Talk:Immersion baptism/Archive 5

Simplify the article?
Dbachmann has done excellent work in removing the quarreling about the various meanings and usages of words in Greek and English. Shouldn't someone (maybe Dbachmann himself) continue his work on the rest of the article? Isn't it enough for the article to state the views that exist on what constitutes immersion baptism and on whether that mode of baptism is the one Christians should use? Do we really need to turn the article largely into a discussion on whether one view is the correct one and the others wrong?

(And isn't it even more ridiculous to turn the article largely into a discussion on whether one view is the correct one and others mere fringe theories?) Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment is particularly ironic given that you not only started but insisted on, and pursued for months, the arguments over the meanings of Greek and English words. Furthermore, it was also you who insisted on arguing that one particular mode of baptism was the normative mode. You even claimed that this had been established by archaeology. When your claims were investigated, all of them fell one by one and you were demonstrated to have relied on outdated sources, sources which were not WP:RS, and sources you had blatantly misrepresented. If you disagree with WP:FRINGE and the fact that the policy requires us to treat WP:FRINGE views differently to the majority view, then I suggest you complain on the appropriate noticeboard.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of ever having argued that any particular interpretation of "immersion baptism" was the correct interpretation and think I have only defended some interpretations from the charge of being incorrect. I am unaware of ever having argued that any particular mode was normative for Christians in general and think I have only spoken of total immersion as normative for some denominations that have arisen in the last half-millennium and of partial immersion as normative for the Armenian Baptist sect.  But let it pass that, as you claim, I argued that one particular mode of baptism was the normative mode and that this had been established by archaeology.  Is it not time now to remove from the article all such arguments, regardless of their author, that some particular mode is normative or the only correct one?  Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote. I did not say you claimed "any particular interpretation of "immersion baptism" was the correct interpretation". I said you insisted on arguing that one particular mode of baptism was the normative mode. No it is certainly not time to remove from the article all such arguments, regardless of their author, that some particular mode was normative, since that is the majority view. No one here has ever claimed any view is normative or "the only correct one" in the entire Christian community. You are once more misleadingly changing the subject.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So the proposal to simplify is rejected and someone insists on keeping in the article terms like "scholarly" and "typical" and "fringe" . Pity.  Esoglou (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I haven't objected to dab's edits in the least.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bravo! But why not extend them to the rest of the article?  Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need to. The edits you want are POV. Why would I want to introduce POV edits?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is the insertion of these unsourced open judgements ("standard", "scholarly", "sectarian", "fringe") that is infecting the article with POV edits. To continue to work of Dbachmann, these should be removed.  Esoglou (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He didn't remove them, so you can hardly be continuing his work by removing them. You haven't yet cited a single relevant Wikipolicy, and you haven't addressed the fact that WP:FRINGE and WP:RS allow such references. The only reason why you want these references removed is so you can continue to push your POV. Nearly every single edit you have made in this article has been an attempt to minimize the significance of the scholarly consensus (even to the point of repeatedly misrepresenting sources, truncating and splicing quotations), and over-represent your own POV on baptism.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE and WP:RS do not allow insertion into the article of unsourced judgements like "fringe". You have been told: "WP policy tells us as editors to look out for the quality of sources when editing, but it does not tell us to publish our opinions about this in WP itself and make the article say which sources are better or worse. Policy actually suggests that to pass OPEN judgement on a source we should find another source to do so."  Esoglou (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But I'm not inserting my unsourced judgments, remember? And I haven't entered a single word which says which sources are better or worse. Not one word.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Esoglou that information regarding the relative quality of sources should itself be sourced. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So do I, but no such statements have been included in the article. There are no statements indicating that source X is of better or worse quality than source Y. He is simply misrepresenting the fats.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

More misrepresented sources

 * "One book on designing reserves "immersion baptism" for a form in which the head of the person, but not the whole body, is dipped in water. Books that adopt this usage include Architecture in Communion... The Architectural Setting of Baptism... Christianity in Roman Britain to A.D. 500."


 * 1) "The Architectural Setting of Baptism..." does not say this; it says " immersion, when the head is dipped with or without the candidate standing in the water"
 * 2) "Christianity in Roman Britain to A.D. 500" does not say this; it says " Immersion; where the head, as the prime seat of Man's rational and spiritual being, is in some way submerged, with or without the candidate having to stand in the same container of water"

If the candidate is standing in water and the candidate's head is dipped in the water, then it is clear that more than the head has been dipped in water; the person is already standing in water.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest edit
I have made an extensive revision to the disputed section which all will agree is a vast improvement. Not only have I represented all sources accurately, I have also identified the majority view with a WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Maxwell Johnson's minority opinion
"A minority opinion expressed by Maxwell Johnson is that 'we do not know enough about specific baptismal practices within the various New Testament communities to suggest that one mode of baptismal administration was normatively practiced over another.'"

Esoglou, please present your evidence that Johnson's view as expressed here is not a minority opinion.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems I must repeat: WP:BURDEN. Esoglou (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the person claiming this is not a minority view, so the burden is yours. I have already demonstrated what the majority views is:

"Five professional archaeological studies carried out in the last twenty five years which are cited widely and regularly in the relevant scholarly literature (Sanford La Sor, 1987; Lothar Heiser, 1986; Jean-Charles Picard, 1989; Malka Ben Pechat, 1989; Everett Ferguson, 2009 ), agree on the same conclusions on the archaeological and literary evidence. On the basis of archaeological and textual evidence, Sanford La Sor (1987), considers it likely that the archaeological evidence favours total immersion. Lothar Heiser (1986), likewise understands the literary and pictorial evidence to indicate total immersion. Jean-Charles Picard (1989), reaches the same conclusion, and so does Malka Ben Pechat (1989). The latest comprehensive survey of previous studies and examination of the archaeological and literary evidence in combination, a study by Everett Ferguson (2009), confirms the findings of La Sor, Heiser, Picard, and Pechat. The same view is found in various reference works commenting on early church practice. A recent Bible encyclopedia speaks of the 'consensus of scholarly opinion' that the baptismal practice of John the Baptist and the apostles was by immersion. Another encyclopedia notes that the preference of the Early Church was total immersion in a stream or the sea or, if these were not available, in a fountain or bath-sized tank, and a standard Bible dictionary says that baptism was normally by immersion. Among other sources, Old says that immersion (though not the only form), was normally used, Grimes says 'There is little doubt that early Christian baptism was adult baptism by immersion.', Howard Marshall says that immersion was the general rule, but affusion and even sprinkling were also practiced, since 'archaeological evidence supports the view that in some areas Christian baptism was administered by affusion'. His presentation of this view has been described by Porter and Cross as 'a compelling argument'. Laurie Guy says immersion was probably the norm, but that at various times and places full immersion, partial immersion and affusion were probably in use. Tischler says that total immersion seems to have been most commonly used. Stander and Louw argue that immersion was the prevailing practice of the Early Church."--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN refers to statements in Wikipedia articles, does it not? And to verification within Wikipedia articles, not just on Talk pages.  Esoglou (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of people like the first of those you have (again) quoted, who are less than definitive about what was the actual practice and who merely "think it likely that ..." Esoglou (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two sources say "probably"; the majority view is well established. Please address the issue. Where is your evidence that Johnson's opinion is not a minority view?--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The defintion and applicability of WP:BURDEN is not being disputed; I am simply pointing out that I have more than met my burden, whereas you have not met yours. Please address the issue. Where is your evidence that Johnson's opinion is not a minority view? Your most recent edit, "In the opinion of Maxwell Johnson, an opinion not shared by most of the other sources" does not express the same idea as mine. You clearly wish to avoid informing the reader that Johnson's is a minority position. In fact it is a fringe position. Why do you not want readers to know this?--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the text has been changed, we can let this rest. Esoglou (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Refusal to provide valid verification for claim
Instead of citing sources to verify his claims, Taiwan boi has simply reverted, removing the tags. Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out more than once, the claim is yours. You claim the statement fails, you need to prove it. See my previous comment:

"Any evidence yet for your belief that 'to plunge, to dip, or to immerse' is a reference to affusion? Any evidence that in the source in question, 'to plunge, to dip, or to immerse' is a reference to anything but submersion? Unless you can prove otherwise, it is correct to understand the source in question as using the words 'to plunge, to dip, or to immerse' with their normative meanings, the same meanings used by the other sources cited. Evidence please.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)"--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the fringe view you keep pushing, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is both WP:NOTE and not WP:FRINGE. That is your burden not mine. Not only did I have to correct your mis-citation of one of your own sources, you failed completely to note that the source you were quoting is a commentary on Eastern Orthodox influences on the Anglican Church, written by an Anglican. This is another example of you just not reading your own sources. You cite as a source for a view which is a "submersion-less" view of the word "immersion", a source which states explicitly "whereby part of the candidate's body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder". This is not "submersion-less". Furthermore, you cite in the "Scholarly references" section "Charles Thomas, Steven J. Schloeder, Peter C. Bower, and Tony Meakin", despite the fact that these do not all qualify as "scholarly reference sources". Bower's is the Anglican Book of Common Worship, Meakin is an Anglican church dictionary of liturgical terms, and Schloeder is a commentary on the liturgical meaning of architecture to the Anglican Church. None of these are "scholarly reference sources" in the sense used in this section.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By submersion I meant, in this context, as I thought was clear, submersion of the whole body, not just of the head or the feet. But in response to your objection, I will of course clarify it by making explicit what was not as clear as I thought.  As for the peacock term "scholarly sources", it does not depend on a single editor, you, to classify sources as meriting that qualification or as falling short of it.  Just give a verifiable account of how authoritative the sources are, as the Wikipedia rule book recommends.  That is what I tried to do with Hegoumen Gregory, but you removed what I wrote and again called him an Anglican.  Restoring the correct information about him can wait.  Esoglou (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "scholarly reference sources" is not a peacock term and has nothing to do with how I classify works. It is a term used for works published by relevant scholarship, which are for use specifically as references; these include subject dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, and other standard reference works. Please see WP:RS. We have been through this all before. You are blatantly misrepresenting sources. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer is not a "scholarly reference source".--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is: In a Wikipedia article, can a single editor decide to grant to some works and refuse to others also written by scholars the laudatory description "scholarly", without citing a reliable source to support his opinion? Esoglou (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the question is whether or not we should follow Wiki policy, namely "Scholarship" and "Reliable sources"). Wiki policy tells us how to identify scholarly reference sources. This is not a personal judgment.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The two links you give seem to lead to rules about classification as "reliable sources", not about classification as "scholarly reference sources". In view of what they say, why have you thought that the University of California Press, Ignatius Press, Geneva Press, and Canterbury Press, publishers of the works of Thomas, Schloeder, Bower and Meakin to which you are objecting, are not respected publishing houses? WP:SOURCES says that "reliable sources include books published by respected publishing houses".  Esoglou (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Read them again please, noting that identiifcation of what is "scholarly" is under discussion, not "scholarly reference sources"; "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable", "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes", "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". I have never said that the publishing houses to which you refer are not "respected publishing houses". You are misrepresenting what I havee said. Please address what I have said. Of the publishing houses you list, only the University of California Press even qualifies as an academic press. The others do not; three of them are presses owned by church organizations to promote the beliefs of their own faith community.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The degree of scholarship is debatable, both for those you dignify with the title and those you want to exclude. One editor's opinion is not enough.  The trouble is with excluding from the article, on the pretext of not being "scholarly" (which is nowhere given as a condition for inclusion in Wikipedia), sources that are clearly, in Wikipedia terms, reliable sources.  Esoglou (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have already pointed out, your accusation is completely false. I am not excluding from the article any sources on the grounds that they are not "scholarly", nor have I ever claimed that Wikipedia only limits reliable sources to those which are "scholarly". Stauffer, Meakin, Davies, Thomas, Schloeder, the ODCC, and Bower are already included in the article. When you claim I am excluding them from the article on the basis that they are not "scholarly", you are not telling the truth; they are already in the article. Why are you not telling the truth?--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What claim am I putting in the article? I am only questioning a claim that someone else (you) want to put in the article.  Esoglou (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote please. You claim a particular source fails, so prove it. You claim a particular view belongs in the article as WP:NOTE and not WP:FRINGE, so prove it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What you have actually inserted I have marked with a citation tag. Do the same to whatever I have inserted, or, if it is not yet inserted, quote what I am trying to insert.  Esoglou (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you marked with a citation tag. What you have claimed, you must prove. So prove it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only what is put in the articles needs proving on Wikipedia. Please prove what you have put in the article and has been questioned.  Otherwise, according to Wikipedia rules, it may be removed.  Esoglou (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, citation tags need to be proved. You have made the claim, so you must prove it. To date you have been unable to explain why you placed the tag, or provide any evidence justifying it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree and say that you are mistaken. See WP:ONUS.  So what grounds have you for continuing to refuse to provide valid verification for the claim that are making?  (That, after all, is the heading of this section.)   Esoglou (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS does not say that when you place a citation tag the onus is on me to disprove it. The onus is on you to explain why you have placed the tag. To date you have not done this, nor provided any evidence for your claim. I have already provided evidence for the claim I have made, and you have not yet addressed this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have clearly explained why I placed the tag: the citation does not say what it is quoted for. If you want the citation to stay in the article, the onus is on you to show that it does state what it is quoted for, namely, that it is not just about immersion, as it might seem to be, but is instead about a particular form of immersion, the form that involves the whole body, not head or feet alone, the form that is also called submersion.  Esoglou (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See discussion at the end of this page, I have already demonstrated that the onus is on you to prove that the ciation uses an unusual definition of "immersion".--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the text has been changed, we can let this rest. Esoglou (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fringe view
This is what a majority view looks like:

"Standard Bible dictionaries differentiate between immersion, affusion, and aspersion as modes of baptism.    Baptism by immersion is typically understood as submersion by scholarly sources commenting on Jewish and Christian baptism,        and is differentiated from pouring water over the head of a baptismal candidate standing in water,  or not standing in water"

See all the scholarly references in agreement? This is what a fringe view looks like:

"A fringe view that goes beyond accepting that immersion can be either total or partial (a distinction that is not in dispute), differentiates immersion from submersion, as well as from affusion, applying the term 'immersion' exclusively to forms of baptism that consist of submerging only the head, but not the whole body, in water, or of placing someone partially in water and pouring water over the rest of the person's body."

See that? One reference. See the difference in the number of sources here? That's how we differentiate between what is fringe and what isn't. See WP:FRINGE.--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice that, in what Taiwan boi gives as an example of what he calls a fringe view, he has omitted nearly all the sources that support that view, including one by a member of an Oxford University faculty who states that it is a view held by "many writers".
 * A view can be a minority view without being a fringe view. The views that Taiwan boi wishes Wikipedia to declare to be mere fringe theories are the views of serious scholars.  A view upheld by a source such as the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is no fringe theory.  Besides, claims in Wikipedia that something is a "fringe view" requires more than a single editor's Original-Research-based opinion.  That is why I think Taiwan boi is required to produce objective evidence for the claim that he has inserted in the article that three statements in it are only "fringe views".  Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As usual you are not addressing what I wrote. If you look at the article you will see that I quoted in full the section comparing like resources with like; comparing "Standard Bible dictionaries" with standard Bible dictionaries. That is how WP:FRINGE tells us we know which views are fringe. So other works cited in the article are naturally not included here, since they are not "Standard Bible dictionaries". It is not in dispute that the view I have identified as fringe is the view of "serious scholars", but your claim that just because it is cited in the ODD means it cannot be a fringe theory is simply wrong. Look up WP:FRINGE. I have already provided objective evidence for the claim that the view is WP:FRINGE; look at the sources I have cited here, and then look at the single source you have been able to provide. You have been completely unable to find an equivalent number of sources. You haven't even found more than one. That's one reason why we know it's WP:FRINGE. Please read WP:FRINGE. Remember that I have provided my evidence, and that in order to demonstrate this view is not WP:FRINGE you must show its acceptance in the broader scholarly community. So let's see it. Go to [{WP:FRINGE]], then go and do your homework.--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell me, which item in "the sources (you) have cited here" describes as a fringe view (not just a minority view) that upheld by the ODCC and other reliable sources - and also (since this other view too seems to covered by your "fringe view" declaration) the view held by various reliable sources that immersion baptism can mean dipping the head alone. Or are you just employing synthesis and original research?  Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please address what I wrote. I never said that any of these sources describes it as a fringe view. I have already provided objective evidence for the claim that the view is WP:FRINGE; look at the sources I have cited here, and then look at the single source you have been able to provide. You have been completely unable to find an equivalent number of sources. You haven't even found more than one. That's one reason why we know it's WP:FRINGE. Please read WP:FRINGE. Remember that I have provided my evidence, and that in order to demonstrate this view is not WP:FRINGE you must show its acceptance in the broader scholarly community. So let's see it. Go to [{WP:FRINGE]], then go and do your homework.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:FRINGE does not require me to cite any sources (either in the article or on Talk), stating explicitly that a few is fringe, and permits the use of descriptions such as "There are extreme academic views" and "most other specialists in the field reject this view".--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are far more than one reliable sources for the view that "immersion baptism" is a reference to partial immersion. What gave you the idea there was only one?  See, apart from the ODCC, John Gordon Davies, The Architectural Setting of Baptism. Barrie and Rockliff 1962. p. 23;  this, p. 204; this, p. 113; this, pp. 9-10; this, p. 163);  this, p. 18; this, p. 147.  They, and others, all agree that immersion baptism is not necessarily submersion baptism.
 * But even one serious source would be enough to show that this is no mere fringe theory. No source whatever, as you too agree, says this view is a fringe theory.   The idea that it is a fringe theory is yours alone, based on nothing more than your original research.  Esoglou (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, sorry you've completely failed to address what I wrote. I never said there is only one WP:RS saying that "immersion baptism" actually means partial immersion. If you look at the article you will see that I quoted in full the section comparing like resources with like; comparing "Standard Bible dictionaries" with standard Bible dictionaries. That is how WP:FRINGE tells us we know which views are fringe. So other works cited in the article are naturally not included here, since they are not "Standard Bible dictionaries". It is not in dispute that the view I have identified as fringe is the view of "serious scholars", but your claim that just because it is cited in the ODD means it cannot be a fringe theory is simply wrong. Look up WP:FRINGE. I have already provided objective evidence for the claim that the view is WP:FRINGE; look at the sources I have cited here, and then look at the single source you have been able to provide. You have been completely unable to find an equivalent number of sources. You haven't even found more than one. That's one reason why we know it's WP:FRINGE. Please read WP:FRINGE. Remember that I have provided my evidence, and that in order to demonstrate this view is not WP:FRINGE you must show its acceptance in the broader scholarly community. So let's see it. Go to [{WP:FRINGE]], then go and do your homework.
 * Please note that WP:FRINGE does not require me to cite any sources (either in the article or on Talk), stating explicitly that a few is fringe, and permits the use of descriptions such as "There are extreme academic views" and "most other specialists in the field reject this view".--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the basis of his belief that the standard or typical meaning of "immersion baptism" is baptism by submersion, Taiwan boi claims to have cited sources that, on that basis (e.g. Myers, p. 123), do say that "immersion baptism" is baptism by submersion. Because these citations are more than eight, he considers that Wikipedia should tar with the name "fringe theory" the preference expressed by at least eight reliable sources for applying the term "immersion baptism" to baptism by forms of partial immersion. (I say "preference", because these sources do not claim that the other usage is non-existent - ODCC expressly says that "immersion baptism" is sometimes used to mean baptism by submersion.)  To me Taiwan boi's argument seems extremely weak (as well as being about a question that is not really necessary to bring up in this article).  So we are at an impasse.  Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are misrepresenting me. This has nothing to do with my personal belief (and I have never said the other usage is non-existent), and Ihave never said that the view is fringe because "these citations are more than eight". I have followed Wikipedia policy for identifying fringe views. I have found it very easy to prove the majority view, and in comparison you have failed to demonstrate that the view is not WP:FRINGE. In fact you have even refused to apply WP:FRINGE. Whether or not you find my argument weak is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is WP:FRINGE and the work you have yet to do to establish this view as non-fringe among standard reference works. The fact that you've been able to find only a single standard reference work which uses this definition is telling; that's exactly what WP:FRINGE says is a good way to identify fringe views. So off you go and find some. Oh, you can't? That's because it's WP:FRINGE.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You did use your view about the "standard" meaning to hold that when Myers spoke of "to plunge, to dip, to immerse", he was talking about submerging. And you did use Myers (as interpreted by you) to prove that the "standard" meaning is to submerge.
