Talk:Biblical criticism

Backwards copy vio
of this article Biblical criticism

I started work on Biblical criticism in May of 2018. It went to FA review in October of 2018. Then these people copied and published it in October of 2019.

I have rewritten a lot of it now but a comparison with the November 2018 version, before my rewrites, shows this: [] Except I did not copy anything from them, they copied me--is there anything else can I do? Does anyone know? Is this sufficient? I want to take this article to FA so I am hoping this will not be a permanent problem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's common for other websites to copy from Wiki. I'm not sure if there is any policy against other websites from doing so, but this is a free encyclopedia so I doubt there's any rules on that. Jerm (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey I'm sure you're right, but it certainly causes problems for me.  The one listed above was just the first--today, I found a second site and this one I can't trace and prove it didn't exist back in 2018 when I wrote most of this. The copyvio check comes up as a violation and as far as I know the software has no way to know when it was put online. That will sink any attempt at FA unless I can prove it's a backwards violation.  I could for the first one as it was printed in a journal, but the second one is just a website with no date or author.  The copy vio monitor could come along and blank the whole thing because of it and it represents literally months of work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the pdf file via link: ajol.info/index.php/jrhr/article/view/190039/179261 shown in Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It shows "Nov. 1, 2019" on the very top of the pdf. Jerm (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you click on the url and send me that link? It looks like the one published in the Journal of Religion and Human Relations which is dated. The one that isn't dated and has no author and no home site or contact info is []. It seems to be Russian. No joke. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I used Google's cache of https://au.tichanlorsmagboa.cf/. It appeared on Sep 4, 2020 00:44:28 GMT. It looks like a personal web page. Just another example of copying and pasting from Wikipedia. Try not to lose any sleep over it. Jerm (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * OMG! OMG!!  You found it?  I have lost sleep over this!  How do I locate what you are referring to--how do I find that cache? I need to be able to put it in the backwards copy vio template so this page doesn't get blanked. Can you send me that link?  PLEASE!!!Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I click on that and all I see is the same page I have seen all day--there is no date that I can find. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Google cached is when Google takes a snapshot of the website it last visited for historical use just in case that website goes down. It does not give the date of when the website went online, but if you typed up Biblical criticism then it really isn't hard to figure out as to where a website with no author and date got its content from. Jerm (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I found this video. This will solve the mystery (I hope). You need a PC. I can't because I use Mac. Jerm (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's late and I have been stressed out about this all day, and perhaps I am not thinking too clearly. Be patient with me. You said  and I am wondering where and how you found that, because nothing I looked at said so, and honestly some evidence of that is exactly what I need.  If I can locate that with a url of any kind, that is all I need. I can Google biblical criticism and get lots of options, including mine here, but as far as I can see that doesn't actually prove anything. I need something beyond supposition for Dianna. I couldn't understand the YouTube video--why do I need Javascript?  I don't have a PC I have an Apple computer. I don't see any mystery solved yet.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Click here, next to the website link is a grey arrow, click it as it should say "Cached". That's the time and date I got. There's nothing more I can do, Happy editing & cheers. Jerm (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am so relieved I could weep. I can't tell you how grateful I am for this. Thank you thank you thank you. I have copied the url and will put it above.  Please consider me a friend forever, and if you ever need anything at all, if I can help I will very much want to do so. A thousand blessings!!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Endorsed backwards copyvio statement. As I posted at Diannaa's talk (should have thought to put it here to begin with), I am of the same opinion as PaleoNeonate. From what I could see without allowing scripts, au.tichanlorsmagboa.cf is a junk spam ad website that copies random text from anywhere to make it look legitimate to automated tools. The facts that it's at the top level of that subdomain (with no other pages under it), that there are a bunch of other subdomains of tichanlorsmagboa.cf that are similar with text that is copied from other (mostly junk) sites, the .cf domain being a well-known home of phishing sites, interspersed odd bullet lists that include the word "coupon" a lot, etc. all contribute to that. It was no surprise that I can't find an archive of the page. I would delete a cite to that site if I saw it, and wouldn't even consider it as a copyvio hit. As regards the Google cache of the page, all that proves is that it existed on that date (2020-09-04), which doesn't really help, though as I said, it doesn't need to. It will be nice in another few years (I hope) when this model of getting people to click a thousand times a day on junk fails as the masses get smarter about it. Thanks for being diligent on this matter. We'd have a lot less chaff among the wheat if more people were so. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 23:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you For all your help and the lovely compliment. I copied part of this and put it in the comments in the template. I hope that's okay. Hopefully it will pass muster and not interfere when I get brave enough to put the article back under the FA microscope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the explanation on tichanlorsmagboa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Be bold
