This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3
as Talk:Christian ethics/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
America - Centrist
In the section on Abortion, a line reads "African-American Protestants are much more strongly anti-abortion than white Protestants" - this doesn't seem (to me) to fit into an article about a religion which is widespread across the world, not just in the U.S., and I think it should be removed, or at least a section built to incorporate Christian ethics in the specific context of the U.S. Is there a reason to keep it? Xx78900 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Xx78900 I thought your observation just, and I invite you to take a look at the current rewrite. I'll be asking for a peer review soon, so if you wanted to help out by getting a jump on that, it seems to me your observations would be valuable. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment
"The tremendous diversity of the Bible" I'm guessing it means something like written by a lot of people over a long time, but I'm not quite happy with this in WP-voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
"In this, Jesus was reaffirming teachings of Deut 6:4–9 and Lev 19:18. He united these commands together and proposed himself as a model of the love required in John 13:12, known also as the New Commandment." Here, it sounds to me like we are to some extent talking theology in WP:s voice. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- A leftover from the original author who I am guessing is Tahc. It is theology, but ethics is an aspect of theology, so maybe. I left it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
About lead: There's nothing about Virtue ethics in the body, and I generally think it's unnecessary to name specific scholars in the lead of an article like this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- All have now been addressed, I hope, to your satisfaction. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
historical Christian ethics
Resolved
|
---|
@Tahc: This article does not state that it is Current Christian ethics only - anywhere. It is not titled that way. Its content previously had some history - Thomism and scholasticism and so on - so the complaint isn't even consistent with what was already there. Please do not remove content without getting consensus again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
|
Reverts
Resolved
|
---|
@Tahc:
|
Rfc
Resolved
|
---|
Is the topic of this page limited to current Christian ethics only? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Airborne84 Jzsj Xx78900 You have previously demonstrated an interest in this article, so I hope you will return and comment here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
RFC discussion
References
RFC definitions
areas of agreement
|
outline
Jenhawk777 outline
I now have an offering of an outline:
- I. Definitions
- II. (Some) Historical background
- III. Meta-ethical themes
- A. Metaphysical foundations (what is the nature of reality itself?)
- a. The nature of God; the nature of reality, existence, life, human will and power: all as derived from Being itself: God;
- b. the will of God: freewill and determinism; the ontology of divine command: the ontological status of moral norms as absolutes;
- c. the axiological and aesthetic assumptions about the nature of value and beauty: (the nature of value, what makes something valuable? what kinds of things are valuable?)
- B. epistemological foundations (how do we know? )
- a. what is knowledge, truth, and belief: knowing through revelation and reason;
- b. what are the criteria for moral discernment: virtue is knowledge, knowledge is virtue;
- c. knowing through grace and law; moral authority/the will of God;
- C. Meta-ethical assumptions (major beliefs - what Christian ethics is founded on)
- a. the meaning of good and evil, and a sentence or two on theodicy;
- b. Grace/love/mercy and Law/justice/personal responsibility; Christian as both new creation and fallen; ethics on respecting authority and personal autonomy; self-affirmation and self-denial;
- c. nature, and the kingdom of God;
- d. autonomy and service; goodness as virtue;
- e. inclusivity and exclusivity: could include natural law/cultural pluralism and tolerance as virtue vs. belongingness and community exclusivity
- D. Wells and Quash: universal, subversive, ecclesial ethics
- A. Metaphysical foundations (what is the nature of reality itself?)
- IV. Topics and applications
- A. Politics
- a. war and peace
- b. civil disobedience
- c. criminal justice
- 1. capital punishment
- B. Relationships
- a. covenantal community and loving one's neighbor
- b. friendship and Platonic love
- a. marriage and sexual love
- b. divorce
- c. abortion
- C. Biomedical
- a.( could put abortion here )
- b. stem-cell research
- c. euthanasia and assisted suicide
- D. Environmental
- a. ecology
- b. animal rights
- A. Politics
I think that covers most of what should be in an article on Christian ethics, though I may have missed some. Obviously we would be writing very short descriptions of these which are not much more than a mention. Even then, this will be a long article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments
- This outline is not bad, per se, but I think overly detailed for this sort of Wikipedia article.
- I think the "Topics and applications" would be better to be alphabetical. Then we don't have to have disagreements over the names of the 4 large topics and what goes in what.
- The meta-ethical themes also seems like a difficult thing for Wikipedia readers of all different Christian background to gain consensus on. Maybe a less detailed set of meta-ethical themes would work. I am sure there are also terms we can use that are more clear than "meta-ethical". We cannot assume readers will read the article l ike a book-- in order-- so each section should make as much sense as possible on its own. Do you find that many books on Christian ethics have a large section on meta-ethical themes? If so, how are Christian meta-ethical themes different from Christian ethical themes? tahc chat 23:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, we would have to keep a check on each other and be sure and not go into too much detail. I generally gauge my work toward the high school to the college sophomore, who might be writing a paper, taking a general survey class, something like that. What I think they need is a broad overview of the main points with nothing too in depth. Sort of like a Freshman college survey class: Intro to CE.
- Alphabetical is fine - for everything we can, it's a good idea.
- That's also a good point. Every book on Christian ethics does indeed discuss meta-ethical themes, but most often they do so without using the term. We should follow that example. We can just call that section 'Basic ethical assumptions', or 'Underlying ethical principles', or something that's a bit easier to understand. It's a way of organizing the principles of ethics from the big ideas that everything else is built on down to the particulars.
- Applied ethics focuses on what is moral, meta-ethics focuses on what morality is. Norman Geisler's book that I mentioned above? It's entire Part one is dedicated to establishing that moral principles from God are absolutes: he defines what morality is for almost half the book yet he never says the term meta-ethic. But that's what it is.
- You are right again, imo, that each section must make sense on its own. And if we write each section well, it will work out that way. In a wp article, we can't afford the space for repetition.
- You will laugh, but looking at this and thinking of how long it will be, I am now thinking like you that a separate article on the history of Christian ethics is called for. Maybe a short paragraph here to summarize what that one says. We'll have to do it backwards - write the summary before the article - but it will be so general I doubt it will be a problem. I'll try working on the definition and the historical background paragraphs in my sandbox for a bit. What would you like to work on first? You have put so much into the topics already, perhaps you could start adding to them. I suggest War: Four Christian views by Clouse as a jump off for that section; there's a second book too. They're both good overviews of the topic of CE and war.
