Talk:Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2007. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Closed, page no longer exists as submitted to Articles for deletion.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep as dab-style page with links to separate lists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glossary of Christian and Jewish terms article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Archives

Dec 11 2007 to Dec 31 2007 (orig) Dec 20 2007 to Jan 05 2008 Jan 03 2008 to Jan 07 2008

Contents 1 Requested move #1 1.1 Disambiguation page 1.2 Being bold 1.3 Towards consensus

[edit] Requested move #1

There are now two outstanding requests to move Glossary of Messianic Judaism terms and Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms, both to List of Christian and Jewish terms, and opened one day apart by the same person. There's also a related open AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms, which would delete some of the edit history of material cut and pasted to other articles. Not pretty. Andrewa (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry. The Requested Moves are now moot. If you are reading this, then you'll see that this talk page has been preserved for the sake of the history of discussions. The article has been split into Glossary of Jewish terms and Glossary of Christian terms, where editing and discussions continue. Since this article is now a disambiguation (dab) page, I believe there is no point in discussing substantive glossary issues here. Pls use this page to refine the best dab version. Thanks. HG | Talk 05:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree... it's not currently a disambiguation page in either format or function. Perhaps that's a good solution if it can be made into one. But it's not obvious to me how. Hmmmm.... Andrewa (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just a doorway to Glossary of Christian terms and Glossary of Jewish terms that's all it needs to be to preserve history. -Bikinibomb (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been a suggestion at the AfD that this be renamed List of religion glossaries and expanded... that sounds good to me, other comments? Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the entries from WP:RM. No point leaving them there. Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation page

Ok, I've turned this into a dab page with the requisite dab template. Granted, as noted in WP:DAB, a page like this doesn't fit perfectly and requires a bit of flexibility, aka WP:IAR. Anyway, feel free to improve the current attempt if you can. Thanks. HG | Talk 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree strongly re WP:IAR, but my concern is that any solution that appeals to it may not be stable... others will want to impose the rules. So WP:IAR is a last resort in a controversial case like this one. Andrewa (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Being bold

Whoa, it's moved again! It's not IMO good form to move a page while either WP:AfD or WP:RM discussions are current. Better to suggest the move in the discussion in progress, and try to form consensus first. Having said that, personally I think the latest move is a good one! Be bold by all means but appreciate that others may have difficulty with faith issues if the move is controversial. Andrewa (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the page after raising the issue in the AfD discussion and getting encouragement, including a comment I interpreted as such from you. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. -agr (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just have the AfD closed now since it is not the same page submitted, like last time. -Bikinibomb (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll move it back. The attempted new name is unnecessary. See Portal:Contents/List of glossaries#Religion and belief systems, which already serves as a list of religion glossaries. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that portals are not intended to substitute for articles in the primary name space. Having a list of religious glossaries seems totally appropriate and avoids the need for a disambig page that no one needs just to preserve edit history. I discussed my proposed move before making it. Perhaps it would help end what has be a very contentious process if you did the same.--agr (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please don't move the page again w/o significant discussion, given the convoluted history of naming this page. Meanwhile, help in dealing with double redirects would be appreciated. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to agr: Yes, you did mention it here but we all need more time to discuss this. My revert is in keeping with the WP:BRD approach; i.e., you did a bold move, I saw a need for further discussion and reverted. However, given this page and that it's in the middle of an AfD, I would think that a Bold Move is contraindicated. Do you see what I mean? You are clearly trying to help resolve things here, which I appreciate, but pls let's give a broader spectrum of folks a chance to weigh in, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding portals. "Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas. Portals may be associated with one or more WikiProjects; unlike WikiProjects, however, they are meant for both readers and editors of Wikipedia, and should promote content and encourage contribution." I'm curious -- where did you get the impression that portals are not in the namespace? For more info on relation of Portals to Lists, etc., see Portal:Contents. HG | Talk 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For Agr: Maybe we should create a subcategory Glossaries on religion to add to the Category:Glossaries on religion? (The main article for that category is the aforementioned Portal.) This would serve your need in a manner consistent with how other glossaries in WP are handled. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how moving it back helped... it's just made things even more complicated. Let's all take a deep breath, and talk a bit before doing anything more. Andrewa (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towards consensus

