be performed in extremis.
• 2. There are no Christian pictures and sculptures ranging from the 1st to the 10th century which represent baptism. Christian pictures representing baptism don't date any earlier than the 3rd century. This is a blatant factual error. Likewise, the earliest fonts for infant baptism do not appear until well after the second century, and some of them bear evidence of being larger adult baths modified for use with infants.
• 3. It is utterly false that total immersion 'only came into general vogue in the 7th century'. Numerous modern scholarly sources testify that it was the original mode (and I have quoted them).

What does a WP:RS look like? This is an example of a WP:RS.

'As adult baptism became less frequent, and infant baptism became more popular, a decided change occurred in the size and shape of the baptismal font. Below-floor-level fonts, large enough for the immersion of an adult, gave way to fonts greatly reduced in size and raised by various means to a level of three or four feet, thus making the immersion of infants easier for those officiating. With the introduction of sprinkling or pouring, the fonts became even smaller.', Rice, 'Baptism in the Early Church', Bible and Spade (1981) Volume 10 (2) (64)

'Pictures of Jesus standing in water while John pours water over His head are of a much later date than those depicting immersion and they demonstrate the change in the mode of baptism that came into the church.', Rice, 'Baptism in the Early Church', Bible and Spade (1981) Volume 10 (2) (64)

This is an example of a WP:RS.

'As a rule, it involved immersion in running water (see Acts 8:38; Did. 7).', Fahlbusch, E., & Bromiley, G. W. (1999-2003). Vol. 1: The encyclopedia of Christianity (184)

This is an example of a WP:RS.

It may be remarked that no Baptist has written a lexicon of the Greek language, and yet the standard lexicons, like that of Liddell and Scott (LSJ), uniformly give the meaning of baptízō as “dip,” “immerse.” They do not give “pour” or “sprinkle,” nor has anyone ever adduced an instance where this verb means “pour” or “sprinkle.” The presumption is therefore in favor of “dip” in the NT.', Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). Vol. 1: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (415)

This is an example of a WP:RS.

As is well known, not only in Greece, but wherever the Greek Church prevails, immersion is the unbroken and universal practice. The Greeks may surely be credited with knowledge of the meaning of their own language. The substitution of pouring or sprinkling for immersion, as the Christian ordinance of baptism, was late and gradual and finally triumphed in the West because of the decree of the Council of Trent.', Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). Vol. 1: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (415)

This is an example of a WP:RS.

'One of their strongest arguments revolves around the Greek word for baptism in the New Testament. Its predominant meaning is “to immerse” or “to dip,” implying that the candidate was plunged beneath the water.', Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary

This is an example of a WP:RS.

'The Gk verb for “baptize,” baptizein, is formed from baptein, “dip,” and means “dip frequently or intensively, plunge, immerse.”', Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 1: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (583)

