Talk:The Christian Virtuoso

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by Hrafn:

The article was an unsourced single-sentence stub stating merely that: "The Christian Virtuoso (1690) was one of the last books published by Robert Boyle." This fragment of information is already contained in Robert Boyle, so having a separate article to contain a simple duplicate of it is needless duplication. Per WP:MERGE "good reasons" #1 (Duplicate) & #4 (Context) merging as a redirect would seem to be perfectly reasonable. HrafnTalkStalk 19:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article is a decent stub and I believe it satisfies WP:STUB. It has a sentence and a picture of the book (a picture which was uploaded specifically for this article. The existence of a picture should certainly be considered as a type of source). Also the book is historically significant as any editor can check for her or himself with a standard find:. Not sure if continuously testing the patience of policies like WP:AGF has any weight in such a disagreement, but if it does I believe the somewhat crude if not uncivil comments by Hrafn in the edit summary should also be taken into account. Does Admiral Norton believe that this article is to quote Hrafn, a "spamming" of wikipedia? The basic editing policy WP:IMPERFECT also seems to be in line with this sort of stub. How can Hrafn claim that what I wrote is "malformed", especially given that WP:IMPERFECT is a core editing policy? --Firefly322 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry for the unnecessary delay, I didn't expect such quick replies. I understand Hrafn's concern for this article being a needless copy worthless for Wikipedia, but the find provided by Firefly322 convinces me that The Christian Virtuoso has at least some potential to evolve beyond a simple list entry in the Robert Boyle article and an become an article on its own, thus invalidating merge criteria #1 and #4. Many good articles in Wikipedia have started as one-sentence stubs, so the main problem of this article should be notability. Thus we should determine whether the subject of this article passes WP:BK notability criteria.
 * Viewpoint by :
 * Third opinion by Admiral Norton:

By a quick Google Books search I was able to find The Christian Virtuoso in British Library, a book review in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History, and a chapter concerning the book in Religion, Reason and Nature in Early Modern Europe by Robert Crocker. It is apparently also covered in Peter R. Anstey's work The Philosophy of Robert Boyle. I am fairly sure this treatment covers both the criterion #1 (only one criterion is required to be met for a book to be deemed notable) and at least a part of the consideration listed under section Threshold standards. My judgment is that we can drop the part about at least a dozen libraries having the book, as it seems it is a rare and old work, not a contemporary book with a large number of copies issued (such exception is discussed under Non-contemporary books section).

Note that this does invalidate WP:MERGE criterion #4 (context), but criterion #1 (duplicate) could still be readily applied if this page stays at the one-sentence level. Also, the critiques of the book aren't worth much if the article contains a simple book summary. If this article is going to stay, I believe it should be expanded to include at least one critical review of the book by someone else than the book publisher, besides the description of book contents. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was more viewing WP:MERGE criterion #4 (context) in the context of the article as it is currently written, than what it might become. As it is currently written, it only contains the information that the book exists, when it was written, and by whom. For any context on the book, the reader would currently have to follow the link to Robert Boyle. This strikes me as dysfunctional. HrafnTalkStalk 05:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your wider comments, I've added a 'Redirects with possibilities' template to the current redirect. HrafnTalkStalk 05:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Characterisation of Firefly322's edits
If anybody thinks that my characterisation of Firefly322's edits are unduely harsh, I would suggest that they take a look at some of the articles he has created. Issues in Science and Religion is an extreme example, but I think emblematic of his editing style. As to WP:AGF, given that he has previously called me a "troll" and "evil" for pointing out, and attempting to correct, the deficiencies in his editing, I find his complaint risibly WP:POT. HrafnTalkStalk 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns about Issues in Science and Religion by a degree, since the article you listed provides a great deal of information regarding the book's contents and areas of interest, but reviews are only shown in a list at the end of the article. That article is definitely not subjective to merging by criterion #4, though, as it gives a fair description of what is the book about even to those unfamiliar with Barbour's work, like me; nor is it subjective to merging by criterion #1, since it obviously contains much more content about the book itself than the Ian Barbour page. Although I see some areas that should be improved, this is IMO a valid article, as far as merging is a concern. Of course, The Christian Virtuoso was way beyond this level for over two months, but that does not mean it can't be expanded. I believe a one-week chance should be given to Firefly322 to create the article and write a critical description of the book sourced by at least one source beside the book itself. If it isn't possible, we should leave this as a redirect. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Hrafn's edits
Please see where he or she followed me onto an AFD, where I believe his or her behavior is categorized correctly as a WP:TROLL. As for the use of the e-word, I do believe that Hrafn's wiki-stalking behavior and his or her routinely crude usage of words like the word "stupid", "spamming" and "malformed" apparently in order to maintain his or her sense of WP:OWNERSHIP does test the patience of WP:AFG in a way that is accurately characterized as sinful acts. I don't think any editor on wikipedia should be subjected to his unrelenting usage of crude language and unwanted, stalking-like behavior (I have on an earlier occassion explicitly told him or her to let other editors tag my articles). In light of his or her continued efforts at bothering me, I believe I need to ask for some sort of wikipedia restraining order. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see now that you and Hrafn have a dispute whose actual contents don't really relate to The Christian Virtuoso. I can't help you with this dispute, but Mediation cabal or Mediation Committee can. As far as this article goes, my opinion is that the article should be expanded to include at least some material apart from a summary or contents and all material contained in the Boyle article. Note that summary and contents aren't unwelcome; they are vital to a book article, but they by themselves do not provide a complete WP:NPOV insight or the book. You should try to find some critical reviews about the book and summarize them in the article. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New Section
Quote from Britannica:

"Theological activities" "Boyle was a devout and pious Anglican who keenly championed his faith."

Robert Boyle, Encyclopedia Britannica:

The quote is not in the cited link. HrafnTalkStalk 18:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would note that the Encyclopedia Britannica appears to have multiple electronic editions. It is possible that the quote comes from another edition than the one it is linked to in the citation. HrafnTalkStalk 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote does appear in, in the "Theological activities" section, which goes on to say that "[t]he Christian Virtuoso (1690) summarized these views and may be seen as a manifesto of Boyle’s own life as the model of a Christian scientist.". Throwawayhack (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That version is subscriber only. I have access to a similar/identical version via my local library, that gives an explicit referencing citation, so have included this in the article. I don't think including a link makes sense unless that link allows the general readership to verify the information. HrafnTalkStalk 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)