Talk:Holy Father

NPOV Article.
How do you propose on having an NPOV article about "Holy Father"?

I would like the article to include John 17:11 to show the first usage.


 * John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].

I would like the article to include the origin of the rcc's pope title.


 * The origin of the Roman Catholic title according to http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0038.html was "born" during the Investiture Controversy.


 * The qualifier “holy” underlines the spiritual dimension of this fatherhood exercised in the name of God; and we have already said that it does not imply a moral judgment on the person of the Pope. The expression “Holy Father” was born in the time of the controversy over lay investiture, and it seemed normal that in its becoming common usage in the acts of the chancery, the Roman Curia had then wished to underscore the spiritual and supernatural level of the mission of the Pope by adding the adjective “holy” — to defend implicitly the superiority of papal power over imperial power.

John 17:11 Holy?
Does anyone know if Holy in John 17:11 means Holy or Holiest or Most Holy or Holy of all Holy?

Stub created for undeletion review.
A stub created for undeletion review. Please leave the stub article alone.

The Greek word in John 17:11 is HAGIOS which simply means Holy. When refering to the Father it can only be the purest form of the word. Holy Father is clearly God's name according to God Himself, if you believe in the Trinity. Jesus who is God made this statement calling His Father, HOLY FATHER. For any human to take God's name is bewildering. It can also be noted that the Holy Father or GOD has a son. This also means that any "deity" or human leader who does not have a son cannot be one and the same as the God of New Testament Christianity.

--76.3.18.70 08:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of AfD I believe.
From the Deletion Review:
 * Tony Sidaway: "If you want to try producing an article, give it a go, but you'll probably find that there is a strong consensus to maintain it as a redirect. No point int talking about it here as it isn't a deletion case and any problems there may be in this case can be solved without any use of administrator powers"

TCC, I believe this article is out of AfD now. Please, explain what you don't like about the article and why you would want a redirect now. --jeolmeun 05:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Out of AfD" -- I don't think you understand the process. AfD is supposed to determine a disposition for the article; the consensus reached there is not intended to exist only for the duration of the discussion, so what you mean by "out of AfD" I cannot determine.


 * What I don't like about it is that any such attempt to critique Papal use of the title will inevitably degenerate into the kind of POV theological essay that was here before. Even your relatively (although not totally) neutral text is starting off in that direction. The subject furthermore isn't really worthy of an article. If the Papal title really did arise from the Investiture Controversy then that's the place to say so; an additional article focusing on this particular title is not and cannot IMO be useful.


 * I wouldn't mind a dab page to God the Father and Pope, if only it would stay that way and not degenerate into the kind of thing I mentioned above that would make it eligible for an AfD discussion again. (Not "Father of the Messiah", which is non-NPOV in about three different ways.) I also wouldn't mind if there was a general article on the Pope's incredible array of titles and their origins -- this page could then become a redirect to that. But the kind of POV pushing that was here before and is here currently simply isn't acceptable by Wikipedia standards. (Yes, the POV is toned down a bit, but it's still fairly blatant. Since it's your POV you're probably having trouble seeing it. Just cut everything below the dab tag, change "Father of the Messiah" to "God the Father", and I'll stop making noise about it.)


 * This is all independent of whether or not I share your opinion about the Pope. As it happens I do. Wikipedia policy is the issue. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And by the way: When Tony said this was "not a deletion case", that meant the disposition from the AfD was not "Delete", and that therefore DRV was not the place for the discussion since no admin had to take any action. The decision was "Redirect", and that still stands. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanations. I prefer to type "Father of the Messiah" because I think "Father of the Messiah" is NPOV. Some believers, like some Sacred Name Believers, prefer not to use the words like "the LORD", "God", "Jesus", "Christ", or "Christian" to describe or name their beliefs. I believe Christians have no problem with use of "Father of the Messiah". I would be interested to know what POV you think I might be pushing. --jeolmeun 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You believe this article may head towards a POV article, but redirecting to the rcc's pope article isn't a solution. Can you tell us how redirecting to the rcc's pope is not POV or biased towards the rcc? If you feel there is something POV, please discuss it and give us reasons with a suggestion to make it NPOV. --jeolmeun 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If I add in the Investiture Controversy article that the title was born during that time period, would you not feel it would be POV? --jeolmeun 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is useful IMO at least as useful as Jean-Claude Perisset thought his catholiceducation.org article is useful. This may not seem like an important subject to you, but redirecting because you don't find use would be like you pushing your POV that the subject is not useful. --jeolmeun 06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please be sensitive to other beliefs. If you are offended by something please give an explanation.