 * On what grounds do you say that the sources cited as preferring the usage in question are not "standard"?
 * What has been put in the article is a claim that the usage you dislike is a fringe theory. What is put in the article is what must be proved.  17:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting me again. I used evidence to prove that "immersion" is most commonly understood as submersion, so the onus is on you to prove that Myers was using the less common definition. I did not use Myers to prove that the most common meaning is to submerge. You ask "On what grounds do you say that the sources cited as preferring the usage in question are not "standard"?"; that's not what I said. Please read what I said. To date you have not addressed WP:FRINGE. WP:FRINGE does not require me to cite any sources (either in the article or on Talk), stating explicitly that a few is fringe, and permits the use of descriptions such as "There are extreme academic views" and "most other specialists in the field reject this view".--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, what you say about the onus is nonsense in this context. It might make sense in other contexts to say that the presumption is in favour of the more common understanding, but not when you are using that mere presumption as proof of an affirmation that you are insisting in inserting into the article, while the article would read just as well - or better - without it.
 * I have addressed below your continuing persistence in inserting your open judgements on sources as "standard", "scholarly", "sectarian", "fringe". Esoglou (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with my judgment. I have cited WP:FRINGE repeatedly.
 * "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community . If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."
 * "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject."--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More than enough citations of reliable peer-reviewed sources have been produced (of which you have left in the article only two, and call them one) in support of the statement that, apart from the usage that equates "immersion baptism" with baptism by immersion, whether total or partial, there exists another usage (by sources that do not deny the existence also of the first usage, but expressly admit it) which differentiates between "immersion baptism" and "submersion baptism". No reliable source has been brought forward that discounts this second usage or applies to it a derogatory term like "fringe".  You want the article, unlike the sources, to classify this usage as fringe, but "WP policy ... does not tell us to ... make the article say which sources are better or worse. Policy actually suggests that to pass OPEN judgement on a source we should find another source to do so."  Esoglou (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The key phrases are "the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community" (not 'the current level of use within sectarian literature), and "the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject (not the presence or absence of liturgical works mentioning the subject). This means you need actual peer-reviewed academic works specifically about baptism, not sectarian works describing usage in the liturgical settings of denominations. So far the ODCC is the only source you've quoted which meets this, and even then you misrepresented the ODCC. Bower's is a commentary on the Anglican Book of Common Worship, Meakin is an Anglican church dictionary of liturgical terms, and Schloeder is a commentary on the liturgical meaning of architecture to the Anglican Church. These are all sectarian works. None of them is a peer reviewed work within the relevant academic community on the specific subject.
 * Furthermore, I am not passing any judgment on which sources are better or worse. I am not saying anything about that at all.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the text has been changed, we can let this rest. Esoglou (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced open judgements on sources
"WP policy tells us as editors to look out for the quality of sources when editing, but it does not tell us to publish our opinions about this in WP itself and make the article say which sources are better or worse. Policy actually suggests that to pass OPEN judgement on a source we should find another source to do so."
 * This is what you were told when you approached the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Shall we apply it?  Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly you haven't read the article. The phrase "Standard scholarly reference sources" was removed days ago. There is nothing in the article which says that some sources are "better or worse".
 * WP:FRINGE: "Fringe views may be excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." It's clear that the view expressed by Maxwell Johnson is "rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects". If you believe otherwise, let's see the evidence.---Taiwan boi (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the double-barrelled "standard scholarly" was ever in the article, although it wouldn't surprise me to find it was. What the article does have is several of your unsourced open judgements on sources, both positive and negative open judgements.  "Standard" (three times).  "Scholarly" (three times).  "Sectarian" (twice).  "Fringe" (three times).  It is time to fix that.  Esoglou (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have provided evidence for the term "fringe". To date you have failed to address WP:FRINGE on this issue, and you have yet to provide any evidence that the view you are pushing is anything but fringe. The other terms are justified by the citations in the text. Are you really going to dispute that a commentary by a sectarian is a sectarian commentary? A baptist commentary is sectarian, a Reformed commentary is sectarian, a Catholic commentary is sectarian. You can't get around this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can talk about what Maxwell Johnson later. Do you at least accept that we can remove the description "fringe" that you have attached to the usage that distinguishes "immersion baptism" from "submersion baptism" (see immediately above)?  I think it best to discuss the items one by one, starting with the first.  Esoglou (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No of course we can't. The view is fringe, that's why you could only find it in one standard reference source. Even then you misrepresented that source. Just address this please:
 * "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community . If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."
 * "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject."
 * Key phrases, "the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community" (not 'the current level of use within sectarian literature), and "the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject (not the presence or absence of liturgical works mentioning the subject). This means you need actual peer-reviewed academic works 'specifically about baptism, not sectarian works describing usage in the liturgical settings of denominations. So far the ODCC is the only source you've quoted which meets this, and even then you misrepresented the ODCC.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the text has been changed, we can let this rest. Esoglou (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The ODCC misrepresented
This was view was falsely attributed to the ODCC.