Be bold: make a total re-write. Begin with the structure: surely the first section should define what biblical criticism is; history can come later. And further on history: biblical criticism did not begin with the 18th century, as this article says, it began with Jewish rabbis considering such thorny questions as how Moses could have written of his own death - that was c.500 AD at least. And why is the search for the historical Jesus split into three? And contemporary developments don't break down into Catholic and other confessions. This big. Achar Sva (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you are interested in the topic and the article, but nothing you have suggested is actually valid. The structure follows WP standards . Biblical criticism is defined in the first sentence of the lead, it does not require an entire section. In articles like this, beginning with history is pretty standard as well.
 * Biblical criticism as it is defined in the lead sentence did in fact begin with the Enlightenment. It isn't that there was no criticism before, but it was criticism of another type. It's considered pre-critical or anti-critical as it did not have that scientific "neutral" basis in reason.  It was still rooted in belief.
 * The historical Jesus is split into the historical periods in which the different quests occurred. If you had read it you would know that. Reading first is usually considered a minimum requirement before commenting on an article.
 * Contemporary responses do break down into those others who had not previously participated in biblical criticism as defined.
 * It isn't enough to claim uh uh if you disagree with something here on WP, you must come with valid quality sources that say what you claim. WP is not an opinion platform.  I guarantee everything in this article represents the latest scholarship on this topic.  Unless you can bring sources that say otherwise, this article remains as it is.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly disagree, I just see room for improvement. For example, the entire lead is unsourced, which weakens the definition given there. Still, since you evidently feel ownership for this, I'll move on.Achar Sva (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Leads are always unsourced because the sources are in the body. The lead is just a summary of what is in the rest of the article. I am always open to valid suggestions for improvement, and by valid I mean backed by good sources and following WP guidelines. I believe in the value of collaboration -- that it actually does make improvements.  See above.  Again, if you have good sources and your suggestions are consistent with WP guidelines, I will incorporate them. I am committed to this encyclopedia being the best. So far these suggestions are not improvements, but that doesn't mean your next ones won't be, so please, improve away, but be sure you can back up all you say.
 * You sound like someone relatively new to WP who is sincere and interested but not quite down with all the details yet. That was me not very long ago as well. Welcome. It's a steep learning curve at first, but it gets easier. If I can help, I am happy to do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Leads aren't always unsourced - in fact they usually are sourced. The lead is supposed to summarise information from the body of the article, but this article has nothing on definition of the topic, which means the first sentence of the lead is unsourced. Achar Sva (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, I went and checked to see if you were correct, because if you were right, it would need correcting. Keeping in mind that leads summarize, the first section of the article contains this sentence: and this one  and this one  and this one  and finally this one . These are all found in the first history section. The first sentence of the lead is a fair summary of the ideas contained in them, and as such is not unsourced.
 * Brittanica defines BC as "discipline that studies textual, compositional, and historical questions surrounding the Old and New Testaments."
 * Oxford bibliographies says "The term “biblical criticism” refers to the process of establishing the plain meaning of biblical texts and of assessing their historical accuracy."
 * The lead to this article incorporates those concepts, yet also reflects the sources' specificity more completely.
 * Lead sections are usually unsourced but not always, you're correct. Refs are distracting in the lead section when things are explained in the body in greater detail and the references are laid out more completely. That's why so many of us write the lead last. I often enjoy writing an "introduction" because it helps me focus on main points, but then I go back and delete it and replace it with a proper lead.  This article has a good lead Achar, and a good definition--though we could probably shorten it if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Those aren't really adequate definitions. But I've just noticed some more fundamental problems (just two of them): number one, the article has no bibliography section; and number two, the sourcing format isn't adequate. For the first, I suggest you go to an article like Book of Daniel (chosen more or less at random, but it's a good example) and see how it uses citations+bibliography under the general section called References; for the first, I suggest you use sfn format (the format used in that article). The great advantage of sfn, and similar systems, is that it allows you to provide the reader with a link to the book you're referencing, even a specific page reference.
 * Back to the defintions, the best one there is the one from Britannica, but I'd be very chary of using Britannica as a source - it's no longer a genuine encyclopedia, just another open-source platform like Wikipedia. Achar Sva (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm about done here. What you are referring to are |short short citations which generates a bibliography because the bibliography is the only place full citations can be found. This section says   Consistency is what matters, and this article has a consistent style using full inline citations which you will please note that  says is  No bibliography section is needed or generated because the full citation--with page numbers--is available at each place it is used.
 * I'm sorry you think that five scholars don't provide an adequate definition, but I can't agree. Brittanica's definition is inadequate, but is still encompassed by the definition here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article needs a bibliography, and it needs links to the books. And you can't use people writing three centuries ago as your definitions.Achar Sva (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Prove it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation spot-check
I've looked at 20 citations, more or less at random, from the first two top-level sections of the article. I may sample some from the contemporary developments section tomorrow, but I found enough faults in the citations that I checked to cause concern. My results so far:


 * Citation 2: ✓
 * Citation 5b: ✓
 * Citation 18: The source shows that "lower" is falling into disuse, but not that "higher" is (I've seen the latter term on occasion, unlike the former).
 * Citation 12: Seems to be pages 239–240 rather than 259–260.
 * Citation 20: ✓
 * Citation 25: ✓
 * Citation 35: Although the cited text supports the importance of Schweitzer's work, it doesn't say that it "prov[ed] to most of that scholarly world that Jesus' teachings and actions were determined by his eschatological outlook". And I'm not sure what "finished the pursuit of the apocalyptic Jesus" means.
 * Citations 18d and 36: The cited pages mention neither Bultmann nor the kerygma. Page 450 of McKim, the first page of its entry on Bultmann, mentions Barth's influence upon Bultmann and seems like it might go on to support what you say here, but I can't see pages 451 to 453 in the Google Books preview, so I can't tell if it does so.
 * Citation 18e: ✓
 * Citation 64c: ✓
 * Citation 68: ✓
 * Citation 74: ✓
 * Citation 84: The citation supports the text, but the source seems to use "Newer Documentary Hypothesis" to mean Wellhausen's original hypothesis, which is a strange usage I've never seen anywhere else (and a potentially confusing one, given that it's not used elsewhere in the article).
 * Citation 90: ✓
 * Citation 93: ✓
 * Citation 100b: ✓
 * Citation 105c: ✓
 * Citation 116e: Page range should be 8–9, not just 8.
 * Citation 118: I can't find this quotation in the book.
 * Citation 125: ✓

A. Parrot (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You are amazingly wonderful and the fact that I am swearing in my head right now is in no way your fault!  I will fix these - and anything else you find questionable. Thank you thank you thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We are having some kind of disconnect on citation 12. The pages listed are 13-15. I don't know what "239-240" refers to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * #35 was sourced to "Soulenfourth" - the fourth edition of their handbook of Biblical criticism - but I removed it because I could get no page numbers except by going to Amazon and using the paperback edition. Then I left the content, which I shouldn't have, so I have now put it back in again. It is the paperback, and the page numbers don't line up with the other references to the same book. Is that going to be okay?
 * On 84 I added "Newer Documentary thesis" to the sentence beginning "Later scholars..." so hopefully that is clearer. It is actually in one of the Notes. If this isn't enough, I can add more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dagnabbit! 118 is on page 79 not 80.
 * ✅ I was hoping you would find nothing, but at least these are small enough they were quickly and easily dealt with. Two of them were composition issues too. I am ashamed!  No excuse for that!  Thank you and thank you some more!  Will you look at more, or should I assume that whatever we find during the FAC will be as easily dealt with and go ahead and nominate? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Is more coming or are have you done all you can for now? Do you know what happened with reference 12? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agh, I'm sorry I didn't get around to this earlier. Regarding Citation 12, I should have specified Citation 12c. Pages 12–13 support 12a and 12b, but 12c doesn't have page numbers next to the ref in the body text. I checked pages 259 and 260 because they're listed in the citation template itself, but those pages say nothing about Reimarus's ideas about the resurrection. Pages 239–240 discuss it, though, which is why I suggested using those pages instead. So 12c needs to have 239–240 added to the citation in the body text, and 259 and 260 need to be removed from the citation template.