- Thank you tahc, I know we will do great things together! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- tahc I just want to ask that you don't panic since I am removing so much from CE right now! I am moving it all to my sandbox for writing the inevitable history of CE that I am hoping you will help with as well. I am stealing all your stuff to use there! I am doing my best to edit history down to as little as possible so we can have more on topics and themes instead. How are you doing? Are you working on something? Don't feel pressured, take your time, but I hope you will do this with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- If I were you, I would create the history of Christian ethics first, then write a lead section to summarize that article, and then reuse that lead section, or part of it, in this Christian ethics article. tahc chat 20:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- You know, you're right. Trying to write this history as small as possible is making me a little nuts! I should do exactly as you say, and I think I will, but since I started the reboot here, I will finish that first - leaving out history - then come back. Thank you! That helps! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
broken ref
Hi, in order to fix 2 broken reference names, I just changed <ref name="Wogaman"/> to <ref name="Wogaman2010"/> following consistency within the new section, assuming it was not <ref name="Wogaman93"/> as in some other places in the article. As I don't have the source, please correct if wrong. And of course, happy editing. Wakari07 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Wakari07 Well bless your little pea-pickin' heart! Thank you! You did good! Happy holidays and happy editing to you too! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
images from old testament
@Tahc: Hey, I was glad to see your name on some edits but a bit dismayed at the reason. Removing Old Testament images is inconsistent with Christian ethics which includes the Old Testament. If you can find a source that says Christian ethics excludes the Old, then I will accept this, otherwise, I will probably put at least one back.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Ten Commandments comes to mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Rewrite complete imo
To whomever is interested in this article, I believe I have completed the rewrite. Please review it for any problems. If they are small, please just make the changes needed yourself. If you think they might be controversial, please bring them here, and we will work it through. We have already shown that cooperation produces the best result, so don't be afraid to note whatever you think needs changing here. I'm going to give it a little while and will then post a peer review request. Thank you for your contributions and support in improving this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Jenhawk777, hope you had a nice New Years. I've read the lead, so far.
- "Evidential, Reformed and volitional epistemology are the three most common forms of Christian epistemology." As a reader, I don't now what this means (fine, I'm not that sure on scholasticism either), but hopefully the article well tell me further down, if I get that far.
- "but the debate is waged using both reason and revelation" This doesn't seem to quite fit in WP-voice, assuming revelation means "What God told somebody." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång, what a faithful friend you are, thank you for showing up and reading anything at all! Since the lead is just a summary, and epistemology is explained in its own section, I thought a mere mention was adequate. It's what I've done in other articles where explanations get complicated. I don't quite know what to do about the WP voice thing. It's a reference to what is said in the part on basic ethical principles. I didn't have a separate section for that principle - one sentence seemed adequate - but if you don't agree I will change it - I just don't know exactly how. What would you suggest? Would adding the phrase, 'Christian ethics uses' make a difference? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång I did a rewrite, is it better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I like the rewrite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång Awesome! I also aded links to the epistemologies, does that help? On the who? tag, it was a typo, so I fixed that. I wouldn't have noticed it if you hadn't tagged it. These are great and valuable comments - as your comments always are. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I like the rewrite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Tahc: What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Some comments
@Jenhawk777: I want to go through the article more thoroughly but I thought I should say this. The article is quite long and would benefit greatly from summary style—a bird's eye overview of Christian ethics focusing on its history and general philosophy, rather than details about all of its varying positions. "Wealth and poverty", for example, is three paragraphs long, and if I wanted to learn the details of Christian views on poverty, I would click the hatnote. A one paragraph summary would let me go through without getting caught up in the details. For example,
Christian ethical views on poverty and wealth vary widely. Some people (maybe cite a couple scholars/theologians here) believe that excess wealth is an evil; theologian John B. Cobb even argues that Western overvaluing of wealth has taken the place of God. On the other end, some Christians view economic prosperity and well-being as a blessing from God, citing their opposition to the destitution and hardship associated with poverty. Professor David W. Miller constructed a three-part rubric presenting three prevalent Protestant attitudes towards wealth: that wealth is an offense to the Christian faith, that it is an obstacle to achieving faith, and that it is an outcome of faith. Maybe add a sentence about Catholic views.
If that's the only thing in that section, along with a hatnote, I get a better understanding of the debate. Note that a lot of what you wrote can just be merged into their respective subarticles! And as a reader and reviewer, it would also let me process the article a lot better. Sorry if this came across as harsh, but I think you'll agree that our main motivation here is to help our readers. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- You're right, I'll do it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ovinus I removed over 6,000 bites, so hopefully that helps toward a summary style with a little more consistency. It's hard for me not to discuss every argument in detail! Thanx for the help, it actually was a help, and I appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, and thank you for your work! I sense a pattern of attacking subpar articles and bringing them to completeness. :P
- I know it's hard to summarize—especially since you've probably spent much of your life studying this stuff!—but I'm still a bit concerned about the length of Areas of applied ethics. I think the sections on sexuality, slavery, abortion, alcohol and war could also be shortened a lot because they have respective subarticles. I'm thinking two to three medium-length paragraphs each. My sense of this article is that it should focus on the ethical principles and their history, then give an overview of some of the great Christian moral debates, but leave their details for the subarticles—if they exist. Hopefully some other editors can weigh in; pinging Gråbergs Gråa Sång who also seems interested in this article. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ovinus I removed over 6,000 bites, so hopefully that helps toward a summary style with a little more consistency. It's hard for me not to discuss every argument in detail! Thanx for the help, it actually was a help, and I appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- HAH! Your timing is perfect! I was just coming here to write that I had moved on and edited the rest as well removing about 15,000 bites this time! I tried to get all the "Applieds" down to one paragraph, but was unable to in every instance. The paragraphs are short, but the division of concepts seemed to require separating. If you can think of a fix for that I will be forever in your debt! Gråbergs Gråa Sång rules!!
