Talk:The Bible and homosexuality: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:23, 17 April 2020 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,183 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:The Bible and homosexuality/Archive 6) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:03, 14 July 2020 edit undoRoscelese (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits →Welcome: new sectionNext edit →
Line 49:		Line 49:

	::: 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)		::: 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 ==

			{{ping\|73.231.91.174}} welcome!

			As other editors have pointed out, some of the material you added doesn't meet our standards for ] - 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.

			I'll also note though that Leviticus was written in Hebrew and the ''arsenokoitai'' issue is with the Greek books. There are some translation questions with Leviticus all the same, but it's not an issue of having to guess what the original was and whether it really meant "male"; we know what the original was. –] (] ⋅ ]) 21:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:03, 14 July 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Bible and homosexuality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The Bible and homosexuality received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Judaism Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bible Mid‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Re: Havelock Ellis

Whether we keep the Ellis reference or not, "some sexual scholars" is a terrible phrasing. Beyond that, however, @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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 in-text attribution, 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. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Metanoia2019, please join the discussion, instead of edit warring. You made your view clear, in summary form, in this edit, complaining that the citation from Ellis is from 1908, exclamation point. Indeed it is; and Freud's views on the topic are from 1905, Hirschfeld's activism for homosexuals a decade earlier, and the views of von Krafft-Ebing, 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 here to enforce your preferred version. Please don't do that; instead, observe WP:BRD and discuss. You're still a new editor, so other editors will cut you some additional slack, 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 consensus and collaboration, and part of that means discussing here, and not edit-warring. See also WP:Dispute resolution for additional guidance. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot 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 WP: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 WP:FAITH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@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 sign your Talk page posts using WP:4TILDES, and observe the conventions of Talk page discussions which include proper indentation; you can read about this at WP:THREAD. Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot I stand by what I said. The article is fine now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 13:44, January 23, 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Merely stating that "The article is fine now" is not policy-based support, it's merely an "I just don't like it" argument. Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the locus of the content disagreement, it is this revert of yours, 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 consensus not to. I take Roscelese's objections to heart, and am open to changes in wording in that passage in order to mitigate that. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

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 section header just above the word addendum above. Place it between double-equal sign delimiters, like this: == Untitled ==, using whatever section title seems to best summarize your intent in opening the new discussion. Also, please always sign your posts like this: ~~~~ HTH, Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@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 section titles, signatures, indenting, and other aspects of Talk page discussions, 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, Mathglot (talk) 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 reliable sources, may certainly be added to the article, in accord with content policy, such as neutral point of view, due weight, 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. Mathglot (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome

@73.231.91.174: 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.

I'll also note though that Leviticus was written in Hebrew and the arsenokoitai issue is with the Greek books. There are some translation questions with Leviticus all the same, but it's not an issue of having to guess what the original was and whether it really meant "male"; we know what the original was. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Categories: