| Revision as of 21:03, 14 July 2020 editRoscelese (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits →Welcome: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 02:37, 15 July 2020 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,508 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive 6) (botNext edit → |
| Line 20: |
Line 20: |
|
|archive = Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Re: Havelock Ellis == |
|
|
|
|
|
Whether we keep the Ellis reference or not, "some sexual scholars" is a terrible phrasing. Beyond that, however, {{reply|Mathglot}} I think you're making a couple of unencyclopedic leaps of logic. Ellis wasn't a biblical scholar or, for that matter, a historian, yes? So his opinion may be admissible in suggesting that "even" Victorians who didn't consider homosexuality a disease or a sin didn't think that Jonathan and David's relationship was romantic, but writing that he "concluded" that there was no evidence is a little strong for what we actually have. Ideally a secondary source would note this sort of thing. –] (] ⋅ ]) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: I don't disagree that it's poor phrasing, I just couldn't come up with something better on short notice; feel free to improve. Maybe something like, "even Ellis...". The one point perhaps of disagreement, is that the fact that Ellis isn't a biblical scholar is neither here nor there; the article is about the intersection of two topics, and we should no more discard experts in sexuality who are ignorant of history and the Bible, than vice versa. If anything, the culture being steeped in Christianity as it is, it's likely (but remains to be proven) that Ellis, other sexual experts, or indeed anyone of his time would have some acquaintance and training in the Bible (which does not make him an expert in that topic, granted) but the converse is certainly not true. I'm fine with changing "concluded" (unless that is what the source says). Just because he concluded something (if he did) doesn't make it any more, or less, likely to be true. As long as we provide ], it really doesn't matter what he thought or concluded, as long as we report it accurately. I guess I was mostly objecting to the offhand disregard of his opinions, being from 1908 (exclamation point). One might well add opinions by Freud, and Hirschfeld, from around the same time period, and by von Kraft Ebbing before that, if they can be quoted on the topic. ] (]) 08:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:: ], please join the discussion, instead of ]. You made your view clear, in summary form, in ], complaining that the citation from Ellis is from 1908, exclamation point. Indeed it is; and ] are from 1905, ] a decade earlier, and the ], a decade before that. So what? I see citations to both Old and New testaments which go back millennia in the article, so complaining about a 1908 scientific article by a giant in the field of sexuality seems ironic. When your edit was undone, you immediately reverted ] to enforce your preferred version. Please don't do that; instead, observe ] and discuss. You're still a new editor, so other editors will ], but as you've been actively editing here and on related topics, you need to get on board with Misplaced Pages's core principles of ] and collaboration, and part of that means ], and not edit-warring. See also ] for additional guidance. Thanks, ] (]) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] I see more recent, scholarly sources now and that's fine. Is it possible that you would like to make the point that this reading has stood the test of time over the course of a century? That's fine if so, but you will need to write a sentence to make that point in order to keep on topic ]. No, a citation from 1908 from a scholar with a complicated legacy cannot serve as "some sexual scholars" or however this read at the time. No, reverting is not "ironic," though I don't know which word you meant to use. Please remember to assume ]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::: {{re|Metanoia2019}} On-topic? The topic has two nouns connected by a conjunction; one half the article's topic, so to speak, is sexuality. Ellis is one of the premier early authors in that field, so, ipso facto, relevant. When I wrote above, I did not know if he knew anything about the Bible or religion, but presumed it likely; turns out he was quite conversant with the topic. |
|
|
::: By the way, please always ] using ], and observe the conventions of Talk page discussions which include ]; you can read about this at ]. ] (]) 05:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] I stand by what I said. The article is fine now. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:44, January 23, 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> |
|
|
|
|
|
::: When I asked you to contribute to the discussion here, I was hoping to hear you support your revert of the Ellis material based on ]. Merely stating that "The article is fine now" is not policy-based support, it's merely an "]" argument. ] (]) 21:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Just to be clear about the locus of the content disagreement, it is ], removing reliably sourced content from the article, for the second time. I object to that, and plan to restore it at some point, absent a valid, policy-based reason not to do so within a decent interval, or a ] not to. I take Roscelese's objections to heart, and am open to changes in wording in that passage in order to mitigate that. ] (]) 01:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] One more then I'm out. You're trying to make a point about how this reading has stood the test of time. That's great. I've provided scholarly literature to support that claim. It includes a full and fascinating scholarly bibliography. Try as hard as you wish to dance around this with html formalities, I *still support* your point. I encourage you to take a moment, think about how best to say this, and then add it to the article. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Addendum: additional sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
Addendum: additional source on the topic in case anyone's interested is Dale B. Martin's 2006 book Sex and the Single Savior. It's all about historical shifts in interpretations of biblical texts on the topic, what the Bible has been allowed to mean over time. The adds to the point I'm trying to make: that this reading of the David and Jonathan story has historical staying power is fascinating and very much worthy of mention on this page, but it didn't serve the point to which it was attached. Is this really inconsistent with Misplaced Pages guidelines? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: I presume you are intending to make a point here having nothing to do with Ellis, as you named someone else entirely. If so, kindly open a new discussion topic. You can do this after the fact, by simply adding a ] just above the word ''addendum'' above. Place it between double-equal sign delimiters, like this: <code>== Untitled ==</code>, using whatever section title seems to best summarize your intent in opening the new discussion. Also, please always sign your posts like this: <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> HTH, ] (]) 05:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] The literature on the topic is fascinating and extends far beyond Ellis, which I hope will now be clear. Read if you'd like. Or don't. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
::: {{re|Metanoia2019}} I've added the section title "Addendum: additional sources" above your 04:25, 23 Jan comment. I can't read your mind, and if you intended this to be part of the previous discussion, you can make it into a subsection header instead of a new H2 section header, if you prefer. Feel free to change the section title itself, I merely copied your first three words, as an apparent good title for it; or you can call it "Martin's book", or "New sources" or whatever you like. If you find the section header not helpful, you may remove it. Regarding ], ], ], and ] of ], I'll leave you a comment on your user page about some of the conventions that help keep discussions moving smoothly, so we can concentrate here on the content and not on the mechanics of it. Thanks, ] (]) 20:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Regarding the fascinating literature: any other parts of the literature on the topic that you find relevant, and which are based on ], may certainly be added to the article, in accord with content policy, such as ], ], and others. Feel free to add such content directly to the article, if you wish. Or, if time is a factor, just list your sources here, and some other editor may find it, and add something. ] (]) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Welcome == |
|
== Welcome == |
As other editors have pointed out, some of the material you added doesn't meet our standards for reliable sourcing - if you look at what else is cited in the article, we rely on a lot more books and journals than news and blogs. (Er, not entirely, it looks like we could do some cleanup - the Edmonds source is not good, although it reflects common interpretations that it should be easy to find a better source for.) After all, so much has been written about the Bible over the centuries that we can afford to limit ourselves to scholarly work! If there's content that you are interested in changing, I would suggest looking in Google Books and JSTOR for material from scholarly presses.
.svg){kind=small}