- You Ovinus
sense a pattern of attacking subpar articles and bringing them to completeness
because you are perceptive and right! I love remodeling and repairing. I have only started one article myself, but this is my bread and butter. Any articles you run across that are heavily tagged that you think might interest me - send to me! Please! Thanx again for your input here. It helped! Ovinus rules too!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- You Ovinus
- We all rule!! I am going to post a request for peer review here soon, so this will either prepare it nicely, or you can wait and do it then. As you see fit. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
No mention of Galatians 3:28?
I would have expected to see it somewhere. I wrote an article a while back at Galatians 3:28 since it has an extensive bibliography. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also mentions slavery, but not race. But most of the civil rights movement saw racial equality as part of Christian ethics. (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Hi! Glad to see you here! You know, of course, that this article is, of necessity, just a summary overview of some of the big issues, and that there is more that is left out than is discussed. But this is a good point concerning modern issues. None of the sources I looked at made this a major point, and if they mentioned it at all, it was about gender not race. But there is a series called New issues in Christian ethics, and perhaps there is one on race that I could add in here. That might actually be a better section heading than slavery. I'll look! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- If combined, I think the heading should be "race and slavery" since slavery was an issue in Christian ethics long before modern race concepts existed. (t · c) buidhe 04:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe So far I can't find a decent discussion of this issue within Christian ethics. I think I will have to widen my search. Christianity is in denial and doesn't talk about race apparently. I did add Gal.3:28 to the inclusivity exclusivity section however, though I don't think I'll stop there. I'm all het up over this now. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe So far I can't find a decent discussion of this issue within Christian ethics. I think I will have to widen my search. Christianity is in denial and doesn't talk about race apparently. I did add Gal.3:28 to the inclusivity exclusivity section however, though I don't think I'll stop there. I'm all het up over this now. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- If combined, I think the heading should be "race and slavery" since slavery was an issue in Christian ethics long before modern race concepts existed. (t · c) buidhe 04:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Hi! Glad to see you here! You know, of course, that this article is, of necessity, just a summary overview of some of the big issues, and that there is more that is left out than is discussed. But this is a good point concerning modern issues. None of the sources I looked at made this a major point, and if they mentioned it at all, it was about gender not race. But there is a series called New issues in Christian ethics, and perhaps there is one on race that I could add in here. That might actually be a better section heading than slavery. I'll look! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Lead rewrite
- I think you need to reorder the lead. The first paragraph doesn't really define it as much as classify it, as theology/not theology and virtue ethics/deontology. I would instead put the third paragraph of the lead first, as it seems both more accessible and more important to the topic.
- Furthermore, the first sentence: "Christian ethics is a virtue ethic, which focuses on the building of an ethical character, and a deontological ethic, which assesses choices" Since virtue ethics and deontology are typically two opposed schools of ethical thought, I wonder if it would be better to change to something like, "Christian ethics has elements of both virtue ethics... and deontological ethics... "
(t · c) buidhe 05:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe I like your version. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Animal ethics
It's hard to believe that Animal rights is more significant than the rest of Environmental ethics, given how significant issues of global warming and pollution have been in recent Christian debates. I would try to cut down the animal section to 1 paragraph if possible. Also, I think one should mention the conservative Christian case against environmentalism, explained here[22] (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Ugh. I suppose even flat-earthers get to be included don't they? I will work on editing down animal rights, but tomorrow. It's 1:30 Am here and I am signing off for tonight. buidhe - thank you - sincerely. I greatly appreciate your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Okay those are both done now - I hope... Your comments are always pertinent and offer genuine improvement. You never tell me to change happy to glad as so many do and have. I am grateful for what you offer - and what you don't. :-) Thanx again - keep it up as long as you can stand! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome! I don't really do prose nitpicking, you'll have to get that from someone else :) (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- However I would recommend getting a copyedit from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests before FAC since that tends to prevent prose issues from derailing a nomination. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I will check out that info for my own information but I will never put an article up for FAC again buidhe. Prose reviews aren't my problem. There are lots of ways to say the same thing, so I always cooperate figuring it doesn't really matter, but it gets to be a grind when multiple reviewers go over the same ground, and one says change A to B, then another comes along and says, change B to A. There ought to be a limit to how many of the same thing people can put you through as FAC reviewers - if prose has been reviewed twice, that should be seen as enough for any article, it should be posted on the review page as closed and done. One reviewer put too many templates in his review and I got fussed at for that - I guess I was supposed to know better if the reviewer didn't. Another reviewer would make two comments a day and took too long - there should be a time limit to how long each individual reviewer is allowed to take - and that was interpreted as disinterest, but by what standard? I found it to be a very haphazard approach that I spent three months responding to, every day, and it was all for nothing. I won't do it again. People like you come along and critique my work and I'm grateful. You make me better. You and GA will just have to be enough. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that FAC didn't work out for you :( My first FAC didn't go well but I learned from that experience and now write articles that meet the criteria. I don't see your biblical criticism FACs as failures because they resulted in considerable article improvement, which is after all the point, but it can be a stressful process so I understand if you don't find it enjoyable. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Thank you for understanding and not holding it against me. As long as you don't abandon me, I should be okay. It lifts me a little to think that your first FAC didn't go well - I suppose I will have to take that into consideration since I think of you as the pinnacle of WP. And yes, article improvement is the real point, so I am okay with that result, and you're also right that I did learn some good stuff from the experience. I am more careful about quotations and images and citations. I'm more aware. What I find enjoyable is the writing itself - the research - take a look at the version of this article from six months ago for example. It took a while on the talk page to get cooperation, but we negotiated and the other guy was reasonable and we worked it out. I think I'm as proud of that as I am of the article itself.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that FAC didn't work out for you :( My first FAC didn't go well but I learned from that experience and now write articles that meet the criteria. I don't see your biblical criticism FACs as failures because they resulted in considerable article improvement, which is after all the point, but it can be a stressful process so I understand if you don't find it enjoyable. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I will check out that info for my own information but I will never put an article up for FAC again buidhe. Prose reviews aren't my problem. There are lots of ways to say the same thing, so I always cooperate figuring it doesn't really matter, but it gets to be a grind when multiple reviewers go over the same ground, and one says change A to B, then another comes along and says, change B to A. There ought to be a limit to how many of the same thing people can put you through as FAC reviewers - if prose has been reviewed twice, that should be seen as enough for any article, it should be posted on the review page as closed and done. One reviewer put too many templates in his review and I got fussed at for that - I guess I was supposed to know better if the reviewer didn't. Another reviewer would make two comments a day and took too long - there should be a time limit to how long each individual reviewer is allowed to take - and that was interpreted as disinterest, but by what standard? I found it to be a very haphazard approach that I spent three months responding to, every day, and it was all for nothing. I won't do it again. People like you come along and critique my work and I'm grateful. You make me better. You and GA will just have to be enough. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Okay those are both done now - I hope... Your comments are always pertinent and offer genuine improvement. You never tell me to change happy to glad as so many do and have. I am grateful for what you offer - and what you don't. :-) Thanx again - keep it up as long as you can stand! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Capital punishment
