Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical literalism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. As for verifiability concerns, there seem to many reliable sources about this topic, even if they argue against it / say it's a hoax, that doesn't mean this is an unverifiable topic that should be deleted regardless of consensus. So, defaults to keep, though obviously the article needs work and consensus could be established on the talk page to merge/redirect somewhere. W.marsh 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Biblical literalism

The reasons for nominating this article for deletion are primarily OR and POV. OR - There is no such thing as a reputable citable "Biblical literalist", it's an invented term. POV - the purpose of the arguments presented in the article seem to be written to poke fun at or proove points against certain beliefs the author sees as related to BL. Other reasons - Unscholarly, un encyclopedic, POV fork from previous pages, previous attempts at discussing the issue on thetalk page failed. This should be deleted and BL should be pointed to Biblical hermeneutics for a scholarly article on interpretation. --DjSamwise 22:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Also.. anyone who's opinion is that there ARE Biblical Literalists.. I challenge you, find a reliable source for a definition. If there are no reliable sources for a definition of the term then what do we do? Thanks. --DjSamwise 19:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Please note my name has been formally changed by the kindly Wikicrats to Home Computer. Thanks. --Home Computer 22:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's where we stand so far.. in all of our discussion, and from allof google, we've been able to have people pull up many citations from people against BI (per the straw man argument), one has demonstrated a Christian organization refering to themselves as literalists but only in regards to Genesis and with no definition. (it's likely they are inerrencists working with a different def of literalism). And we have one source of a historical usage of the word with no text.. This leaves us with no notable, refrenceable, citable definition of the word literalism other than from those who use the straw man definition that literally no one has owned up to. If our examination into the notable teachers on the subject reveals no additional insight..where do we go from there? Peace. and thanks for input. --Home Computer 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article has problems; more attention should be paid to the origins of Biblical literalism, and to what claims they make, instead of arguments for or against it as a hermeneutic. But the subject seems worthwhile, the text I read does contain references (cast as unwieldy external links), and this text is not useless to someone who wants to improve it. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no biblical literalists. It's an invented term. that's the problem with it. --DjSamwise 21:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you had read my references that you deleted, you would know that's not true; if you had read YOUR references, you would know that's not true. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead.. here's the place. Give us some good reliable sources for the definition of Biblical Literalism. --Home Computer 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, with the notation that this vote is coming from somebody who is not a follower of this school of thought. I may not agree with it, but it is no less important as far as any Judeo-Christian faith is concerned despite its inherent controversy. --Dennisthe2 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

again, there is no school or theologian that teaches Biblical Literalism. Check out the sources, they are all Bible quotes. Not a single reputable citation --DjSamwise 21:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There were four non-Biblical references... before you deleted them. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please show us reliable sources for the definition of Biblical Literalism. --Home Computer 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep POV problems, however a real phenomenem (and notability asserted). JASpencer 21:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete See above for reasons. --DjSamwise 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I see where the nom's issue is, there are no citations or evidence that Biblical Literalism is a distinct school of thought from the concept of Biblical inerrancy, which is the thesis sentence of the entire article. 'My' problem is I can't say whether this a Delete or a Cleanup/Needs Citations issue, as I have no idea if this sprung from the mind of one author or is simply a badly verified article. I'd say we need an expert to look at this -Markeer 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