 * Now that you've started the FAC, I suppose I'll do any further spot-checking there. A. Parrot (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's okay! I thought you had left, so I went ahead, but we can still fix things, right?  I'm not doomed am I?  I fixed those page numbers--thank you thank you!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Marie-Joseph Lagrange.jpg

Father of Biblical criticism
Anyone who thinks decorating the Eighteenth century section with his image is a bad idea? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång Afraid so. Both Buidhe and Sandy Georgia supported the removal of images that were just pictures of people, and when others asked about replacing some of those images, restated their opposition. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. If I feel strongly about it, I can always ignore them after the FA is done ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hah hah!! I always did like your attitude!  It's no doubt why we are friends.  Irreverence is a good thing! :-) Things are stalling at FA again.  IDK.  I am becoming blasé. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite understandable, there's a discussion about it in my talkpage archive... from August 2018. No matter what, WP:s readers have benefitted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, is there a specific word for a wall-ornament like that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia
Jen, I present here some ideas that I hope will a) make for a more pleasant FAC experience, while also b) making for an improved reading experience. None of this is required by WP:WIAFA, so feel free to take this on board or not, but I hope it worthy of discussion among other collaborators. There are three different factors here contributing to a dense read, while at the same time, possibly discouraging reviewers from engaging. Any one of those three factors alone would not necessarily be problematic, but the three of them together add up to an off-putting overall effect: 1) the rp referencing system chosen, 2) the parenthetical insertions of birth and death years, and 3) the length overall of the article. On the first, as I understand it, the use of {{ rp templates for pages was something you got stuck with it, not necessarily as a matter of choice. It is an odious and ugly referencing system (that's an opinion :)  Stand-alone, it wouldn't be so bad, but when combined with the birth-death dates and overall length, it adds unnecessary clutter that distracts from the article content.  If you should decide, in collaboration and developing consensus among other reviewers, to ditch that system, now is the time!   On the parenthetical birth-death dates, I hope you can contemplate re-visiting the need for them as they just detract from the article content, and add very little in most cases. With very few exceptions, the section in which content is covered, or the context from the writing around it, give us an idea of when the person (generally a biblical scholar) lived, and we don't benefit from this minutiae here. In the few instances where it is not clear if the scholar was modern or historical, a brief explanation like ... 18th-century scholar ... could be added. But it strikes me that in most cases, the era is clear enough from the context given, and the parenthetical dates are just adding clutter. The third factor is length. It is ALWAYS hard to get reviewers for long articles -- even more so with a tough topic. Many reviewers disagree with WP:SIZE recommendations on when to split, arguing that there isn't a natural place to split, but this article offers the perfect opportunity for you to have two FAs instead of one. If you spin off History to its own article, that will be about a 4,000 word article. And it would be easier to review. And it would present you the chance to have a first FAC that would be likely to quickly succeed, while you work on the other (main) article-- that is, the parts except History. That would then be a much more manageable article, and I think you could end up with two FAs, two more pleasant experiences, reviewers more likely to engage, and readers more likely to take on the entire article, as it won't take an hour to read. You then use summary style to summarize the History back to the main article in about three paragraphs. I strongly believe that splitting the article in two will benefit not only you, in terms of the FAC experience, but will also produce something more engaging for our readers. And I think if you focus on this, get the other collaborators in here, work first on the shorter, History of ... article ... you will soon have the first FA, and a better experience, followed shortly by the tougher main article as an FA. {{pb}} I suggest at least running these ideas by Gerda, Axl, Mike Christie, and maybe even Ovinus would find time to engage if they could engage first a shorter History article. I won't have a lot of time to engage, because I am working to get Peer review going again and older FAs reviewed, but feel free to ask me anything anytime. Good luck and best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)