Capital punishment section seems to mostly give the pro- argument. But most countries in the world have abolished it and the largest Christian denomination (Catholic Church) is now opposed. Although probably for most of history capital punishment was considered compatible with Christianity, I think you might give more of a sense that Christian views on this issue have changed. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Done. Your advice has definitely improved the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's definitely an improvement. But it now reads a little US-centric, talking about possible future repeal of the death penalty in this country without mentioning the much more successful abolition of capital punishment in Europe, and initiatives like the United Nations moratorium on the death penalty supported mostly by Christian-majority countries. Also, it doesn't answer why denominations like the Catholic Church went from being in favor to opposition. (t · c) buidhe 06:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Quote from Pope Francis: death penalty was "a consequence of a mentality of the time – more legalistic than Christian – that sanctified the value of laws lacking in humanity and mercy."[23] (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe There are several areas where a global discussion would be pertinent, and I have avoided going there anyway. The section on wealth and poverty could include global economics - a hot topic today - but I left it out, going for summaries as short as I could make them, figuring that each of these topics probably already has an article of its own where all the details are covered. That's not here. I have a degree in philosophy buidhe, I really want to discuss all of these in detail, but it made it all too long, so I cut myself mercilessly. I cut out thousands of 'bits' that I had already written in that effort. Now you are tempting me to add here and add there, and I am trying. hard to resist. The image of capital punishment around the world partly serves the purpose you advocate, and while I am waffling a bit, because it's you, I don't think I support adding in more detail here. If you feel strongly about it, you can of course edit however you please, but do please keep in mind that length is an issue. These are all just short summaries of major points. That's all there's room for.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe So I went back and added half a sentence. It didn't cost me much space, and it added the global reference, which as you say, is appropriate, so that's done now too - okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Fine, okay, one sentence about the Catholics works, but I will rebel at any suggestion of tracing all the Protestant views on this topic. And no worries about Crystal: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It isn't my prediction. I accept and agree and even like and value your additions, but much more adding will require some removal elsewhere I'm afraid! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- The issue is with the sentence "As capital punishment is gradually being abolished around the globe". This implies a prediction about the future, which should not be in wikivoice. I submit that rewording to "Capital punishment has been abolished in many countries (around the world)", an objectively true observation that no one can object to, is more encyclopedic. (t · c) buidhe 07:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're right about Protestant views: too many of them! (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Okay I get you! You're right. Changing it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ooops! Looks like you already did. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Okay I get you! You're right. Changing it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe Fine, okay, one sentence about the Catholics works, but I will rebel at any suggestion of tracing all the Protestant views on this topic. And no worries about Crystal: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It isn't my prediction. I accept and agree and even like and value your additions, but much more adding will require some removal elsewhere I'm afraid! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe So I went back and added half a sentence. It didn't cost me much space, and it added the global reference, which as you say, is appropriate, so that's done now too - okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe There are several areas where a global discussion would be pertinent, and I have avoided going there anyway. The section on wealth and poverty could include global economics - a hot topic today - but I left it out, going for summaries as short as I could make them, figuring that each of these topics probably already has an article of its own where all the details are covered. That's not here. I have a degree in philosophy buidhe, I really want to discuss all of these in detail, but it made it all too long, so I cut myself mercilessly. I cut out thousands of 'bits' that I had already written in that effort. Now you are tempting me to add here and add there, and I am trying. hard to resist. The image of capital punishment around the world partly serves the purpose you advocate, and while I am waffling a bit, because it's you, I don't think I support adding in more detail here. If you feel strongly about it, you can of course edit however you please, but do please keep in mind that length is an issue. These are all just short summaries of major points. That's all there's room for.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Quote from Pope Francis: death penalty was "a consequence of a mentality of the time – more legalistic than Christian – that sanctified the value of laws lacking in humanity and mercy."[23] (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's definitely an improvement. But it now reads a little US-centric, talking about possible future repeal of the death penalty in this country without mentioning the much more successful abolition of capital punishment in Europe, and initiatives like the United Nations moratorium on the death penalty supported mostly by Christian-majority countries. Also, it doesn't answer why denominations like the Catholic Church went from being in favor to opposition. (t · c) buidhe 06:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Ovinus proceeds
Sorry it's been so long. I proceed! I'm going to focus on content and organization for now and ignore MOS/grammar until the prose has settled down.
- Welcome back!Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- The lead sentence is lovely now, very clear, and the whole lead is great.
- CoolJenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
between AD 27–30 and AD 325
A bit weird to have a range within a range; is there a reason it's not just justbetween AD 27 and AD 325
?- It is isn't it? But what do you do when the scholars are unsure of a date? It's an approximation of when Jesus died. That's how the source referenced it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Definition and sources looks great
held as generally binding
Among whom?- For Christians. It seems to me that saying so would be a bit redundant, since the the discussion is about early ChristianityJenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
the Summa Theologica, that became known as Thomism,
Do you mean "gave rise to Thomism" ?- Yes of course you're right. Changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
in his classic treatise On Christian Liberty argued that moral effort is a response to grace
Giving a date of publication for his treatise would be nice- You got it!Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
all humans have a vocation, a calling, and the guiding measure of its value is simply whether it impedes or furthers God's will
I found this fascinating. So Calvin said that some humans intrinsically have a calling to a role in society that impedes God's will? Is this related to predestination?- It's an interesting assertion - reversing it - but I suppose, yes, Calvin would agree there are those whose role is to impede, since he believed in a hard double predestination. (It's a horrible doctrine imo! No one teaches it anymore.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The Reform ethic
We should probably make clear that Calvinism is Reformed Christianity, for the unfamiliar- I have removed that phrase for better accuracy.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- This "Reformation ... humanism" section could do with a topic sentence or two summarizing its contents; it's rather long.