close. :) Inerrency = what the author was relaying is without error. If an author tells a parable as such, the meaning of the parable is factually true not the historical facts of the characters involved. The assertation of the literalism article is that literalists do not believe in parables. Jesus taught in and explained the meaning of his own parables. There is no such thing as a person who believes the Bible and does not believe parables. And certainly there is no reputable doctrine or teaching as such. --DjSamwise 22:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article (as I left it) had never mentioned parables at all. This omission would have been an easy fix. Literalists believe Jesus spoke in parables because the Bible tells them so. This is an explicit exception stated in one of the references that you deleted. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait.. so your definition of is that literalists don't necesarily believe parables, analogies and such are literal anymore? So how is it different from inerrency? And more importantly.. what notable resource are you copying this from? --Home Computer 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Biblical inerrancy. Arbusto 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, gut and totally rewrite. Biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy are two fundamentally different things. Batmanand | Talk 10:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Whitewash or Delete The article was originally prod'ed on 29 August 2006. I deproded because I believed both that biblical literalism was a real, incorrect hermeneutic and that the article was repairable. I still think biblical literalism is a real hermeeutic. I no longer believe the current draft is repairable or helpful. Evidence from the talk page is that this may have started as a POV fork from biblical inerrancy, where the section on biblical literalism (now gone) had its own problem with a lack of a neutral point of view. Multiple editors have been expanding the OR bilbical exegesis, and declining to listen to multiple other editors that have been trying to educate them on the talk page that biblical exegesis with citations directly to scripture does not constitute what is expected as an article. I believe their intentions are good, but that they don't yet adequately understand the Wikipedia standards, and dramatic action is needed to demonstrate that the standards are real. This dramatic action could be by whitewashing or deleting. A whitewash needs to totally replace the content with a stub adhering to our policies. An example is what happened here [1] as a result of this AFD discussion. GRBerry 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that what passes for evidence. Those were accusations. I clearly stated why I created this spin-off. Batmanand from above and the previous vote results shows that I do not stand alone against this specific accusation. Well, I agree the inerrancy section had POV problems, but curiously nobody thought to edit it until I synchronized this article with that section. At that point, either Home Computer or DjSamwise began deleting that section every time I synchronized it. Are you again attempting to claim that Biblical references are off limits for me? We covered this in the article's discussion page, and the defense I presented there was the opinion of a Wikipedia administrator. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete From my personal experience with this article and the editor who WP:OWNs it, it was created as a POV fork of biblical inerrancy. I tried to explain that, under guidelines, we should only create a spinout article if we have more content than can fit reasonably in the parent article, not (as it turned out) to combat the poor treatement of literalism in the inerrancy article. I suggested we focus our energies in improving the inerrancy article before creating a spinout. Next, the format of the article is clearly not encyclopedic with the use of bulleted lists and sentence fragments. Third, the main editor doesn't understand the difference between citing the bible and the original reseach of interpreting the bible. If someone believes the bible literally, don't cite specific verses, cite the individuals who hold these views. If someone believes there are contradictions in the bible, don't posit these controadictions ourselves, but instead cite this interpretation. Finally, I asked on the talk page for the main editor to name a single person who is a bible literalist. And I asked, if this person existed, why they weren't cited as a source. The response was "Luther", who isn't mentioned as a literalist or inerrant in his article. I am truly skeptical on whether this position even exists. After working on this article, I do not believe it is salvageable. If relaiable sources are ever found, we could add some content over at biblical inerrancy, but I strongly suggest returning this article back to a redirect to that article due to original reseach, formatting, sourcing, verifiability and possible hoax issues.--Andrew c 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I never said I owned it, but I did take pride in its clarity. You inserted unreferenced assertions, unnecessary qualifiers, and confounding POV jargon. We discussed this at great length. I would have welcomed referenced assertions, or clarifying NPOV qualifiers. Recently, it seems that anything goes; so now is your big chance! POV fork again? We voted on this already -- see my above comments. DixiePixie already covered the bulleted list subject in the article's discussion page. I dislike sentence fragments; when you find them, you have my "official" premission to correct them. Are you again attempting to claim that Biblical references are off limits to me alone? We covered this in the article's discussion page, and the defense I presented there was not only the opinion of a Wikipedia administrator, but yours as well! --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rework or Delete - It is unclear if anyone holds the point of view described in the article. Rather, it seems like a POV stereotype of certain individuals biblical theology. --Tbook 19:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is severe need of cleanup but the topic is a real hermeneutic and should be discussed in an encyclopedic way. --69.236.160.1 Richard 06:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

