Talk:Historicism (Christianity)

consolidated
what was it that you consolidated? Where did all the new information come from? I'm not complaining much, but I am curious Johnjonesjr (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found it on your contributions page. Johnjonesjr (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing POV/OR Content
Removing some sections that are heavily Seventh Day Adventist POV, unbalanced articles, original research not properly referenced. Removed section Views of the reformers because it was too top heavy on identifying the pope as the antichrist as if a point was trying to be made. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is still top heavy with Seventh-Day Adventist POV. Just because they may dominate the historist view in the modern era, they do not need to dominate this page.Jasonasosa (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed much of the SDA bias. If the one inserting it wants to broadcast their beliefs so much, do it on the SDA entry and not on the general view of historicism article, which is supposed to be free of bias. If you want to make a truly better article instead of making it an SDA advertisement, then insert the beliefs of historicists over the last (supposedly) 1900 years. If it was as widespread as is claimed, you ought to be able to find other resources to use. John L. Hinds, "commentary on Revelation" (Gospel Advocate Publishing) is one. BW Johnson's commentary on Revelation is another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.26.204 (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-topical/Unclear Relevance
Added "off-topic" tag to Anti-christ section because it contained an incoherent list of statements that do not obviously comment on Historicism, either generally or with specific examples of biblical prophecy. Additionally, the use of "anti-christ" is both inconsistent and unexplained. Even readers familiar with one of the many perspectives on the term "anti-christ" would be hard-pressed to understand each of the uses in this section. The entire article needs to be organized in a more coherent manner, but this section doesn't seem to add anything to an explanation of Historicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.10.221 (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Exceptional Claims Without Substantiation
This article makes numerous claims about Historicism or Historicism-based interpretations that construe historical events or individuals in decidedly non-mainstream ways, or appear to serve only a niche viewpoint rather than a general/global perspective. Despite the many citations, most of them do not verify, support or clarify the statements they purport to or Historicism in general. In several cases, the sources actually contradict the statements they are cited to support or other citations. For example, notes 58-60 directly controvert much of that section's claims as well as impeaching sources 53-55.

Additionally, much of the article's sources fail Wikipedia's policies for exceptional claims, neutrality, and reliability. In fact, as the above example shows, some sources (which are themselves dubious for reasons of self-publishing and having conflict-of-interests) make this same point about the poor quality of the article's citations. Lastly, some sources used with excessive repetition throughout the article (e.g. note 48) are not even proper citations nor verifiable sources.

I struggled with how to avoid tag-bombing this article's myriad problems, especially because there is a smattering of useful content and reputable sources. And while this topic is not terribly important, it does have some significance both historically and theologically is properly explicated. Therefore, I chose to make a combined tag at the top in hopes others would help clean up the many problems, rather than tag point by point and make the article unreadable. I stopped short of the "POV" tag, though I included the "unbalanced" tag because the article's neutrality and accuracy does not appear to be improving as a result of the talk page comments and editors' worthwhile efforts. Someone with better writing skills than I have should also try to reformat this article into a coherent explanation rather than clumps of barely-related trivia.


 * I have made a start on editing the article down, consistent with WP:SUMMARY. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a split, because this article seems overburdened by the detail of historicist interpretations of Revelation. That seems a valid topic of an article of its own. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The prophecies of Revelation parallel those found in Daniel. They both use the same symbolic figures.  Many symbolic figures of Revelation find their explanation in Daniel.  So, I don't think splitting the article is a good idea.  On this topic, Froom is an excellent reliable source, and you can access his books on-line (see his WP page).  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I think it is more neutral to say that "some people believe" that there are parallels between Daniel and Revelation. Why some people believe that is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. But it is not a topic identical with "historicism", is it? It is not suitable for Wikipedia to build in assumptions of that kind in its treatment of material. It seems to me that historicism as an approach to biblical prophecy, broadly treated, should be treated as one thing, and the apocalyptic strand as another.