- Introductory sentences would just make it longer. The ideas all seem important to Christian ethics, so I can't see how to shorten it. I'll keep looking at it. Do you have some suggestions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
upheld the separation of the spiritual and earthly roles for government, asserting that one important role of civil government is to provide restraint for evildoers
I don't really understand what this is saying. What is the spiritual role of government here?- I rewrote it. See if it's clearer.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Government
but "it is a nice question whether those (Enlightenment) ideas ... form"
Probably a long enough quote that the author needs to be credited inline. Alternatively, paraphrase! :D- Thank you for catching that! Attributed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The Roman Catholic church of the 1600s responded to Reformation Protestantism in three ways
The "three ways" part is a bit confusing I think because the enumeration isn't completely clear. I'd prefer just "various ways" or a clearer distinction between the following three ways. Alternatively, something like "in three ways: papal reform, new orders of monks such as the Jesuits, and the Council of Trent."- Well, you got all three. I will number them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
commonly known as the Jesuits
Well that's an easter egg link if I've ever seen one! :P Imo I think we can just say "with the most influential being the Jesuits". The full name isn't important- OOps! Full name is in the link. I shouldn't have included "the" Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
was the nature of human nature
How meta! Love it.- Oh. good! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Multiple versions of modern Christian ethics have been produced by the influence of different strands of thought
This seems a bit verbose and vague. The rest of the paragraph is also a bit weak; there doesn't seem to be anything tying it together.- Reworded, see if it works better Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
asserts the answer to this difficulty lies in embracing secular standards of rationality and coherence while refusing secular conclusions
Fascinating.- :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- In general I think the "Modern Christian ethics" section is the one that needs the most work.
- Reworked it a little, see if it's better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm wondering whether you could draw some general trends in Christian ethics' history. Ethical analyses grew more complex; more emphasis on the individual and his or her everyday life (?); greater religious freedom; et cetera. Say three or four sentences, at the beginning of Historical background? Just an idea.
- IDK, I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. History isn't homogenous. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Will get to more later. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- On a cursory look-through, the sections in Applied ethics still seem rather long. I'll go through them eventually, but it can be hard to get through so much text. I genuinely think halving their length would be helpful. Ovinus (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's okay really, if it's too much, don't. I'll look at them, but I don't think I agree. One paragraph on subjects that have books on them is not too much, but I will look them over. Things can usually be cut a little even if not in half. Thank you for doing this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's funny, you know? Buidhe kept going through adding to various discussions. I think these applied sections are not going to satisfy people and will leave everyone wanting more - or less. All I can do is give a summary of main points, but that at least should be done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I just did a count, it has under 10,000 words, so its length is fine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's funny, you know? Buidhe kept going through adding to various discussions. I think these applied sections are not going to satisfy people and will leave everyone wanting more - or less. All I can do is give a summary of main points, but that at least should be done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's okay really, if it's too much, don't. I'll look at them, but I don't think I agree. One paragraph on subjects that have books on them is not too much, but I will look them over. Things can usually be cut a little even if not in half. Thank you for doing this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Ovinus proceeds some more
I have beefed up modern ethics and actually cut nearly 500 words from the rest, but as God is my witness, I do not see how to cut more. There are just so many separate topics here! I understand if you don't want to do more, but do know your comments are genuinely helpful - whether I am capable of following them or not! :-) Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ovinus: Making changes in the modern section led to more changes in the definition and the lead. This is all an improvement. However, I am back to adding rather than subtracting. Sorry - but thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Christian ethics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article, probably will take about a week. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am looking forward to working with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: I admire you for taking on such a broad topic! So many GAs (including my own!) are about narrow topics which are easy to write. Summing up a tradition of 2000 years is a daunting task but you've written an excellent article. Of course I have suggestions for improvement, but I have no doubt this article will be a GA once we finish the review process. My comments below are in no particular order, if you disagree with any of them just say so! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sermon on the Mount: I think the article should emphasize the Sermon on the Mount more, as one of the keystones of Christian ethics. I like that you use the picture of it in the lead, later though in the "authority, force and personal conscience," you do have a couple quotes from Matthew 5 but I would emphasize that these are from the Sermon on the Mount. Change the second sentence to something like, In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commanded his disciples to "turn the other cheek" etc. And then make it clear that this was a departure from the "eye for an eye" principle in Judaism, that will highlight how Christian ethics is different from other systems.
- Okay - I tried! See if that's what you had in mind or if you want something else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Old Covenant: A related point, but in the caption on that picture in the lead, you mention the Old and New Covenant. These concepts are not explained elsewhere in the article, I would either remove that part of the caption or add some info to the article.
- Done Someone else had added that image and I just left it, but you make a good point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Date style: Since the 1400s in the lead, I would change this to since the 15th century. Just a suggestion though, the MOS allows both styles.
- Done
- Controversies: You do a good job of discussing most of the difficult issues in a neutral way, like homosexuality, role of women, abortion. There are two things I would add. First is birth control, specifically the Catholic position on it. Second is the morality of the Old Testament. The second paragraph of Ethics in the Bible#Criticism is a summary of the issues I'm thinking of, such as perceived ethnic cleansing of the Philistines. Do you think it would make sense to cover the morality of the Old Testament in this article? Or is it outside the scope of what you're talking about?
- First let me say there are any number of specifics missing from this article; birth control is not the only one. Others have also come along and asked, 'why don't you talk about such and so', and I have to answer that it is a small specific, related only to Pentecostals, or to Latin American Christians, or only Seventh Day Adventists, or only Church of Christ, or some other subgroup, and there is just not enough room on all of Wikipedia to discuss every one of them. Only those things that affect all are included here. Catholic issues that are common issues of Protestants as well are mentioned. If you want me to add a statement to that effect somewhere - if you can think of where it would be appropriate - I can do that, but I just don't see how it's viable to discuss one group's particular issues and no one else's.