May I ask for a reliable refference to this hermeneutic? or your view of this hermeneutic? I'm quite familliar with the stances of conservatice seminaries and not one I've ever heard of holds to "biblical literalism" because it denies the existence of parables.. which Jesus claimed to teach in. --DjSamwise 13:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs serious reworking, but I disagree with the nom that there are no such things as Biblical literalists. - Lex 00:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbeiter seems skilled at defending his edits, but we should still recognize this article as worthless. Wikipedia articles should never make mainstream Christians uncomfortable. Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral and WP:Civil. DjSamwise's revisions are even worse. There are plenty of Biblical literalists. Repeatedly claiming they don't exist doesn't make it true. And because the Bible explicitly states Jesus spoke in parables, literalists recognize the parables of Jesus as such. DjSamwise's version offers misrepresentations of references and misrepresentations of terms (AKA "straw man" terms). DjSamwise even includes references conflicting his own thesis. It would be better if both versions simply disappeared. --Millstone 10:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not presenting a thesis. Yes my edits for this article are bad, the article is bad. The term Literalist is a slanderous term used by certain people to proove a point. In other versions and discussions Arbeiter (NOT ME) came up with the parable point that you are refuting, that they (literalists) disagree with the Bible's parables. (trees of the fields clapping thier hands?) His original argument was that it's stupid to believe treeswould grow hands, and literalists believed the literal version of that therefore literalists are stupid. How is that not a strawman argument that he presented? NO ONE believes that, though that's what the article said. So I changed the article to call it what it was.--DjSamwise 18:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Not presenting a thesis?!? Then I guess you would not be offended if I said your edits were utterly pointless, inane, and haphazard. And what? We can agree on some things after all. Who is trying to "proove" a point? I represented both sides to of the argument to the best of my abilities, and it seemed the arguments drew to a stalemate. This is what initially captivated my interest in the subject. The article (as I left it) had never mentioned parables at all. This omission would have been an easy fix. Literalists believe Jesus spoke in parables because the Bible tells them so. This is an explicit exception stated in one of the references that you deleted. Lawrencemykytiuk is the user who inserted the "trees of the field shall clap their hands" quote and comments. I moved it into the article only as part of the synchronization process between this article and the inerrancy section. I completely agree it was inappropriate, but thank Lawrencemykytiuk, not me. And don't take credit for changing it either. That was me, just three edits after the initial synchronization, and weeks before your first "contribution" to the article. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK ok, you are king of the article, you wrote the whole thing. But that's the problem, please stop giving us your opinion and show some reliable notable definition of literalism. --Home Computer 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please educate us as to which citable, reputable school, church or theologian teaches the doctrine of Literalism. People keep claiming they exist. Out of 1000 entries on google I see 2 pro literaist sites and they are not taking the whole bible literal, just certain sections which doesn't fit the definition of biblical literalism that the 998 others use. So help me here, if you've got some secret resource, please share. --DjSamwise 18:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that I am "skilled at defending" my edits. "Worthless" is a bit harsh, and a little too vague to counter or consider constructive criticism. Sometimes ideas just make people uncomfortable; it's a strain on the brain. This is unavoidable; you can't make everybody happy. Oh. You were not talking about making everybody comfortable -- just mainstream Christians. In that case, I disagree completely; this attitude lacks the neutrality you just proposed. As for being neutral myself, I covered this above. I have maintained high levels of civility in the articles, but in these discussion pages, it is difficult to swallow my sarcasm when I feel the arguments are disingenuous or recycled endlessly. Amen. Amen. Amen. HALLELUJAH. I had mistakenly thought people would naturally understand this point. This omission could have been easily fixed and did not warrant wholesale deletions. Misrepresented references?!? I did not bother cross-checking them until now, but I see it now. That's the cardinal sin in my book. "The force is strong in this one." Millstone, you're on my good side now, despite insulting my beautiful contributions. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A few people who are voting keep are saying that biblical literalism exists. I am really curious if anyone can cite a reliable source that defines this position. I'm curious if anyone can name prominent members of the biblical literalism movement. It appears, after working no this article and trying to research this topic myself, that biblical literalism is a strawman argument that is a hyperbole of biblical inerrancy. If I am mistaken, prove me wrong with sources. If not, I don't see why we just can't cover all of this in the biblical inerrany article.--Andrew c 03:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

An advanced Google Scholar search shows adequate evidence that the phrase is used in scholarly research, although often it seems to be used by researchers in fields other than religious studies. (I don't have JSTOR access to review the bulk of the results.) It is measured in several of the studies [2] and [3] (abstracts), sometimes in a binary fashion page 6 PDF, sometimes on a scale [4] (abstract). It certainly was formerly a hermeneutic as shown by this page from Google Books stating that it was going out of favor in the 18^th century. The Institute for Creation Research has stated its adherance to it page 2 PDF. Of course, my opinion above was based on the belief that the hermeneutic is real but the article should go away. This research indicates that we may need a different article primarily explaining the use of the phrase in general social science research. GRBerry 21:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

wow, thanks for the link to that classic work. That may be the one. The others, particularly the Creation Research one, it's "Biblical Literalism" doesn't fit the same definition. They apply the Literalism only to Genesis. They don't claim not to believe in parables or hyperboles. They only claim that Genesis is not a parable. That's different than not believing the Bilbe contains them. In the scholarly definition, they fit the inerrency camp. Peace. --Home Computer 21:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

also.. that's like 2 pages out of how many thousand of instances of the word? :) just saying.. --Home Computer 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