There seems to be a consensus that the history should be preserved. There seems to be a consensus that the article name Glossary_of_Jewish_and_Christian_terms isn't a particularly good place for it, and if we can park the history (and this discussion, but that's relatively easy) somewhere else, the resulting redirect at this name may eventually be deleted. Am I reading it OK so far? Andrewa (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right about consensus to preserve the history, but it would be wise to wait until an admin closes the AfD and (hopefully) confirms the consensus as you've stated.

No, I don't see a consensus that the current name "isn't a particularly good place" for the edit history. This point was not discussed in the AfD nor much here. Conversely, I would think that the article name should be retained -- because it's under that name (and similar predecessors) that the edit history took place. Changing the name now, after the edit history is finished, may be confusing and (as you say) could lead to eventual deletion. thanks. HG | Talk 14:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didn't suggest that the article history could or would be deleted. What I was suggesting was that a history-less redirect could be deleted, in the fullness of time.

So, you'd like to see something kept at the name Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms? Why? Much of the editing and discussion took place under other names. And in any case, that's not a good reason for keeping an entry in the article space IMO. The article space is our product, our encyclopedia. It shouldn't be cluttered with other things. Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hi. To keep the edit history (if only for GFDL), Jossi, Kim and ChrisO (see my Talk) suggested a dab or redirect. What alternative(s) would you recommend instead? Don't forget that the edit history is part of the grounding for the split J and C glossaries. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some have proposed a policy that there should be a term only if there is a corresponding article. I agree with this in principle, but I believe that we should encourage editors to propose terms that do not have an article, as a way of generating viable stubs for new articles. In other words, I see a value to this list as part of a process for furthering the goals of Wikiprojects Judaism and Christianity.

Once people feel this process has concluded - i.e. no more viable proposals for new stubs - I think this should turn into just a list of links to the articles. Some people think this should also be split into two, one for Christianity the other for Judaism. I could go either way. But if it is to be split, it should happen after it has fulfilled its function of generating ideas for new articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Slr, the split is a fait accompli and folks are already revising the split articles. So I think the main question is how to handle the edit history and Talk here, which undergird those articles. For that purpose, a "List of links" would be more complicated and less stable than a dab or redirect. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the remaining issue is what the article that carries the talk history should be called. I argue for making it a list of religion glossaries. Such an article would be useful and appropriate as we have a number of them. It is my understanding that portals are a separate mechanism not intended to replace lists in the primary namespace. Note that portals are by definition in a separate name space: "Portal:" Wikipedia content is mirrored by several other sites and as far as i know, they only have access to the main namespace. While a Category religion glossaries might be a good thing, lists and glossaries are not in competition see WP:LIST, and, in any case, a category does not solve our talk history problem. A list of lists that is useful is less likely to be deleted than a "Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms" which is set up as a dab but really has no other function. So that is why I prefer the list of lists approach. I don't attach a high importance to this question, I was only trying to find a solution that works.--agr (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Whatever the name, I'm wondering whether the Talk page could have a notice on top to the effect that this page should be kept for GFDL backup to X and Y articles? Is there a template for this kind of thing?