Note from A. Parrot
I agree with all three of Sandy's suggestions. When I'm reviewing, I'm leery of pushing my stylistic preferences onto the nominator, but now that I have an FAC heavy hitter to hide behind, I will say that parenthetical dates aren't ideal and that citations are intrusive when reading and inconvenient when spot-checking. Unfortunately, the FAC coincided with a period where I felt unable to concentrate on major tasks beyond my day job—I'm very sorry about that—but I don't expect such a slump any time soon, and a "history of…" article would be a much less daunting prospect to review. A. Parrot (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've no objections to citations; I don't use them myself but as a reader they seem OK to me, and I would hate to see Jen expend a lot of energy (and it would be a lot of energy) in changing them without a good reason.  Re the dates: I asked about that at the FAC and Jen's comment was that it helps the reader to position them in time.  It does do that, and it would require the text to be expanded to give the reader the same context, so I decided it was OK.  I can see the arguments for and against them and would be OK with either keeping or removing them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I switched the referencing at dementia with Lewy bodies mid-FAC, and I did not already have the page numbers (I had to look up every one of them), yet the work was done in a day ... considerably more work than would be needed here, as DLB is a densely cited article, and Jen already has the page nos. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * SandyGeorgia A. Parrot I have read through this twice now, and for someone who speed reads (skims) as much material as I do daily, that says something. None of it matters now though. It's been closed, and I can't do more. This was my second try at this, I have spent months of my life, literally months and months writing and rewriting this article, look at the combined time for me, this time, and the first time at FAc, I have poured my heart into this, only to be disappointed yet again. I should have known this would break my heart, again, but I naively thought all I had to do was fix those references and all would be well. I am clearly not cut out for this. I've met some wonderful people, learned a lot, and gotten some really touching comments.  Ovinus reminded me of what this article was when I first got it: "I can only imagine how much thinking, writing, and research went into biblical criticism, from this to its current state. It's amazing... in my months here I haven't seen such an article risen like a phoenix from stubby (maybe Start-class) ashes. You say that the reviewing editors restored some faith in this place; your work has reinforced my faith too. Thank you."  I've given Wikipedia my best, but it wasn't good enough, and I see no evidence that will ever change. I'm sorry. You have all been great. As Sandy says, Best wishes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note from Gerda
Just brief notes because I'm behind with article writing which is my focus:
 * 1) I use reference pages per template rp only when dealing with pdfs where I can't link to the precise page, to give someone searching for verification an idea. Otherwise, compare referencing in Vespro della Beata Vergine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) About the years of birth and death, I fully agree with SandyGeorgia and said so in the FAC. If we need to say when someone wrote something, it's better to give that year precisely, rather than when he or she lived.
 * 3) I'd be reluctant to divide the article, because the later section relies heavily on the history, and it might be tricky for a reader to switch back and forth between two. Having said that, from an editor's point of view, it might be practical to split, and get History to FAC status much more easily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In reply to your comment just above, Jen: that breaks my heart, and I also could say you should have known it would, but I won't. Our hearts are one thing, and articles are a different thing. I have left articles behind into which I put some of my heart, two this year, - it's possible. Articles deserve care, but not love ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Biblical exegesis
ServB1 I have restored the original version of the article from which you deleted the lead. You attempted to move this to Biblical exegesis and that too was reverted and I agree with Gerda that was a mistake. This is not an article that is specifically about exegesis. Exegesis is what Biblical criticism does. Exegesis is the method by which Biblical criticism is accomplished. Any time anyone attempts to understand what someone else has said they are engaging in exegesis - not in Biblical criticism. Exegesis refers to the actual practice, procedures and methods; hermeneutics is concerned with the process; and the broad topic of Biblical criticism has been the overarching guiding principle for all of it. (A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament. Stanley E. Porter. 1997. Brill. p.6)

If you object to these reverts, please come here and make your argument for your desired changes - with references. Please do not edit war. I am willing to cooperate with anything that improves the article but not with something that mis-categorizes its actual content. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Skewed translations
There are several variants of the New Testament that have errors, additions, changes, and skewed translations. Some of these different translations have been used as evidence for doctrinal differences. Maybe we could add something about this since it is such a large criticism? Corawinkelman (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Corawinkelman It's an interesting idea, and it might possibly fit under textual criticism if you could summarize the problems in a short paragraph. Good luck and happy editing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about Biblical criticism, not Criticism of the Bible. Editor2020 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have made some stylistic changes to the introductory section
Hello all,

This is just to say that I have made some stylistic changes to the sections regarding the influence of Protestant and rationalist scholarship, and the emergence of the historicity of Jesus as a major research area.

I’ve tried to keep the meaning intact, while structuring things a little more neatly.

For example, I’ve tried to make it a bit clearer where the various influences we link to are Protestant or rationalist in nature, and to clarify that these traditions are distinct from one another, but not necessarily opposed.

Feel free to offer feedback, or simply dive in and fix whatever mistakes I have made in doing so.

Foxmilder (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Focusing just on the style, you have made substantial improvements.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for this feedback — I haven't edited anything this substantial before, so it's very helpful to hear from other editors as to whether or not a given set of edits actually improves the page. Foxmilder (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)