 * Certainly, trying to edit the article suggests that its scope needs careful thought. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason why this article seems heavily weighted toward the SDA deomination is because the SDA church is the only modern church group which still holds on to the historicist interpretation system of the Protestant Reformation. So, historicism is an important topic among their scholars and they have accordingly published the most number of sources on the topic.  As historicists, their understanding the the prophecy and Daniel will of necessity be at odds with typical modern scholarship.  But, if you really want to know historicism, they know more about it than any one else.   Historicism is distinct from the Catholic Preterism and Futurism and from the more common mainstream Dispensationalism.  The article is not about which, if any or none, of the various understandings of the Bible is correct.  --RoyBurtonson (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't find that comment too neutral either. I don't think we start from the assumption that the SDA, or anyone else, is authoritative, on any contested topic. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the issues mentioned at the start of the section still exist, I have created Historicist interpretations of the Book of Revelation for the detail. Two-thirds of the article remains, as of right now. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Historicism (Christianity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906130900/http://dr-fnlee.org/docs5/john/john.html to http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/john/john.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906132335/http://dr-fnlee.org/docs/bpnpbh/bpnpbh.html to http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/bpnpbh/bpnpbh.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009070625/http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs6/antipret/antipret.html to http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs6/antipret/antipret.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604083605/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/BrugScriptural.pdf to http://wlsessays.net/files/BrugScriptural.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Uses of the TERM 'historicism'
Is this use of the TERM 'historicism' (any view of apocalyptic prophecy that sees it as synchronous with church history) the ONLY use of the TERM 'historicism' in Christendom and in interpreting Christendom's history (rather than in thinking about Biblical prophecies)? Those who may confront or return to Biblical and ecclesiastical study FROM the extra-theological teachings about the philosophy of history could, quite understandably, think differently about the nature and significance of any specific historical array of 'Christendom-oriented events' (COEs). MaynardClark (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Mankind / humankind
Re:

As I indicated in the edit summary of the 2nd diff above, the first definition of "mankind" at merriam-webster.com is: the human race : the totality of human beings. This sense of the word has nothing to do with gender. While there is a second, gender-specific definition, in my 60-year experience the first definition is far more common. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing a sentence like "Testosterone level is generally higher in mankind." If I did, I think my reaction would be: "Compared to what? Reptiles?"

Our own disambiguation page Mankind begins with the sentence: "Mankind refers to the human species, Homo sapiens, collectively." And we're not allowed to use the word in that way on other pages?

Unlike words like "chairman" and "stewardess", which are properly avoided per MOS:GNL, this sense of the word "mankind" has never been gender-specific. The human species has never been composed primarily of males. It makes little sense to eliminate all definition-1 uses of the word "mankind" because of the existence of definition 2 which is hardly ever used.

It makes even less sense to eliminate them solely because they contain the word "man". Are we going to outlaw the use of things like "manhole", "man-hour", and "man-made law"?

Therefore, in my strong opinion, definition-1 usage of "mankind" doesn't fall under MOS:GNL. This is a well-intentioned over-application of a good principle.

I am aware that "mankind" is one of the examples of words to be avoided according to Gender-neutral language. But that is an essay and it does not have community consensus (anybody can create an essay to advocate anything they want, provided it doesn't break any rules). Therefore it has no bearing on this question. See Essays for more information about essays.

Procedurally, since the article used the word "mankind" until it was changed with a MOS:GNL rationale on 17 June, I believe the consensus burden is reasonably on those who wish to change it. That being the case, I'm going to restore the word pending a consensus here.