Please, no more irrelevant links to scuba diving, no appeals to 19th century archaeology, no quotes from 100 year old encyclopedias. We need to use WP:RS, which must include the current relevant scholarly literature. That is all.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Calvin's claim that the Greek word in question does not indicate a mode, is irrelevant next to standard modern professional Greek lexicons". Then add sources to counter Calvin's claim rather than removing it. That's the difference between WP:V and opinion. Offer your reliable sources in opposition to this reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain WP:RS again. In this case Calvin is not a WP:RS. That doesn't mean you get to include him and I have to find sources to counter his claim. It means you don't get to include him. That's the difference between WP:RS and using a source specifically to promote your POV. Let me say it again, you cannot use Calvin as a WP:RS for the definition of the word. You can include him as an example of someone who disputes the meaning of the word as it is understood by the modern scholarly consensus ('In contrast to the modern scholarly consensus, Calvin claimed...'). But you can't give the impression that he is to be taken seriously as a WP:RS for the definition of the word.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I think it is better to let Tb have his way about Calvin (although Calvin is an extremely weighty source for some Protestant traditions), so as to spare energy for matters such as Tb's other attempts to limit the article to one-sided sources, as if no other view but his existed. Esoglou (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way there isn't, strictly speaking, a reference to scuba diving. There is a reference to the fact that "immersion" is sometimes considered as opposed to "submersion", a fact of high relevance to immersion baptism. Esoglou (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that you can include Calvin, but you can't include him as a WP:RS for the definition of baptism. You can include him as an example of someone who disputes the meaning of the word as it is understood by the modern scholarly consensus ('In contrast to the modern scholarly consensus, Calvin claimed...'). But you can't give the impression that he is to be taken seriously as a WP:RS for the definition of the word. As I have already pointed out, distinctions in meaning between 'immersion' and 'submersion' in subjects other than the subject of this article, are irrelevant to the meaning of the term as used in the subject of this article. You might as well point out that 'font' is used to describe a type of lettering in printing. It's equally irrelevant.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And I have stated that WP:V is at use here. Offer a counter WP:V source if you want. Calvin was a scholar of renown which does make him a reliable source as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained why you refuse to adhere to WP:RS. Why do you refuse to adhere to WP:RS? Calvin is not a reliable source on the meaning of the Greek word in question. He is not recognized as a lexicographical authority. I have explained how you can include Calvin's view. What you can't do is claim he is a WP:RS for the meaning of the Greek word in question. I am including Calvin and the Britannica article, referenced properly.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mu. I am not refusing to adhere to WP:RS. I am merely not acknowledging your appeal that Calvin isn't a reliable source. While I don't agree with his theology, I cannot dispute his scholarly abilities. Thanks for not breaking WP:V. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that was ironic, wasn't it? The quote you kept insisting on as being from Calvin wasn't even written by him. In fact Calvin's was the view against which you've been arguing. How do you like his scholarly abilities now? Note that I am still not using him as a WP:RS even though he agrees with modern scholarship. That's just how reasonable and fair I am.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A warning to all editors: An edit war is defined as editors trying "to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting." The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you all that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. Decide it by discussion, do a RFC, take it to MedCab, or use some other form of dispute resolution, but stop reverting. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Piper

The Piper quote identifies Piper as describing immersion baptism. The definition of 'immersion' he uses is the definition found in standard Bible dictionaries, as well as standard English dictionaries and thesauri.

• 'Standard Bible dictionaries differentiate between immersion and affusion baptism, with immersion being identified as submersion and affusion being identified as pouring water on the head of an individual who may or may not be standing in water. Immersion is typically understood as submersion by scholarly sources commenting on Jewish and Christian baptism, and is differentiated from pouring water over the head of a baptismal candidate.'

  Taiwan boi (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds very like the unwarranted universalization of the opinion of some writers that is evident also in what the same editor says of modern lexicography. Esoglou (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's true, you'll be able to prove it very easily. Show me all the English dictionaries which define 'immersion' as 'standing in water while water is poured over the head', and then show me all the Greek lexicons which define this as the meaning of baptizo.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern lexicography

That "this (the statement that the word βαπτίζω, as used in the New Testament, does not indicate a particular mode) is contradicted by modern professional lexicography" is a personal statement made by an editor on the basis of his synthesis of sources that either do not support his statement or actually contradict it.

Take, in particular, his treatment of the most prestigious Greek-English lexicon, that of Liddell and Scott, revised by Jones. He quotes from it a part of what it says of the use of the word βαπτίζω outside of the New Testament, and completely ignores what it expressly says of New Testament use of the word to mean "perform ablutions". More could be said of others of his sources, for instance his citing as "proof" of his thesis what a dictionary says of the different verb βάπτω in the Septuagint ("LXX") - not the New Testament- but that alone should be enough. Esoglou (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No that isn't WP:SYNTH. I made the claim and provided support from all the relevant standard professional Greek lexicons. The LXX usage is relevant because it is cited as relevant in the New Testament Greek lexicons because it is understood that the New Testament usage is the same as in the LXX (see LSJ, where the LXX usage is cited alongside the New Testament usage as having the same meaning). LSJ provides usage of the word outside the New Testament in order to establish its meaning in the New Testament (this is standard lexicographical methodology). It does not identify the New Testament bapismal usage as having a different meaning. I did not ignore what LSJ says about baptizo and ablutions, I specifically included:

• The Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon (1996) cites the other passage (Luke 11:38) as an instance of the use of the word βαπτίζω to mean "perform ablutions", not 'baptize'. References to the cleaning of vessels which use βαπτίζω also refer to immersion.