"goes beyond accepting that immersion can be either total or partial (a distinction that is not in dispute), and differentiates immersion from submersion, as well as from affusion, applying the term 'immersion' exclusively to forms of baptism that consist of submerging only the head, but not the whole body, in water, or of placing someone partially in water and pouring water over the rest of the person's body."

The ODCC does not apply the term "immersion" exclusively to "forms of baptism that consist of submerging only the head, but not the whole body, in water, or of placing someone partially in water and pouring water over the rest of the person's body". It says nothing about submerging only the head, and it certainly does not say "only the head, but not the whole body", nor does it say "or of placing someone partially in water and pouring water over the rest of the person's body". It says "whereby part of the candidate’s body was submerged in the baptismal water which was poured over the remainder", a method which is referred to as "affusion" by most other standard Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was attributed to a source that was later removed from the article (and has now been restored). Esoglou (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation tags and WP:FRINGE
WP:FRINGE does not require a citation to be added to statement that a particular view is fringe. There is therefore no point in adding the citation tag; I am at liberty to ignore it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not really been following this article or its talk page so I am not cognizant of the specific statement at issue. Nonetheless, I would take issue with Taiwan boi's assertion that a statement that states a particular view is "fringe" needs no citation.  All statements in Wikipedia are subject to deletion if not supported by a reliable source.  Many statements in Wikipedia have no source but are not deleted because they have not been challenged.  If a statement is challenged and no supporting citation is forthcoming, the statement is subject to deletion.  The civil way to do this is with a  request.  I presume that is what has happened in this case. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:ASF tells us that not all statements require a direct citation ("Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion"). In any case, I don't see that in WP:FRINGE, which explicitly permits statements such as "There are extreme academic views such as" and "most other specialists in the field reject this view" without citation of sources making exactly such statements. What I do see in WP:FRINGE is this:
 * "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community . If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."
 * "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject."
 * Key phrases, "the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community" (not 'the current level of use within sectarian literature), and "the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject (not the presence or absence of liturgical works mentioning the subject). This means Esoglou needs actual peer-reviewed academic works 'specifically about baptism, not sectarian works describing usage in the liturgical settings of denominations. So far the ODCC is the only source he has found supporting the view to which he wishes to give prominence, which actually meets this description. What has happened here is that Esoglou has refused to follow WP:FRINGE, claiming that he is under no obligation to demonstrate that the view to which he wishes to give prominence is not a fringe view. The fact that he can only find it in one standard reference work, whereas almost a dozen other standard reference works present a different view, shows that it is fringe. In this case Esoglou has repeatedly inserted a citation tag without once presenting any evidence for his claim. He has already acknowledged that the view he wishes to represent as on parity with the majority view is actually a minority viewpoint.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation that WP:FRINGE addresses is the case where author Joe Blow puts forth a fringe theory for which there is no evidence that the scholarly community even knows who Joe is let alone has considered, critiqued or accepted his theory. Assuming that the ODCC is a standard reference work and the ODCC in fact presents Esoglou's assertion without characterizing it as fringe, I think you do not have a case for characterizing it as fringe without an explicit assertion.  I think the best approach is to say something like "A number of sources assert A whereas the ODCC asserts B."  With citations to the relevant reference works (3 or 4 should be enough, a dozen is overkill), the reader can decide for himself which assertion to deem credible.  I suspect all this discussion about what is and is not fringe is OR unless you can find sources that say that Esoglou's assertion is accepted or is deemed fringe.  Failing that, I think it is safest to simply state whatever various reference works state (including the ODCC) and leave it at that.  It wouldn't kill either of you to have the article text indicate the existence of ambiguity regarding this issue.  (Get a clue: this is probably not a big issue in the "real world".  It's time to find a compromise and move on.) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of a fringe theory, it's a matter of fringe usage. Virtually every other standard reference work on the subject uses the term "immersion" as a reference to submersion baptism; the ODCC differentiates it from submersion. The ODCC is a standard reference work, and is both WP:RS and WP:NOTE, but its usage of the word is is different to the overwhelming majority of other standard reference works on the subject, and different to the way the word "immersion" is understood in the majority of standard English dictionaries. This is no surprise, since the ODCC has been criticized in a number of scholarly reviews as being biased and giving preference to Catholic and Anglican liturgical terminology (I have presented these references before, and can present them again). Esoglou has tried in vain to find any other standard reference work which uses the word with this meaning. I included the long list of reference works specifically to demonstrate that theirs was the standard usage, which is what Wikipedia requires. Reducing the number of reference to the standard view to a mere three, in order to make it look like the ODCC isn't so outnumbered, is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Minority views should be identified as minority views, and the majority view should not be covered up or devalued in order to make the minority view look more prominent, or appear to have parity with the majority view. The underlying issue here is that Esoglou has spent a year attempting to make this article give the impression that affusion was the normative method of baptism in the early church, and this is simply his latest effort. The religious position of the two of you raises a conflict of interest issue, whereas I don't have such a bias so I'm more objective. This is why I've been citing from the standard works and relevant scholarly literature, whereas Esolgou has overwhelmingly been using 100 year old sectarian works, and modern denominational liturgical commentaries.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, WP:FRINGE doesn't merely address views which are unknown by scholarship, but which are known and notable, but which are contrary to the overwhelming scholarly usage/understanding. That's what we have here.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With regard to Richard's remark, "It wouldn't kill either of you to have the article text indicate the existence of ambiguity regarding this issue", I can say that, far from killing me, it is precisely what I have been trying for months to defend against the claim that there is only one right way to understand "immersion baptism". There are, in documented fact, at least three ways in which the term is used.  We may dislike one or more of those usages, but we ought to accept the brute fact of their existence.
 * Please excuse the overkill of citations for what should be obvious: that "immersion" does not have to mean "total submersion" even in connection with baptism. Esoglou (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has ever tried to argue that "there is only one right way to understand "immersion baptism"". Your claim is completely false. The fact that "immersion baptism" is used in ways which do not mean "total submersion" has been in both the lede and the main article for over a year. Your mess of citations is completely unnecessary, as is your misguided description of various kinds of partial immersion. There is no need to document every single fringe definition of "partial immersion" ("One definition understands it of the immersion of only the left toe, another understands it of the immersion of the right thumb and left eyebrow, still another understands it of the immersion of the elbows"), they all fall under "partial immersion".--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced information
By reverting to a version of 27 January, Taiwan boi has deleted sourced information on the grounds that it "misrepresented sources". Would Taiwan boi explain what parts of the following he believes not to be verified:
 * 1) In another understanding, since baptismal immersion can be either complete or partial [sourced], disambiguation is used to indicate whether "immersion baptism" refers to immersion of the whole body or only of part. Adjectives used for this purpose include "full" [sourced], "total" [sourced] and "partial" [sourced].
 * 2) For some writers, "immersion baptism", as opposed to "submersion baptism", is immersion of the head [sourced].