DjSamwise? Is that you? Is there some reason you are contributing to the same discussion page under multiple user names? Even though your split personality has yet to vote, it creates a false sense of contribution from multiple individuals. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't a voting system. Wiki is not a democracy. There are rules, such as notabillity, citation, POV, etc that everyone has to follow. This deletion page is a discussion to come to a concensus on the page. Votes don't count or even out. We are all given the task of figuring out TOGETHER whether or not the article is inherrently a POV or OR article. --Home Computer 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Although GRBerry might be one, you don't have to be an advanced Google Scholar to find references to Biblical literalists. Using Google, I found (and skimmed through) 4 such references in 30 minutes. However, I refuse to contribute them to this mock version of the Biblical literalism article. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP It's real and exists.--Freddulany 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note This was user's 11th edit to Wikipedia. Please see freddulany (talk · contribs) for evidence. Suspected sock puppetry. Stubbleboy 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Was edit history your only evidence for this suspected mud slinging? If so, did you check all the user's histories, or just those who voted differently than you? Don't worry! I did it for you. Millstone had even fewer edits. Their votes wash out, and so there is no reason to bite the newbies. Welcome! I value your input, and hope your experience at Wikipedia will be better than mine. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Care to enter the discussion (like with a source) or is this just a hit and run? --Home Computer 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, this has major POV problems. Stubbleboy 13:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment by the previous article's main contributer. I don't know if this group is voting on the article as it exists or on the one to which I had contributed. I no longer feel compelled to defend this article, because this current version was written specifically to convince people to delete it. Home Computer and his thinly veiled sockpuppet (DjSamwise) should have chosen one path or the other: make controversial contributions or petitiion to delete -- not both simultaneously. This type of dubious behavior seems to be quite prevalent on Wikipedia. After my short break, I documented a disturbing trend. To various main articles within Wikipedia, I have contributed nearly 7000 words; 8.6% of them remain today. To various main articles within Wikipedia, I have contributed 157 Biblical references supporting my statements; 0.0% of them remain today. To various main articles within Wikipedia, I have contributed 35 non-Biblical references supporting my statements; 2 remain today. (I have listed these separately, because Andrew c believes the Bible is not an acceptable reference if used by me.) My supported concepts vanished along with their references -- sometimes replaced by completely opposite concepts without references. I had hoped my edits would benefit from either support or intelligent opposition. (I am always especially pleased when someone changes my perspective.) Instead, I have defended my edits from vandalism and attempts to usurp, obscure, or delete my concepts. This is nothing but a waste of time -- a waste of life. I will soon abandon Wikipedia to its devoted censors and vandals. Let them make what they will of it. There are better places to exchange ideas. --Arbeiter 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, this discussion took place during a name change (check and see). Regarding your over 150 refferences, I checked and double chekced your refferences, as I wrote on your talk page, your personal Biblical research doesn't count as citation. your ideas are interesing but Wiki isn't the palce to document your ideas. I'm sorry. Now I agere, the newly edited version is crap. But at least its well cited crap. Peace--Home Computer 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Biblical inerrancy. I don't think there's anything here that can be salvaged. As the article states, there's no notable interpretation of the bible that supports this view. This can be reduced to a sentence describing the difference between inerrancy and literalism, but the inerrancy article already lays out pretty clearly the major views on how literally the bible is read. —ptk✰fgs 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The topic is a source of much controversy today and is thus relevant. However, the article needs rewritten for the reasons Smerdis of Tlön suggested. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Question for ya, whats your opinion on lack of citeable definition? What if the only concensus on definition was for the same as inerrency. Would you support a merge? --Home Computer 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding "Biblical literalism" referred to taking the Bible literally, a position supported by some Christian groups (i.e. gotquestions.org). However, as you point out, the article does not have a lucid definition to cite. The article (as well as its references) also seems to be vituperative of those who would support the position as well. If the only concensus on the definition was the same as inerrency, I would support the merge with Biblical inerrancy, a much better written article. I hope I've answered your questions! With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep clearly notable concept though the article could use come work. "Biblical literalism" -wikipedia get 93,900 hits, Google News gives "Biblical literalism" 16 hits, and Google Scholar gives 820 hits. Agne 10:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Read the links those searches generate -- they're either saying that "no one believes this" or they're using it in passing as a straw man. We're talking about an interpretation of the bible that's not supported as notable by secondary sources, except to say it doesn't exist. This is why it needs to be reduced to a sentence (or less) and redirected to Biblical inerrancy. —ptk✰fgs 13:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

please see update on top for summary.. "where do we go?" --Home Computer 14:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.