Again, if you were able to prove your claim you would have done it by now.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

LXX is not NT. LSJ speaks of LXX and non-Christian usages, but also specifically of New Testament usage. Modern lexicography does not contradict the statement about New Testament usage. Esoglou (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You've missed something. Standard New Testament Greek lexicons cite the LXX evidence because it is understood that the New Testament usage is the same as in the LXX. For example, LSJ cites the LXX usage alongside the New Testament usage as having the same meaning. No standard professional New Testament Greek lexicon defines the New Testament use of baptizo as 'standing or kneeling in water while water is poured over the head'; it is universally identified as meaning dip, immerse, submerge, and plunge. If you wish to disagree, please go and find a standard professional New Testament Greek lexicon which defines the New Testament use of baptizo as 'standing or kneeling in water while water is poured over the head'.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LXX predates NT authors by two to four centuries having been written c. 350-150 BC. Usage may have changed during the intervening time, but I am with Taiwan boi on this point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Assumed, until contrary evidence appears, as also for non-Christian usage. There is such evidence. It should be made clear that in the New Testament βαπτίζω not always means "submerge". (Nobody says that βαπτίζω can never mean "submerge".) Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All standard modern professional New Testament Greek lexicons define the New Testament use of baptizo in the context of Christian baptism as meaning dip, immerse, submerge, and plunge. They identify uses of the word in other contexts as meaning washing by immersion (whether or dishes or people). This does not mean that the word baptizo in the New Testament should always be translated 'submerge' or 'immerse', and that point is already made in the article. What are we missing? Just provide your relevant professional New Testament Greek lexicographical source, so we can understand your point better.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The only example I can find is the New American Stander Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible 0-87981-197-8

Baptizo from bapto; to dip, sink.

Bapto from a prim. root baph; to dip (used four times in NT. dip(2) and dipped(2).

This supports Esoglou. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not a standard professional New Testament Greek lexicon, and it does not define baptizo as 'standing or kneeling in water while water is poured over the head'. However, as I have already said, this does not mean that the word baptizo in the New Testament should always be translated 'submerge' or 'immerse', and that point is already made in the article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "if you were able to prove your claim you would have done it by now". There is no time-limit on proving a point. Not everyone has references on-hand twenty-four hours a day. This sort of behaviour is essentially trash talking an opponent and is better suited to sports forums and on-line gaming. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about time limits. He has been working on this page for a year, and hasn't provided any evidence yet which supports his claim. If he had such evidence, don't you think he would have presented it?--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Weasel

Is it justified to add to writers who do not support the view that submersion is necessary descriptions like "anti-immersionist" and "Calvinist", while not adding to writers who do support that view descriptions such as "immersionist" and "Baptist"? Esoglou (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC) The same question must be raised even more strongly about the characterizing of some works as "discussing Christian baptism from a Catholic or Anglican perspective" and never saying that other works discuss Christian baptism from a Baptist perspective. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't weasel words, they're words identifying a specific bias. When someone writes a polemical work denying that any form of immersion was used by the original Christians, and claiming it was a 'Romish invention', the reader needs to be made aware of this. By all means, please add 'immersionist' and 'Baptist' where appropriate.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want to insert unnecessary POV-pushing descriptions. Esoglou (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not POV to identify a Calvinist as a Calvinist, a Baptist as a Baptist, and someone who wrote a book claiming immersion is 'a Romish invention' as an anti-immersionist. If you believe it is, take it up on the relevant noticeboard, and I'll see you there.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholars

There is no justification for denying the description of scholar to the many who hold that archeological evidence favours the conclusion that baptism was regularly, though not always, administered in the early church without submersion and for lavishing it exclusively on those who disagree with them. There is no justification for denying the description of scholar to those who share the view of, for instance, the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon on the meanings of the Greek word βαπτίζω and for lavishing it exclusively on those who disagree with them. Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There is every justification for differentiating between scholarly reference sources and other sources which are not scholarly reference sources. Works written by non-scholars are not scholarly reference sources. Scholarly reference sources included peer reviewed professional material in the relevant fields; lexicons, Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias, and scholarly monographs. You have now removed a large number of WP:RS from the article, and you have deliberately worded the article so that it is POV. I have no idea why you keep appealing to LSJ, since it does not support you in the least.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So doctrinal documents are to be thrown out with the baptismal water simply because they are not "scholarly"? Talk about WP:WEIGHT. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please stop relying so heavily on WP:RS. You add a whole lot of nonsense and repetition with your so-called reliable sources when they're not really needed and make the article an impossible read. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, doctrinal documents are not to be thrown out. I did not remove any such sources. I included all sources added by all editors. I simply differentiated between standard scholarly reference sources and those which aren't. John Carter has already explained the importance of WP:WEIGHT; please take note of what he told you. If you believe my WP:RS are not reliable (only "so-called reliable sources"), then please feel free to prove your claim. The sources I provided are needed for WP:WEIGHT, and they do not make the article impossible to read. Unlike Esoglou, I don't add repeated full text quotes to the article, I simply use footnotes. Removing WP:RS to censor scholarly consensus breaches WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that you removed doctrinal statements, but above you made a duality between scholarly and non-scholarly works and stated that "works written by non-scholars are not scholarly reference sources" and I inferred from that that you consider only scholarly sources to be reliable. Back to your fight. My concerns have been address. Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, we agree. Doctrinal statements are not to be thrown out where they are WP:V and WP:NOTE. Yes I made a differentiation between standard scholarly reference sources and sources which are not. I have not said that only scholarly reference sources are WP:V, I have simply made the point that this differentiation is important from the point of view of WP:WEIGHT. These sources should not be conflated, and readers should not be given the impression that works which aren't standard scholarly reference sources have equal standing with those which are.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

John Carter has recently reminded Walter of WP:WEIGHT. His comments are worth repeating here.

So, in matters of the definition of the term, whatever the opinions of individuals who do agree with a given position, we are supposed to reflect the highest quality academic research first and foremost, and treat other opinions as that. So the sources most accepted by the academic community, which in this case probably means the linguistic academic community, are the ones that should be given the greatest weight as per WP:WEIGHT.

Please see WP:WEIGHT. My recent edit:

• Differentiated between standard scholarly reference sources and non-scholarly sources
• Identified POV sources as such ("Immersion, Proved to Be Not a Scriptural Mode of Baptism But a Romish Invention")
• Included all the sources Esoglou had added to the article
• Included all sources in a Wiki-oriented for/against presentation
• Re-ordered the article in a logical way
• Represented sources accurately

Esolglou's edit:

• Fails to differentiate between standard scholarly reference sources and non-scholarly sources
• Treats non-scholarly sources as equivalent in authority to standard scholarly reference sources
• Removed a large number of scholarly reference sources which do not support his POV
• Removed almost all sources which oppose his POV
• Reverted my ordering of the article
• Fails to represent all sources accurately

His edit is not WP:NPOV, nor does it meet WP:WEIGHT.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

He warned me about WP:WEIGHT? I though he was warning you. I don't really care if he was warning me because I wasn't making any changes to the article merely commenting on changes that you were intending on making. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

He was replying directly to your comment. He even quoted you directly:

Perhaps in a way he is reliable, as you have pointed out. However, if so, he would really be reliable for their interpretation only. You have yet to establish that "so many" do rely on his position. Yes, maybe, 100 years ago, when the Hastings encyclopedia was written, that may have been true. But all articles are intended to rely first and foremost the current academic position on the matter.

Please take note of what he said.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan boi's recent edit is a welcome relief from the blatant POV revisions of Esoglou, and a step in the right direction for this article. It's refreshing to see someone posting here who substantiates his case with relevant material from recognised authorities and demonstrates a sound understanding of the issues. Frankly, I'm amazed by the frivolous opposition to Taiwan boi's edits. Does anyone seriously believe that "Immersion, Proved to Be Not a Scriptural Mode of Baptism But a Romish Invention" is an objective source which adds value to the article? Good grief! Sankari Suomi (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In my edit, there is no mention of McKay. It is Taiwan boi who insists on including the citation that causes Sankari Suomi to exclaim: Good grief! :-)