(By the way, Taiwan boi's implicit claim that, by reverting, he was ensuring that "the terminology section should be succinct" is unfounded, in that the text of his version is about twice as long and is more complex. Any greater length in the version he reverted is due to the greater number of citations given for its affirmations, citations and affirmations unjustifiably removed by Taiwan boi.)  Esoglou (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim those statements weren't verified. But it is unnecessary because it is already explained in the article. My text is not more complex, it is direct and to the point and doesn't misrepresent sources. Your second definition in particular is very clumsily expressed, is completely redundant given what is already in the article, and isn't even accurate. You also keep deliberately suppressing the fact that one view is the majority.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So they are verified. And you are failing to show that they in any way misrepresent the cited sources or that they are inaccurate.  Your view that, because the lead briefly mentions a terminological matter, that terminology matter need not be mentioned at all under "Terminology" is only your idiosyncratic view.  Your view that to mention the religion of some writers (but not of those you cite in footnotes 15 ff.!) makes the text less complex and more direct is also your own idiosyncratic view.  What you were presenting as the majority view is the interpretation that distinguishes immersion from affusion and aspersion.  That may well be more than just a majority view.  But it is a different matter to claim that the majority view is that "immersion baptism" means exclusively baptism by total submersion, as you seem to want to suggest.
 * And you have reverted again, without producing any explanation that will stand up! Undoing your action would be justified.   Esoglou (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's completely untrue. I provided a detailed explanation at 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC), to which you replied. You are still failing to address anything I wrote. You are also completely misrepresenting me. I did not claim those sources were misrepresented. Nor have I said that because the lede briefly mentions a terminological matter, that terminology matter need not be mentioned at all under "Terminology". On the contrary, I have said that the terminology section should address terminology. You have introduced a number of citations which talk about the mode of baptism (not terminology), in an attempt to WP:SYNTH. I have never claimed that "immersion baptism" means exclusively baptism by total submersion. I have told you this many times before. You continue to make these completely false claims. You have still not explained why you are suppressing the majority view--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you agree that the quoted sources are not misrepresented, that (generally speaking) a mention in the lead does not make redundant a mention also under "Terminology" of a question of terminology, and that immersion baptism does not exclusively mean baptism by total submersion. Your only objection, if I understand you rightly, is that you think it is unjustified to mention under Terminology the understanding that requires the addition of some adjective in order to specify whether the phrase "immersion baptism" means baptism by immersion of the whole body or only of part. On the basis of that personal judgement, you think you are justified in deleting, under "Terminology", the mention of that understanding.  I don't think many would consider this to be sufficient grounds for eliminating sourced information on the matter.
 * What was in an earlier version was a statement that a common view ("is commonly understood") - even a minority view can be quite common - distinguishes immersion from affusion and aspersion (who doesn't?) and that (according to two sources) immersion baptism is differentiated from pouring water over the head of someone standing in water (although, as you know, a greater number of sources use the term "immersion baptism" exclusively for this form and a much greater number would call it one form of immersion baptism, the form they describe as partial), and that (according to four sources) immersion baptism is differentiated from pouring water over the head of someone not standing in water (although, again, some hold the opposite view). Among the three understandings that demonstrably exist, be they all mentioned under "Terminology" or not, which do you think is the majority one?  Just add the statement (with the necessary citations) that it is the majority understanding.  Esoglou (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're asking if I "agree" to your objection to a statement which was never made in the first place. You falsely accused me of saying that a mention in the lead makes redundant a mention also under "Terminology" of a question of terminology. I never said that. I never said anything like it. You falsely accused me of saying that those sources were misrepresented. I did not claim those sources were misrepresented. No, you don't understand me rightly. If you want to understand me rightly please read what I wrote. Copy and paste it if necessary. You still haven't explained why you are attempting to suppress the majority view. Why are you attempting to suppress the majority view?--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding. The only question I asked in my last edit (unless you count the rhetorical "who doesn't?")was: "Among the three understandings .. which do you think is the majority one?"  And I invited you to add a sourced statement that the one you choose is the majority understanding.  I did not ask you whether you agree to those points that you mention: on the contrary, I stated that you do agree.  Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you did, you even started with "So you agree that...". I've explained what I agree with and what I don't agree with. You also know perfectly well which is the majority view concerning the differentiation of forms of baptism (not what I "choose", that is a blatant falsehood), because I have posted it several times, correctly referenced, and you have removed the statement. I am not talking about your artificial "three understandings" (one of which is not a terminological understanding at all, but a WP:SYNTH using descriptions of mode of baptism as if they were definitions of a term which none of the sources cited for it actually use). This is what I am talking about when I say "majority view": 'According to the rules of by far the largest portion of the Christian Church the water may be used in any one of three ways: immersion, where the recipient enters bodily into the water, and where, during the action, the head is plunged either once or three times beneath the surface; affusion, where water is poured upon the head of the recipient who stands either in water or on dry ground; and aspersion, where water is sprinkled on the head or on the face.', Lindsay, 'Baptism: Reformed View', in Bromiley (ed.) 'The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised', volume 1, page 419 (1988; 2002). That is what you keep removing from the text. Why are you suppressing this majority view?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As requested, I have (re)inserted Lindsay's statement.
 * I regret that you could have taken "So you agree that ..." to mean "So you agree that ...?" I meant it as a statement.  Esoglou (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Three definitions of "immersion baptism"?
The claim "Please accept that "immersion baptism" is in fact used in 3 different senses: a) only total submersion; b) generic submersion; c) only partial submersion)" is completely unsubstantiated and unnecessary. Firstly, both the lede and the main article already identify the fact that "immersion baptism" is used of both total submersion and partial submersion
 * Immersion baptism (also known as baptism by immersion or, if the immersion is total, baptism by submersion) is a method of baptism that is distinguished from baptism by affusion (pouring) and by aspersion (sprinkling), sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial, but very commonly with the indication that the person baptized is immersed completely.
 * The term "immersion" can be found in the denominational literature of the Anglican, Catholic, and Lutheran churches with a definition which differentiates between submersion and immersion baptism;