- Second, I oppose adding Old Testament ethics to this particular article, as I believe it is off topic and is covered in multiple other articles which are blue-linked here. I also wrote Ethics in the Bible that is heavily oriented toward the Old Testament, and discusses the Old Testament teachings on war, and hagiography of the time period and all those issues. There simply isn't room for all of that here, and it really is not an issue in Christian ethics. So I vote no on that one.
- Crusades: Crusade (which is not necessarily religious) can be seen as an attempt to set right a past act of aggression. Sure, but the historical Crusades are often used as an argument against Christianity, just like the Inquisition or how jihad is used as an argument against Islam. For the sake of balance I think you need a second sentence here, something like, The Catholic Church used Christian principles to justify the Crusades in the Middle Ages, proclaiming a religious obligation to retake the Holy Land. I don't have a source for that, just shooting from the hip.
- If you wouldn't mind, please read this summary of current majority views: [[24]] and then we can discuss whether to enlarge this with the ongoing controversy.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wealth and poverty: Just my opinion, I think in this section it would be helpful to quote the verse about a camel entering the eye of a needle being more difficult than a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven.
- And I could add the rich young ruler who was told to give away all he owned, and the widow who donated her two pennies, and Jesus', and James', and Peter's, and Paul's teachings on the poor, as the New Testament is pretty full of teachings about handling money, but I think their thoughts are all covered in the general statements, and that more detail would not add more real content. I have to avoid the sense of writing a sermon here and too many Bible references comes across that way.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- War and peace: Would it make sense to mention the verse about Jesus bringing not peace but a sword here, as a justification for war in Christianity? Or would that be taking it out of context?
- That verse seems to be commonly misunderstood. Jesus is not advocating taking a sword to your family members. He is making the observation that following him will cause divisions that will sunder relationships as though they were cut with a sword: following him will sever mother from daughter, father from son, and so on. That is what happened. That verse has nothing to do with war and does not advocate violence. It is only seen that way by those that separate it from the explanation that follows it. To include it would be to include very bad hermeneutics which would immediately be challenged by others as there would be no source support.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
That is all of the "big picture" content comments I have, everything else will just be specific stuff about the prose, references, images, or whatever. I'll get that stuff to you Monday. I haven't read the talk page discussions so I apologize if any of this has already been discussed. My personal POV is secular so the comments above may be biased against Christianity, if you think so let's talk about it and find a neutral middle ground. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cerebellum I am glad your perspective is secular as this article must be readable from all points of view, and your input will help ensure that. I don't see any of your comments as biased against Christianity, but if you are, that's okay too, as this needs to stand up to that kind of scrutiny. I write all my articles with the view that all claims must be sufficiently supported in the sources to not only accurately represent the scholarly views but to stand up to opposition from those who personally disagree. If I haven't accomplished that, I hope you will catch it, and we will fix it together.
- I want to thank you, especially, for the freedom to disagree and the room to explain why. Not all reviewers are okay with that. I hope my reasons make sense, and if you don't find them sufficient, then you too have the freedom to come back and explain your reasoning and assert the need for change again. I will listen, I promise. I have no doubt your input will improve the article because other points of view always do. I put this through peer review and am grateful to Ovinus and buidhe for their wonderful comments which did improve the article, so I am sure yours will as well. Thank you again. I know, I keep saying that, but I really am overwhelmingly grateful for your willingness to review such a long and somewhat complex article. I look forward to Monday. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: I am going to be late finishing the review :( There is an internet outage at my house and I am not good at editing on mobile. Spectrum is coming tomorrow night to make repairs, so hopefully Wednesday I’ll finish the review. Your responses above all seem reasonable, none of that stuff should be an issue. —Cerebellum (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cerebellum No worries mate! I hope it all works out swiftly and relatively easily. I will hear from you when I hear from you. Good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- I put a clarification needed on "Pauline virtues" since neither I nor WP (afaict) knows what that is. I've also been who-ing some of the in-text bare names, and adding some wikilinks. I wonder if all the redlinks are motivated, but they may be, I haven't tried to check or anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång I have now addressed that, to your satisfaction I hope, and removed the tag. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Aha, so WP did know: Theological virtues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed Gråbergs Gråa Sång WP knows all... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång I have now addressed that, to your satisfaction I hope, and removed the tag. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, sorry about the delay! On to the more formal portion of the review. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Definition and sources
beginning with obedience to a set of rules and laws (seen as divine commands) which are morally required, forbidden, or permitted.
I think you can omit a few words here, I would change to beginning with obedience to a set of rules and laws which are seen as divine commands. It is evident that the rules and laws are morally required, and saying that they are forbidden or permitted is a little awkward; it is certain actions which are forbidden or permitted, not the rules themselves.- Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Natural-law ethic.
Does the source say it that way? I would say natural law ethic.- You're right. Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
universally known independently.
It's strange to have two adverbs sandwiching the verb, I would omit "universally". The rest of the sentence says that the laws are innate in all people so you won't lose any meaning.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Anabaptists: Here and in "modern Christian ethics" you link the Anabaptists to prophetic ethics, which you say developed either "by the twenty-first century" or "in the late twentieth century". But aren't the Anabaptists much older?
- Yes they are. See if you like the change. I don't discuss any of the others, but you are no doubt right in thinking that needed clearing up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Pinckaers: I know in academic writing you can just use the last name when citing someone, for Wikipedia I prefer using the full name. This occurs a couple other times in the article, others are Matthews and Dewitt and Gustafson.
- I make it a rule to only do that for subsequent mentions after having first explained who they are, but this is a first mention, so it's a mistake on my part. Thank you for catching it! Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Link Plato and Aristotle at first mention.
- Done, assuming Aristotle in lead "counts". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done, assuming Aristotle in lead "counts". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hellenist: Should be Hellenistic, and Hellenistic philosophy is specifically philosophy after the death of Alexander in 323 BC. If that's what you mean it's all good, if you're using it as a synonym for Greek you could just take it out.
- Groan. I did not mean Hellenistic philosophy. I meant Hellenic. Good catch Cerebellum. Really good. That would have been an embarrassing mistake for a philosophy major to publish! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Historical background
It emerged from Judaism still dependent on the Hebrew canon, and the legacies of ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy.
