Talk:Clarity of scripture

Article purpose
I've added this article in order to aid my development of the Biblical literalism article, which itself is currently pretty poor. This article is probably a better description of the Biblical literalist position than that article, and, combined with several others, could probably replace it, although the Biblical literalist article should probably be retained as a summary of the term as a pejorative.NZUlysses (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

POV
I'm well aware this page is blatantly POV...it's copied straight out of the evangelical theology wiki theopedia.com. However it is relevant on wikipedia as it is one important aspect of evangelical theology and will fit in usefully with existing articles on Christian theology. Help will be appreciated to change this article to fit wikipedia's NPOV requirements! Keep in mind, as you edit, that this describes the doctrine of clarity of scripture. A 'criticisms' section will be relevant but it won't be necessary to discuss, for instance, a whole range of views about exactly how scripture should be understood.NZUlysses (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It would seem that if it is blatently POV, then it automatically violates policy here. I'm not sure it can ever be NPOV, by the nature of the topic.  Regardless, the AFD is the place to discuss it now.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it can be NPOV, as can articles on any other aspect of theology (see, to pick a random example, Calvinism). However, I don't think importing a wholly unsuitable article from theopedia.com is the best way to plug the gap in Wikipedia; as written, the vast majority of the article exists to argue a point rather than to inform in an impartial way. I suggest it needs to be rewritten fairly drastically fairly quickly or, probably just as well, stubbing down to a basic definition and then building up based on what reliable sources, rather than theopedia, say about the subject. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, from what I can see, theopedia.com is not exactly an objective 3rd party, which means they are not a reliable source (via the reliable sources policy here). They don't even have an article here.   A quick search of google news shows ONE news hit for the title "theopedia.com" so technically, anything that is from there doesn't really mean anything, as the website isn't itself notable (via WP:N).  It appears to be a new website that is pushing a particular brand of christianity.  My suggestion would be to not use much from there.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 00:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't require authors of articles (including authors of Theopedia) to be third parties; by definition they are not "third parties". WP:RS only requires citations in articles to link to reliable sources. The article never cites Theopedia.  It seems to me that many of the citations in the article are reliable authorities on evangelical Christian theology, the topic in question. NZUlysses (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a policy on editors being 3rd party WP:COI, however, I didn't say anything about editors. I was saying something about the SOURCE of the article, which isn't a 3rd party, via wp:rs.  Also, as far as I can see, Theopedia is not affiliated with Wikipedia in any way, so what they require is meaningless here.  It is just another Wiki, like tens of thousands of others. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, Theopedia is not a *source* of the article except that theopedia editors are the real authors of the article. The notice at the bottom of the article is an attribution, required for public domain text reproduced on wikipedia from elsewhere.  The article cites published works by Arminius, Luther, and Louis Berkhof, and a paper by Western Seminary faculty, as its sources of information.  Do these sources not fit the requirements of WP:RS? NZUlysses (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Iain, although the article could be a 'little' more impartial, it may appear to be non-NPOV to you because it is discussing an idea, namely, the Clarity of scripture, which is not universally accepted. But an idea doesn't have to be accepted by anyone to have an entry on wikipedia - for instance, articles exist on religions (and their theology) which no-one follows anymore.  It does need to be made slightly more NPOV but mainly to discuss the criticisms of the doctrine and to make clear that it's not accepted truth, only a perspective of a particular group of people. NZUlysses (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis
This article quotes from a lot of primary sources and makes comparisons that are original research because the comparisons do not come from any secondary sources. —Chris Capoccia T&#8260;C 15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)