Both of these statements are fully referenced, and no more need be said. Secondly, no source whatever was cited substantiating the claim that some sources use "immersion baptism" to mean "generic baptism" (a phrase which occurs in none of the sources cited). The fact is, as the lede and article already prove, that when "immersion" is used the writer commonly means "total immersion" and less commonly means "partial immersion". This statement in particular was just ridiculous: This implies that some do not distinguish the term "partial immersion" from total immersion, a completely ludicrous idea. Who uses "partial immersion" with the meaning "total immersion"? The entire edit repeats (several times), statements which are already in the lede and main article, where they are referenced properly.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some distinguish the term "partial immersion" from total immersion, and use it of immersion of the head. This
 * What is under discussion is the content of the section "Terminology", not of the lead. We have expressed (recently) no disagreement about the lead.
 * It is a documented fact that, for some, "immersion baptism" means baptism by total immersion (submersion). For them, that is the correct terminology.  Far from denying this, you make Wikipedia declare: "Baptism by immersion is commonly understood as submersion" and, in this very connection, have been quite insistent that, when the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary says "plunge, dip, immerse", it means "submerge", and that when the New International Bible Dictionary speaks of "immersion", it means submersion, asserting that any other understanding of what they say would have to be proved.  You have even made Bishop Kallistos say that the form of immersion that he calls partial immersion is equivalent to "total immersion".  You deny that anyone has ever tried to argue that there is only one right way to understand "immersion baptism"; but you do repeatedly stress one understanding of the term "immersion baptism", and that is the understanding of it as involving submersion.  This is one understanding of the term "immersion baptism" that clearly exists and has been abundantly referenced and has every right to be included in a section on terminology.
 * But it isn't the only use of the term. The use of the term "immersion baptism" to embrace both total and partial immersion has as much need as the first use to be mentioned under "Terminology" and to be supported by citations.  Statements in Wikipedia must be referenced.  These are two distinct usages, and a terminology section should explain what is the difference between them, indicate the meaning that each of them attributes to the term, and provide each of them with references.
 * (By the way, I am unaware of having made "the claim that some sources use 'immersion baptism' to mean 'generic baptism'". I did say that some use "immersion baptism" to refer to generic immersion unspecified as either total or partial, as they certainly do.  If I did make the claim that you attribute to me, I think I must have been wrong, unless something in the context - and I can't imagine what - justified it.)
 * And there is a third use of the term "immersion baptism". It is a fact - referenced by sources that even include two (both published by OUP) described by you as standard reference works - that some writers exclude baptism by submersion from the strict meaning of "immersion baptism".
 * So in actual documented use, the term "immersion baptism" is employed in these three distinct, not to say contradictory, ways. What else is a terminology section for, if not to explain that?  Esoglou (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again you seem concerned about the fact that "it isn't the only use of the term". This has never been in dispute at all. The article currently refers (in both the lede and "terminology" sections), to:
 * "immersion" meaning "total immersion"
 * "immersion" meaning "partial immersion"
 * Differentiation of "immersion baptism" from "submersion baptism" ("some writers exclude baptism by submersion from the strict meaning of "immersion baptism"", as you say), is also already included explicitly in the "Terminology" section. So what is your objection, and what is this mysterious "generic submersion" to which you referred in your edit summary as one of three uses of the term "immersion baptism"? Remember, your edit summary said "Please accept that "immersion baptism" is in fact used in 3 different senses: a) only total submersion; b) generic submersion; c) only partial submersion)".--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The second sense is the understanding of "immersion baptism" as excluding neither partial immersion (as the first sense does) nor total immersion (as the third sense does). I hope I have now made that quite clear in a revised version of the Terminology section, shorn of open judgements or insinuations that some of the sources are better or worse than the others.  If you want to argue that one terminology is the majority or the right one, you can add that after a clear delineation of the three distinct understandings of the term.
 * You surely aren't claiming that one or other of the three understandings does not really exist. Esoglou (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you mean using the word immersion "sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial"? That's already in the lede.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever about having it in the lead, it certainly ought to be in the section on terminology. Esoglou (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for, it seems, failing to save my last edit, with which I hoped to make quite clear the three senses in which reliable sources use the term "immersion baptism". Although again this time, I have written this comment here before saving my edit to the article, I will make sure this time that my edit gets saved first.  Esoglou (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit doesn't make any sense. Firstly you have completely removed the fact that one usage is the majority usage. Secondly your statement "In another understanding, the immersion involved can be either partial or total, with neither excluded" is not supported by the sources you cite; they don't use the term "immersion baptism" with that meaning, they simply say that baptism can be by either partial or total immersion (as the lede says, "sometimes without specifying whether the immersion is total or partial"). Your sources never actually use the term "immersion baptism". Thirdly, a number of your sources for the third usage are invalid; they are not WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's up to you to add information on which usage is most frequent. The existence of the third usage is proved by sources that are reliable as attestations of its existence.  You may dislike the usage in question and think it should not be accepted, but they do show that it does exist.  As for your other comment, it will require an adjustment of the text, and I hope to find time for it later today.  Esoglou (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again, none of the sources you quoted for a particular usage of the term "immersion baptism", actually used the term "immersion baptism". You can't claim that they're using term X with meaning Y, if they don't even use term X. This is not complicated, and has nothing to do with what I do or don't like. You have simply misrepresented your sources.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. I have provided sources that do use the exact phrase "immersion baptism", disambiguating it to indicate which they meant of the two senses in which the phrase could be understood.  The sources you initially objected to may not have used the exact phrase "immersion baptism", but immersion baptism is what they were talking about.  The objection that those sources did not use the exact phrase "immersion baptism" to describe it is a mere quibble: they can be and are validly cited for the statement that baptism is at times administered by an immersion that is total and at other times by an immersion that is only partial - two forms, not just one, of immersion.  Esoglou (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're contradicting yourself. You claim they "do use the exact phrase "immersion baptism", and then you admit they "may not have used the exact phrase "immersion baptism"", yet you claim " immersion baptism is what they were talking about" (WP:OR). They can be validly cited for the statement that baptism is at times administered by an immersion that is total and at other times by an immersion that is only partial, but that is not the statement you are citing them for. You are trying to claim that there's a usage of the term "immersion baptism" which means "either full or partial immersion". None of the sources you cite for this use the term "immersion baptism". You are completely misrepresenting them.
 * Sources [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] all say that baptism can be by either complete or partial immersion, which is not a matter of terminology but a matter of mode (none of them use the term "immersion baptism"), does not even belong in this section, and is covered in both the lede and later in the article
 * Sources [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] do not use the term "immersion baptism"; they simply use the term "full immersion baptism", but do not give any indication that they believe the term "immersion baptism" has two meanings
 * Sources [41][42][43][44][45][46] don't help you either; apart from the fact that they don't use the term "immersion baptism", and sources [41] and [42] use "total immersion" and "immersion" as synonyms (not using "total immersion" as a differentiating term), in fact source [42] uses "immersion" and "submersion" as synonyms
 * Sources [47][48][49] aren't verifiable until I can actually get access to them, but I am willing to bet none of them use the term "total immersion".
 * Note of course that your statement "disambiguation is used to indicate whether "immersion baptism" refers to immersion of the whole body or only of part" is completely unreferenced.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources 23-30 say that baptism is administered by immersion, total or partial. They are quoted for the statement that "baptismal immersion can be either complete or partial". They evidently support that statement, and that statement does not misrepresent them.

Sources 31-40 do use the term "immersion baptism", prefixing it with the disambiguating adjective "full": if the writers thought "immersion baptism" must mean "full immersion baptism", they would not need to add the then tautological word "full".

Sources 41-46 do use the term "immersion baptism", prefixing it with the disambiguating adjective "total": if the writers thought "immersion baptism" must mean "total immersion baptism", they would not need to add the then tautological word "total". As for your remark about citation 42, only someone who like you thinks that "immersion" must mean exclusively "total immersion" would interpret "submersion or immersion" as indicating that the two words are synonyms, instead of perhaps indicating two procedures between which a choice can be made; but even if your objection were valid, citation 42 could be removed, and the statement would still be amply verified.

To see the quotation of citation 49, all you have to do is to scroll down just a little, and you will see an actual existent use of the phrase "conflict over total versus partial immersion baptism". Surely an example of disambiguation of the phrase "immersion baptism". In some browsers, you don't even have to scroll down that little bit. To see the essential part of citation 48, try this link. The same link will indicate that citation 47 does speak of immersion baptism, and does put the adjective "partial" in front of "immersion baptism". Yesterday I could get to the New York Times text of citation 47 without logging in. Today I cannot without logging in, a process that is free, so that, I presume, even you could get to the text if only you wished to. In any case, the link I now give should be enough to confirm what in good faith I stated on the basis of reading the whole text. The same link shows that in yet another source "total immersion" is used with a preceding adjective "partial"; but since I could not view the context of the phrase, I did not mention that source.

What else is the disambiguation used for but to indicate whether "immersion baptism" refers to immersion of the whole body or only of part? But in view of your quibble, I will adjust the text to avoid saying anything about purpose. That adjustment will require putting the sourced text once more in the article, which I suppose you will once more revert. Esoglou (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes sources 23-30 say that baptism is administered by immersion, total or partial. I never said you misrepresented these sources. I have pointed out that this is not a matter of terminology but a matter of mode (none of them use the term "immersion baptism"), does not even belong in this section, and is covered in both the lede and later in the article. 2. Sources 41-46 do not use the term "immersion baptism". As you admit, they use the term "full immersion baptism". Your interpretation of what they think when they write "full immersion baptism" is WP:OR and is not what they say. Scrolling didn't help me see the quotation of citation 49; Googlebooks just won't show the page to me. Source 48 does not use the term "immersion baptism", and certainly does not define it in the way you describe. The same goes for source 47. There is no "third usage" here, this is all covered in the lede ("The term is also, though less commonly, applied exclusively to modes of baptism that involve only partial immersion"), and was covered in my edit.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole text, including the Lindsay quotation upon which you set so much store, is speaking of immersion baptism. Esoglou (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're still not addressing the point. The term in question is not used in the source I identified; remember it is the presence of the term in the sources that is at issue here, not the topic. You're confusing categories.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't find the term "immersion baptism" in the Lindsay quotation, although it does speak of immersion baptism. Esoglou (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading images
Several of the images on this page depict affusion, not immersion. Specifically, the picture at the top of the page really should be one of immersion in order to clearly represent the topic of the page. Also, the images in the "Archeological Evidence" section are indeed images of early Christian art, but whereas they depict affusion, not immersion, there really must be some kind of explanation given in order to avoid the conflation of affusion and immersion. If anyone has more suitable images, or some insight into the portrayal of baptism in early Christian art, please include them. Sylvius Minima (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean they don't depict submersion. "Immersion" is used in more than one sense.  Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point Sylvius. I moved up another picture to the lead. Swampyank (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)