This sentence is a little confusing to me and doesn't read smoothly, could you omitstill dependent on the Hebrew canon
? It's evident that Judaism depends on the Hebrew canon. Or maybe revert back to an earlier version, it used to sayIt emerged out of the heritage shared by both Judaism and Christianity, and depended upon the Hebrew canon as well as important legacies from Greek and Hellenistic philosophy.
I thought that was pretty clear.- Oh bless you and thank you. This was one of several changes made by a recent editor (who didn't know as much as you do about philosophy as you do) and so she introduced errors and made changes like this that just seemed to muddy the water imo. I asked her to revert herself but she said if I didn't like her changes I could do it myself. I tried to go through and find them all, and tried to rewrite what I could without totally reverting her, but I agree, the original sentence was clearer. Thank you. Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
abstain from blood
. I'm not sure what that means; eating blood?- Old Testament food laws required cutting the throat of a slaughtered animal and draining the blood from the carcass before cooking and eating the meat. I find these old laws fascinating since they all came about before people ever conceived of germs or diseases transmitted by blood. Christianity left behind most of the over 600 laws of Judaism, yet kept that one. Islam also has it. Interesting don't you think?Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
"with the marked exception of Visigothic Spain in the seventh century, Jews in Latin Christendom lived relatively peacefully with their Christian neighbors through most of the Middle Ages"
Since there are two footnotes here, it's not clear which one the quote is from.- How do you want me to fix that? The quote is in the foirst reference but it is discussed in more detail in the second one. I hate to remove it but I can if you think it's best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Middle Ages: Sometimes this is capitalized sometimes not, I think it should be capitalized.
- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
"one of the outstanding achievements of the High Middle Ages"
MOS:QUOTE says that " The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion", I'm on the fence here since you could say that the status of the Summa is a fact not an opinion. What do you think?- I don't believe you will find a source anywhere that would say otherwise. It is as accepted a historical fact as historical facts get. Aquinas is still taught, in secular schools not just Catholic ones, in political science, philosophy, ethics, law and several other areas. Anyone who studies natural law - human rights, social justice, etc. - studies Aquinas at some point. He kind of founded a lot of our Federal ethics that make democracy possible. Yeah, if that statement is just opinion it's an uncontested one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Riley-Smith: Needs full name, and I would capitalize and link Crusades.
- Damn! Second one! This comes from writing in my sandbox and then only using part of what was written. Thank you for catching yet another one. I am so thankful! Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Seven deadly sins: This is a pretty influential concept, would it be worth listing them?
- I will let you decide, but in order to make your decision more difficult :-) I will add that I am also writing a new article on the history of Christian ethics which will go into more detail on all of these and does list them there. (It's in my sandbox if you want to peek). In this article I was attempting to keep the history to as short a summary as I could make it and still create context. But you tell me what you think. I can go either way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
that eventually became the school of thought known as Thomism
Can you omit this? Doesn't seem relevant to this article.- Well, it is relevant if you're Catholic. Their Christian ethics are all based in Thomist theology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Luther: full name and link. I would do the same for Zwingli, and Kant and Hume later in the article.
- DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
early modern Christian ethicists
: The early modern period ends around 1800, maybe change to 19th century?- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
was determining the nature of human nature
I think {tq|was the study of human nature}} sounds better.- Awwww. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Meyer asserts the answer to this difficulty
: This is just my opinion, feel free to ignore. What you wrote is grammatically correct, but I preferMeyer asserts that
. I just think it sounds better, here is some background on the issue.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Philosophical core
- Four basic points: Aesthetically I don't like the format of
(a) (metaphysics)
. What about making this a bulleted list?- Your wish is my command: Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
"It is arguably one of Judaism's greatest contributions to the history of religions to assert that the divine Reality is communicated to mankind through words."
Raw quote with no context :( I would provide attribution or rephrase in your own words.- Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
There is tension between inclusivity and exclusivity inherent in all the Abrahamic traditions.
I would rephrase as {There is an inherent tension between inclusivity and exclusivity in all the Abrahamic traditions.
DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
had significant moral and legal questions
: Change tofaced significant moral and legal questions
.- Song of Songs: link.
- Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Applied ethics
- Poll tax: I don't think poll should be capitalized.
- Done
Counter-terrorism is a kind of preventive war.
I would omit this, not relevant to the article.- I strongly disagree. Relevant examples are absolutely necessary to communicate that this isn't just something that happened in the past that we are now over. It is something current and happening right now. I feel strongly about this, please don't make me take it out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Early key elements in criminal justice
: Change toEarly criminal justice
.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
: This is a common saying, but I think since it is a quote it needs a source.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
In most ancient religions the primary focus is on humankind's relationship to nature
: The source does say this, but I don't really believe it and the source is from 1889; could you find a more modern source if it is true?- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
When the Pharisee asked Jesus: "Who is my neighbor?"
Maybe add Bible citation,When the Pharisee asked Jesus: "Who is my neighbor?" in the Gospel of X
.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Ontologically equal, Functionally different
: Does this need to be capitalized?- It's like their slogan, but here, no, you are right, so Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Cahill concludes that, "Personal autonomy and mutual consent are almost the only criteria now commonly accepted in governing our sexual behavior.
Is this the case within Christianity, or the non-Christian world?- The world where we all live. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Novella 142: Link if it has an article, I would also link Saint Patrick.
- It doesn't. Novellae Constitutiones exists, but the sentence already has Roman law and Justinian. SP linked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
sacrifices to free slaves
: Might be silly, but since this is an article about religion a reader might confuse sacrifices of one's money with animal sacrifices; maybe change to something like "used their personal resources to free slaves." Or maybe it's clear from the context.- Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Stories of racial violence over the last decades
: Can change toRacial violence during the last decades
.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Charges of abuses of technology in neo-natal intensive care units have already been leveled.
Weasel words? Since the text doesn't say who leveled these charges. I would rephrase or remove.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Manipulating the genetic code can prevent inheritable diseases and also produce, for those rich enough, designer babies "destined to be taller, faster and smarter than their classmates."