Comments please? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * MOS:GNL states "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Your argument seems to be that "mankind" is and always has been gender-neutral. A similar claim could be made for "man" and "he", which the Wikipedia community has rejected by accepting MOS:GNL. Please revert your edit. Daask (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was probably a bit curt. However, your point about "mankind" usually being used in an inclusive sense would also apply to "man" and "he" 50 years ago. Society, including Wikipedia, has made intentional choices to change the language. Daask (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If my argument were that simple, my post would have been far shorter. Wikipedia follows changes to the language, it doesn't drive them. Even if we saw a decrease in the word "mankind", we wouldn't jump on it until it was surpassed by other words. And said decrease isn't even clear; based on this, I think reports of the word's death are greatly exaggerated. (For those who don't know, it shows that, in books on Google Books that were published between 2000 and 2008, the word "mankind" occurs at least twice as frequently as "humankind". For some reason the available data ends at 2008, but the trend at that time was clearly an increase in "mankind"'s lead, not a decrease.) Unless you can show an explicit community consensus specifically against the word "mankind", this is my story and I'm stickin' to it. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Since "humanity" has those three more-commonly-used senses, "mankind" is a more precise word for this purpose. I think most professional non-literary writers would be as precise as the language allowseven if a less precise word would be unambiguous in context to native speakers of the language. So much for the benefit of discussion; the more I discuss, the more evidence I take the time to gather, the more convinced I am that I'm right on this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, humankind is rather clumsy. People usually use humanity instead (ngram). Also, it looks to me like the ngram results, especially the uptick since 2005, are a result of reprints. Flipping through Google Books since 2005 shows virtually no contemporary use of the term. Daask (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Re your ngram (your link is wrong but I got there): According to Merriam-Webster, "humanity" has four senses and the least commonly-used sense is the one that's synonymous with "mankind". Thus your ngram line likely includes a ton of uses of the other three senses; at least we have to assume that lacking any better information. Google Books since 2005 returns three pages' worth for "humanity", the same as for "mankind".
 * Do you know why those ngrams stop at 2008? Does it take 10 years to index new content? Have they stopped indexing? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe Ngrams was made in 2008 and just hasn't been substantially updated since then. It's a research tool widely used by Wikipedia editors in these kinds of debates, but has little value to Google. Daask (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure both of our views are shaped primarily by our personal experience of these terms. Mankind strikes me as antiquated language similar to henceforth, but apparently your experience is different. I entirely agree that "Wikipedia follows changes to the language, it doesn't drive them." The challenge here is to find appropriate sources to determine the current state of English usage.

Of the three pages of results for "mankind", a quick review indicated perhaps one reliable source for contemporary use of the term; otherwise they're all reprints, history, and few WP:SPS. In turn, that book has been cited only once since its publication in 2012. Both Oxford and Merrium-Webster state that people perceive mankind to not be gender-neutral. A glance through Internet search results indicates that numerous professors are downgrading student papers for the use of mankind and this is controversial.

Contemporary style guides are unambiguous in deprecating mankind. including the National Council of Teachers of English, American Sociological Association, Associated Press Stylebook, Linguistic Society of America, Gregg Reference Manual, Microsoft, University of Chapel Hill, MIT, and rather tentatively by the American Philosophical Association. I don't have access to the Chicago Manual of Style right now, but see CMS 5.46 and 5.225. I would be glad if others wanted to keep working down the list of style guides, but frankly, I find this list already overwhelmingly convincing.

I insist that Wikipedia follow these style guides. I find your concerns about precise language to be concocted and struggle to imagine situations where mankind cannot be replaced with other wording without introducing ambiguity. Daask (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest we change venue, but it appears this has been amply discussed elsewhere. I'm rather surprised you didn't bring up the numerous prior conversations on this issue, especially the recent Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 205 which continued at Village Pump here. The consensus there, as I skim it, is that mankind should be avoided, but mass changes on this point are discouraged.


 * Additional conversations
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 28
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 92
 * I find the style guides above evidence far more significant than these long messy debates. Daask (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Style guides represent what a handful of academics would prefer the language to be. They do not represent actual usage among the population (that's the function of dictionaries). They are more prescriptive than descriptive. For that reason I strongly object to the assertion of style guides as ultimate authority in an encyclopedia that purports to follow common usage. But I also see other editors (SMcCandlish in particular) using them in arguments and succeeding at community level, so I'm prepared to call this not worth pursuing further. I'm self-reverting. Thank you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Allenroyboy socks
I had to revert multiple sock edits (WP:BE). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 03:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)