 * The redirect was discussed in the AfD, and this has not expired as you seem to think. It's you who should discuss the issue before replacing content. It's an important subject to me only because I've gotten involved. It wasn't before. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've typed what I would like in the article and responded to your claims of non-NPOV, but you haven't responded to what I said yet. You also keep saying the redirect didn't expire, but I would like to direct your attention to the DRV. --jeolmeun 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I already addressed that above. You have misunderstood what Tony was telling you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You mentioned you think, "Father of the Messiah", is pushing a POV, and I responded with how "Father of the Messiah" isn't a pushing POV and I ask you how or what makes "Father of the Messiah" biased or pushing a POV and you haven't responded. Besides that, you have a speculation that the article "will inevitably degenerate into the kind of POV theological essay" which is just that, speculation. Please, respond. --jeolmeun 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't respond to this earlier because it's what debaters call "off point", that is, it had little to do with the issue at hand. However, I'm feeling loquacious at the moment.


 * "Father of the Messiah" is POV in three ways. First, since the interpretation is explicitly based on John 17:11 where Jesus says "Holy Father", it presupposes that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Second, it presupposes that God is Jesus' father in the sense that Christians understand it and not in the more general paternal sense as regards God which is by no means limited to Christians. Third, it imposes a reading of that passage whereby "Holy Father" becomes one of God the Father's formal titles -- where it appears only once in the entire Bible -- rather than a description or epithet germane to the context where it was spoken.


 * Father of the Messiah is the POV of the John 17:11 and the rest of the Book. According to the Book, the person praying is the Messiah and the person is praying to the person's Father calling the person's Father, Holy Father. If someone didn't think the person of the Book isn't the Messiah, they probably would ignore the reference to the Book and the verse John 17:11. Would you rather I type instead, "The Father of the person praying in John 17:11 of which is of the Book that also views the person as the Messiah"? --jeolmeun 03:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The rcc and you may not consider "Holy Father" the formal title for the Father of the Messiah, but that would be your and the rcc's POV. There are people that consider the Father of the Messiah the Holy Father enough to write hymns and studies. --jeolmeun 03:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Holy Father http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/20020704.htm

HOLY FATHER, BLESS US http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/f/hfblessu.htm

HOLY FATHER, CHEER OUR WAY http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/f/hfathcow.htm

HOLY FATHER, GOD ALMIGHTY http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/o/holyfath.htm

HOLY FATHER, GREAT CREATOR http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/f/hfgreatc.htm

HOLY FATHER, HEAR MY CRY http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/o/holyfhmc.htm

HOLY FATHER, IN THY MERCY http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/f/hftmercy.htm

HOLY FATHER, THOU HAST GIVEN http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/f/hfthgivn.htm

For the Dear Ones Parted from Us http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/f/d/fdearone.htm

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord (Cullinan) http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/o/holylord.htm

Father, Who Dost Thy Children Feed http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/f/w/d/fwdtcfee.htm

Father, We Praise Thee http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/f/a/fathwepr.htm

Holy God, We Praise Thy Name http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/o/holygod.htm

O HOLY FATHER, WHO IN TENDER LOVE http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/h/f/ohfwitlo.htm

Wake the Song http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/w/a/wakesong.htm

Blest Creator of the Light http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/c/bcreator.htm

Why is the Pope called the Holy Father? http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/Why_is_the_Pope_called_the_Holy_Father

Jesus revealed the Holy Father http://www.abcog.org/holy.htm


 * Now, I happen to agree with this POV. That doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia.


 * Do you agree that Holy Father is the formal title of the Father of the Messiah? --jeolmeun 03:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between this POV and the POV undoubtedly reflected in the phrase "Holy Father" as applied to the Pope is that in this case it's extremely common usage, and as something someone is likely to look up is almost certainly the sense intended.


 * According to the cia, religions in the usa are "Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)", I wouldn't consider 24% an extremely common usage. Articles are not just for the "extremely common" usage and just for what someone intends to find. If they were, that would be non-NPOV. --jeolmeun 03:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As for what I say the article will become, that's not speculation. It's a description of what was here before the AfD. It may not appear that way at first, but the fact is that what first drew my attention to this article is that the phrase "Holy Father" in Pope kept getting wiki'ed here over repeated reversions.  In that context it was obviously intended to present the argument that Papal use of it as a title was inappropriate, and it otherwise contributed no information. In other words, it was a clear attempt at a POV push. Past experience says that a repeat is nearly inevitable. It's obviously undesireable in terms of Wikipedia's puropse and policies, yet it seemed to bother none of the article's editors until the AfD happened. Plainly no one was otherwise interested in fixing it.  That turns, in my view, "nearly inevitable" into "certainly inevitable".