Maybe John Carter would indicate whether he sees as insufficient the indication (in my text) that the distinction between "immersion baptism" and "submersion baptism" is less common than identification of the two, and considers it necessary to treat any such distinction as simply wrong. Esoglou (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that in another section Tb speaks of the lack of response to his "points". Perhaps he refers to what is above. I find that too generic to respond to. I have invited him to indicate concretely what important reliable sources I have omitted, and I have promised to put them back in, with appropriate accompaniment. Esoglou (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You are concealing a number of facts here. You restored McKay when I deleted him originally. Your edited twice left him in represented as a WP:RS. Later, when I left him in and identified his bias, you removed what I wrote, more than once. I've demonstrated that I'm perfectly willing for him to be left in, but that his bias should be identified. I have left him in specifically to demonstrate that I am not suppressing his POV, contrary to what you claim.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou, I was referring to the fact that the article previously appealed to McKay as "evidence" that immersion does not refer to submersion. This was obviously POV and against Wikipedia policy. Taiwan boi presents McKay in an appropriate context, for an appropriate reason. This is exactly what Wikipedia calls for. It seems very clear to me that Taiwan boi's edits are academically sound, and overwhelmingly supported by the historical, lexical and scholarly evidence.Sankari Suomi (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Sankari Suomi

I see no evidence that Taiwan boi is insisting on his own POV. On the contrary, he has consistently cited a massive body of evidence from objective sources to support his edit, and I suspect he is the only person who has consistently done so. This is demonstrably NPOV. I don't know what "authoritative sources" you're accusing him of cutting out, but from what I've seen so far, he's well qualified to differentiate between a scholarly source and a non-scholarly one, so I'll trust his judgement on this. Sankari Suomi (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be easy to indicate authoritative sources that Tb has deleted, but it is perhaps best to wait until you first beging to answer even one of the points listed above. Esoglou (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your points are not substantive; some of them are misleading, while others are simply bizarre (e.g. your comments about baptism in the Didache). I'd say that the onus is on you to address Taiwan boi's points before you do anything else. Meanwhile, I'm sure he'll address your points in his own time. I can't speak for Taiwan boi, and if I start now, I'll only lend weight to Walter's "sock puppet" conspiracy theory. Sankari Suomi (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to lay the groundwork of my position, my theological background is primarily Mennonite (Anabaptist) but I have spent a great deal of time in paedobaptist denominations (Lutheran and Anglican, and to a lesser extent Presbyterian).

If even one source exists that suggests "immersion" (non submersion) baptism is sufficient (I seem to recall one of Taiwan boi's own sources stating that: long arguments that Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch going into but not under the water) then that is sufficient. The source must be added, even if it's in its own section.. That addresses all of WP:V, [[WP:RS], and WP:WEIGHT, the latter two of which are his favourite whipping posts.

However, I believe that there are many other sources that meet WP:V which, in my opinion, is probably more important than WP:RS.

With that said, I don't know of any paedobaptist denominations that even suggest that immersion or submersion should be considered, even for adult baptism. The only references I have for immersion are from popular culture: the film My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and a conversation related to that with a couple from church related to that. The wife is Armenian and in order to marry her the husband had to be baptized into the Armenian church under similar circumstances.

I also have a very large concern that our new colleague, Sankari Suomi's only edits have been to this talk page arguing for Taiwan boi's position. I have seen the duck test be applied to one case of sockpuppetry, and Sankari Suomi sure seems to talk like Taiwan boy. With lacunae in Taiwan boi's edits at this time, it seems very suspicious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:AGF. I'm more than willing for this editor to be investigated as thoroughly as possible. They are definitely not a sock puppet of mine.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, feel free to investigate me in any way that you like. I don't even live in Taiwan (I'm in South Australia; previously the UK) and if Wikipedia has the facility to check IP addresses, they will confirm this. In the interests of transparency, I can advise that I previously edited Wikipedia under the name "Teutonic Knight" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teutonic_Knight) but lost access to that account when my email provider collapsed and I could no longer retrieve my password. Sankari Suomi (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Walter, over to you. I'd be very happy to accept your apology.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I need to elaborate on the baptism for marriage comments. In both cases, a small wading pool was set-up in the sanctuary and the subject was required to kneel in the wading pool and water from the pool was poured over the individual's head. This is, by definition, immersion baptism, and the baptisms that I see at church where a "dunk tank" is filled and the subject is placed completely under the water is by definition submersion. The fact that my Anabaptist brothers and sisters don't know enough to recognize the difference is a constant consternation. Even professors at university and seminary, when pressed in conversation, will admit that the term is being used incorrectly, but do not wish to rock the linguistic boat. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)