You don't need this here, since genetic engineering has its own section.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
rooted in covenant fidelity
I don't know what this means, and if you omitted it the sentence would still make sense.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
actions that can be seen as unconditionally wrong, when they are acts of maximal love toward another, become unconditionally right.
I would omit both uses of "unconditionally", doesn't seem to add meaning.- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- P. Singer: Change to Peter Singer, with link.
- Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Still, many American Christians have become polarized over these issues with a number of conservatives responding in opposition because of fear concerning the perceived threat that modern pluralism poses to their values.
Does the source really say that? In the abstract I see fears that “stewardship” of God’s creation is drifting toward neo-pagan nature worship, and from apocalyptic beliefs about “end times” that make it pointless to worry about global warming, which isn't quite the same thing. I think this sentence is an overly broad generalization, I would remove everything after "opposition".- Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Misc
- See also: Move "Buddhist ethics" under "ethics in religion."
- Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Images: all are free or tagged, no issues.
- References: The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak; I did not do a thorough source review. Only things I have for your are to italicize the title in ref #20, and decapitalize the title of refs #48 and 101. Ref #113 confused me, is it just a faculty bio?
- 103 and yes 115 was a personal reference, my friend likes to add those because he wants to know why we should care what someone says if they don't have a blue link, but I removed it. These are Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cerebellum I'm responsible for 113, I put it there to ref that Stanley K. Stowers is professor of religious studies. When I do who?-ing, I feel it's improvement to add a ref if necessary (if it's a blue-linked person I trust WP unless someone points out that I shouldn't). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- External links: Not checked, tool is down.
@Jenhawk777: Sorry for the long review :( Hope it is helpful. I will place the article on hold for now, take as long as you need to work on it before I close the review. More important to improve the article than meet an arbitrary deadline. Once again I'm humbled by the amount of effort you and other editors have put into this article. If you ever get tired of working on it perhaps it will help to reflect that it got 12,000 page views last month, probably a broader reach than the average PhD dissertation! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Cerebellum It was not an overly long review at all - it is a long article - and all your comments were relevant and valuable and definitely improved the article. There is no need to place the review on hold, as you can see, all your concerns have been met. Thank you for your kind comments. The best way to reward me is by awarding the article the status it deserves. Thank you again for doing this and for your intelligent and helpful input. I hope we run across each other again some time. You are easy to work with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: Did not expect you to work that fast! Pass. Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for your help as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Non-reviewer
- Steve Wilkins in the lead. IMO, articles like this should try to avoid mentioning/quoting modern scholars in the lead, it gives them a strange "top-dog" position. So my personal preference would be to get him out of there. Also, I get no good google-hits on him, who is he? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, here at his publisher [25], InterVarsity Press. Professor at Azusa Pacific University. Ok-ish I guess, but no Thomas Aquinas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- No, that's for sure, but I liked its summary for the context. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Suspect backwards-copy
The URLs in the {{Backwards copy}} tag above are suspect, to say the least (not to mention the "malicious" comments – what is that?); the tag should probably be removed, since the article is at GAN. Miniapolis 23:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Mini I found and added the backwards copy tags, but I did not add the malicious comment. If you look at this diff: [[26]] you will see that what I wrote was that
this is a fishing address. Click it and you get directed here: [27] Pursue, and you will get redirected to any number of different sites for book sales, streaming movies, and others that all want your credit card before allowing you to see the supposed article. Even if you sign up, you don't get the article itself because you get redirected to those other sites. This is not a genuine article.
I assume buidhe (talk · contribs) had good reason for overwriting my explanation and adding the malicious warning on 14 Feb. of this year instead. She generally has good reasons for everything she does. I suggest that if you disagree with our conclusions, that you click on those web addresses in each of the separate tags and see what you find for yourself. Then come back and tell us whether you think this backwards copy-vio tag is "suspect". Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)- Please AGF. I was trying to help you, because a malformed tag like that might affect the page's GAN. I'm glad I'm done here. Miniapolis 13:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- What was the BF? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Since you added all three spam links, I strongly suggest that you remove the tag. Miniapolis 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- The template is there to warn editors (including GA and FA folk) of potential "false positive" copyvios. In what way, shape or form are the links "the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization" in this context? Note also that WP:SPAM is about mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Miniapolis I do not for a minute doubt your good faith and I am thankful for all contributions that improve this article. I apologize if I came across as anything other than slightly confused - which I still am. I found these sites by running the copy-vio detector on this article. It said there was something like a 98% match and violation was therefore likely. I was distressed, understandably I think, since I knew I was not guilty of any copyright violation. So I investigated the sites, and found what I have already described, posting the BCV tag so anyone else who ran the copy-vio detector would know to ignore the results. Now you say the tags should be removed, and I am certainly willing to be taught by you as it seems you have more understanding of all of this than I do. I would be happy to remove them, but I have a question first: what is to prevent a reviewer, or anyone else, from running the copy-vio detector, finding that same violation, and no explanation, and immediately deleting the entire page in response? It isn't like that doesn't happen. Deletion is a legitimate response to that level of violation. I would prefer it didn't happen here, so how can I prevent possible future misunderstanding if I remove these tags? I can move buidhe (talk · contribs)'s warnings out of the date parameter and into comments and that will clean it up a little, but I am hard-pressed to see how removing the tags altogether is a good idea. As I said, I am willing to learn more about all of this, so if you can explain, that would help, and since you said you were trying to help, I hope you will take the time to work this through. Thank you, Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- The template is there to warn editors (including GA and FA folk) of potential "false positive" copyvios. In what way, shape or form are the links "the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization" in this context? Note also that WP:SPAM is about mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Please AGF. I was trying to help you, because a malformed tag like that might affect the page's GAN. I'm glad I'm done here. Miniapolis 13:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Tag for quotes etc
All quotation marks are used according to MOS standards in British style now, I'm sure. I went through the entire article. I did find about a dozen errors - out of 786 uses - and that improves the quality of this article, so thank you. I found two contractions, and removed them from the text, but there are still a couple contractions that remain within quotes and titles. I can't - cannot - do anything about those. There are no uses of quotation marks for emphasis and never were in this article. All quotation marks are around quotes from the source cited inline. All of them are quotes or references. Thank you so much to whoever contributed that! It has indeed improved the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)