 * Naturally, I'm reverting. I would support a dab page as I outlined earlier for the reasons given, but I strongly feel that further discussion in the article would not be appropriate. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, please don't vandalise my talk page with sarcastic templates. It accomplishes nothing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You think that's vandalising that's your POV and I thought you vandalise by redirecting. --jeolmeun 03:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's not "my POV". That's a deliberate misuse of the template. You plainly don't understand what is meant by WP:NPOV and I don't up to explaining it to you. I'd like you to make a good faith effort to try, though. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversies section.
I would also like to add a controversies section like the Social and religious controversies section in Evolution. Some people believe the rcc use of the title for their pope is controversial. --jeolmeun 03:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki article history section
I would like to add a section or a new article for the history of this Wiki article.
 * We don't do that kind of thing around here. See WP:ASR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hymns section
I would like to add a hymnal section like that of the Popular culture / Music section of the article for YHWH.
 * Why are you talking about this stuff here, where it's not relevant? Go to Talk:Tetragrammaton or Talk:Evolution and mention it there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the Hymnal section would contain a list of hymns that contain Holy Father as part of their title or lyrics. --jeolmeun 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you're asking about an addition to a different article entirely. This page is for discussion of Holy Father not Tetragrammaton. Try it and see what happens. Or discuss it first if you want to test the waters and see what kind of reaction you get. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I misunderstood you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway
What do you think Tony Sidaway meant by, "If you want to try producing an article, give it a go,"? I don't think that means to keep it a redirect. --jeolmeun 03:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That means to try it and see what happens. It's not so much authorization as a restatement of WP:BOLD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And why would he state that if not to tell me try producing an article which is what I'm doing, but you are reverting? --jeolmeun 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the breaks. I told you why I don't think the content you want here is appropriate, and others concur. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you edit the content you have a problem with instead of redirecting? --jeolmeun 03:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to change Father of the Messiah to something you believe is NPOV go for it. --jeolmeun 03:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I already explained what I would find acceptable, and you've rejected it. Whether or not my proposed content is acceptable would be up to anyone keeping an eye on this article since the AfD. In default of that, I adhere to the consensus already reached. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've rejected redirection. What else did I reject? You want a dab page now? What would make you not want just a dab page? Please, show me here how you plan on making the dab page and articles for separate articles. I tried to make the article, The Holy Father, but I guess the The isn't liked, so what would you name the article instead? --jeolmeun 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation page?
I don't see why we would need a disambiguation page. The article for God has separate sections for different POVs of God, like Binitarianism and God as Unity or Trinity. --jeolmeun 04:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * God the Father pretty much covers everything that ought to be covered here, even if the section on Christianity could use a bit of expansion. This therefore ought to disambiguate God the Father and Pope, if a dab page is to be. added: You say this title was concocted during the Investiture Controversy. If that's the case (and if you have sources) then it ought to be mentioned there, and the dab page could also point to that with a brief explanatory note. I don't think the title itself, or any controversies over it, deserve their own article. For reasons I already gave, I think it would degenerate into an argument in the body of the article itself and we can't have that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Where would you put the Hymns section? --jeolmeun 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't you? --jeolmeun 04:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep asking me substantially the same question? I'd support a plain, unadorned dab page. Period. I already explained why. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't want the hymn section in this article, which article would you put the section in? --jeolmeun 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If the evolution article, isn't degenerate right now, I think this article will be ok as long as we keep checking the article. Where else could I write an article about the controversial title the rcc pope uses? --jeolmeun 04:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this article and the other articles can't both contain the same information. For example, it seems you the concoction of the title to only be in the Investiture Controversy and not here. I think it could be in both places. Same with the hymns, controversies, and other sections. The evolution has a section about the controversies and the controversies probably have their own article too. --jeolmeun 04:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

God the Father
The article God the Father has content for both God the Father in polytheistic religions, God the Father in monotheism, and God the Father in Christianity. How is having the rcc's title and the Holy Father in the same article any different? The God the Father isn't dab'd up like you want here. --jeolmeun 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there is little evidence there of editors with a bone to pick, as the anon who linked this from Pope plainly had. At the time the link was made, Holy Father looked like this.