No need. Admins check for significant history before doing a deletion, that's part of the job. I guess a template might help to minimise people wasting everyone's time by proposing and voting for things that are contrary to policy, but I doubt it. Some people try to read policy, understand and abide by it, some don't even pretend to, some are somewhere in the middle. Andrewa (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Q for agr. You say a List would solve talk history but not a Category. Why not? A category also has a Talk page, edit history, archives, etc. (Anyway, as noted above, my guess would be to keep this title, and set up whatever List or Category is appropriate for religion glossaries.) Thanks. HG | Talk 18:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, categories are in a different name space. Maybe the talk page can be moved there and maybe it won't cause any problems down the road, but why bother checking all that out? The simplest thing is to keep the history in the main name space attached to a live article. I think what I am suggesting does that. Why do you have such a big problem with it? --agr (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In reality when all the yakking is done I'll be reverting this all the way back to a Messianic Jewish term glossary as I said from the first AfD, since now there will be terms like "Yeshua" that Christians don't really use, and that some will fight to keep out of the Hebrew terms list, but are nevertheless terms with articles. It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please respect a consensus if we arrive at it, and bear in mind that a rough consensus doesn't need to include you. So better still, work towards one here that satisfies your particular insights. This requires a bit of self-examination sometimes. What is it that you think matters? Why? Andrewa (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh. During last AfD an editor came in here before it was closed, changed the title and contents with no consensus, then closed the AfD on the basis that it was a different article. The sky didn't fall when that happened. I doubt it will if I reshape this into a Messianic glossary for terms that don't fit anywhere else. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If others are getting away with disregarding policy and procedures that's a shame, but it doesn't mean they always will. Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Bikinibomb, but you are, well, not quite telling the truth. The last AfD was closed by Kim Bruning (talk) who did not change the title or contents and made exactly one edit to this page, removing the AfD template, as is expected of a closing admin. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, Jossi changed the article to force Lisa's first AfD demands to remove Messianics, Kim then closed the second AfD without consensus. Now we've moved into the third ring of this circus and you wonder why I don't seem to respect the process here. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All the closing admin is interested in is whether a rough consensus has been reached, in terms of Wikipedia's policies and procedures. It's probably best to assume that they're neither stupid nor inhumanly patient. So arguments that don't seem helpful to the project won't be read all that carefully, if at all, however impressive they may seem to the writers. History may well be checked, particularly if you provide helpful wikilinks to it. Those who put a spin on it can expect that the rest of their stuff will be skimmed over with that in mind. MWOT.

Make it easy for the admins is my advice. We're human, and volunteers like you.

With that in mind, any proposals that might lead to a consensus here? Andrewa (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If we wanted a minimum waste of time this could have remained a Messianic terms glossary as it was supposed to be without going through 3 AfDs originating from the whims of one editor who just doesn't like Messianic Jews.

That said, since Hebrew terms have Christian meanings in Messianic Judaism and it is a notable and confusing issue, and since that editor doesn't want this mentioned on any page referring to terms used in regular Judaism, that's what this article should be, a companion glossary to the other two now created. That was the whole point of this, heck, Category:Hebrew words and phrases, Category:Biblical phrases, etc. served as glossary enough for Hebrew and Christian terms. We needed something that addressed both. So may as well be it since the original goal hasn't just disappeared into the ether. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go all the way back to the original article Tim created , List of Christian , Jewish and Messianic Terms , and add Muslim.......... when those tables are refined as a working foundation , and when the foundation is ready a format change should be made just showing each term in a list of terms (in alphabetical order), with the corresponding links under each term to Christian , Jewish , Messianic , Muslim........ click what you are interested in .......... the material should be refined in the tables first , then go into a protected list ........... make it known that the " TABLES " are a working foundation to go into a protected list ....... see example below .

• Jesus .... (no link, term only)

Christian -(ie. link to that description)

Jewish ----(ie. link to that description)

Messianic -(ie. lonk to that description)

Muslim ----(ie. link to that description)

add Muslim to the title also and show the Muslim description of each term that relates to Christianity , Jewish and Messianic .......... Pilotwingz (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Pilotwingz (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One idea would be to pursue your idea of a Table in a user subpage. See previous discussion with Tim that led up to his drafting on his subpage. You all could also create a Glossary of Messianic terms, I believe. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BikiniBomb, Pilotwingz, HG -- for better or worse I put the table up on Glossary of Messianic terms. The table will need to be heavily edited to bring it to the standard of subject intros that Bikinibomb set -- but I went ahead and put it up as is because people would more likely fix it on main space than on my user space.Tim (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I've been busy for some time and come back to discover this. I can see both benefit and loss. I really liked Tim's original draft. But many, many good issues and ideas have indeed come out of this process. I'm going to delve into the archives to pick up more of the flow. Best regards to all. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)