 * My memory seems to have failed me. I thought I remembered de-linking that phrase and seeing it pop back up again, but I see that didn't really happen. Perhaps I previewed it and forgot to save repeatedly; I do that from time to time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that anonymous editor was me and I think I see to what you objected. Hopefully we can move on now that you know I have toned down the article and now that we are cooperating. Thank you. --jeolmeun 04:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

God the Father incorrectly includes god as father in religions other than Christianity, and I have addressed that in the talk page of that article. "God the Father", those three words put together as such, is a specific theological term in Christianity only. Other religions may call their god "father" or one of their gods "father", but they do not use the terminology "God the Father", which is specific to Christianity. I propose that the redirect be cleared up to say
 * Holy Father may refer to:
 * God the Father, a term for God in Christianity. (Dealing with that specific Christian theological concept.)
 * God as father, in many religions and traditions. (Dealing with the general concept in many religious traditions.)
 * The Pope, the leader of the Catholic Church
 * The Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the head of that church

Chrisgaffrey (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with an external link?
Amherst5282, is there a reason for removing an external link to Why is the Pope called the Holy Father?? --jeolmeun 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if there is a better source providing an explanation, we should use it instead of that. That page is a wiki in itself with anyone from anywhere providing their answers, so it doesn't provide the kind of information we really want in a reference (if that's what it is intended as).  Links such as the following may be more appropriate: Holy See,.

Yes: the link is to an unauthoritative website, a bulletin board with people posting their personal opinions, not to an authority -- whether the Catholic Encyclopedia or the Oxford English Dictionary or the History of Western Civilization or what have you. The link sounds like it provides a definitive answer to a specific question, but the entries are all "i like it" and "I don't" types.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amherst5282"



Again, Out of AfD, I believe.
TCC, what do you think of the following comment from DRV? Seems like he's saying that previous AfD doesn't matter now. "*Comment This isn't a matter for discussion here. Nothing was deleted. Everything is still in the history. It was turned into a dab by regular editing and it can be restored, recreated in a different form, turned back into a dab, etc. by regular editing. No sysop intervention is needed and there is nothing to discuss here. It would be extremely unwise to re-create this in anything resembling its previous without discussing it at Talk:Holy Father and gaining consensus for the change, and it would be considerate to invite people who participated in the AfD discussion to participate in that discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)"

No, I was just saying that since the article was not deleted, DRV was not the appropriate forum for discussing the content. The AfD did, however, indicate a strong consensus that the content of the article, at the time it was nominated, was opinionated and invalid. AfD only decide whether or not entire articles should be deleted. They also express relevant but non-binding opinions the content of an article that is kept. More at User_talk:dpbsmith.

I do strongly feel that the burden is on anyone who wants the article to be more than a dab to get consensus for the content before trying to insert it, if the content is even vaguely similar to the content nominated for AfD, and I believe Csernica's reverts at this time are fully justified, since consensus for any new content hasn't been achieved. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the hymns and the external links sections are "even vaguely similar to the content nominated for AfD" and would like to add them to the article. --jeolmeun 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed not, but it's difficult to see what the purpose of them might be. See WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Lacking context provided by any content that is vaguely similar to that which was removed, this is nothing more than one of the lists that are not desireable content according to policy. Reverting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

dab page
I have stripped out all the superfluous info from this dab page, just leaving that required for navigation. Abtract (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Constant Reverts
I have notified all of the IP addresses involved, and so far, not one of them has listened. There has been no discussion surrounding why they continuously revert edits—it's been several months now. I suspect that it's vandalism, but even if they don't see it as that, the onus is on them to explain why they ignore Wikipedia Policy—especially since I have already explained to them on their talk pages that it is against Wikipedia policy to constantly revert edits without reasoning, or to continuously make major changes without discussing (see WP:neutrality). At this point, these edits are identified as Vandalism. ~ Troy (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. I think that I should let you know about the fact that the Coptic Pope was called "Pope" before it was even known by the Roman See. In fact, the Vatican probably didn't use the term until centuries after Pope ("Papa" in Coptic, meaning "Father") Heracleus used the title by a means of respect (elder Archbishop of Alexandria, Alexandria being among the four ancient patriarchs—the other ones are Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome). ~ Troy (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To those IP's who made recent edits, I apologize if you feel insulted by anything I said, but I still think you should avoid edit warring. ~ Troy (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Notice that I said "but I still think you should avoid edit warring". You still do not have a reason to deliberately remove contents of any articles without a valid reason. ~ Troy (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

...I reiterate that statement—edits such as those are disruptive and can be identified as vandalism. ~ Troy (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)