Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical accommodation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation (religion). Spartaz Humbug! 06:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Biblical accommodation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This makes no attempt to describe the topic to the casual reader. It is head-to-tail impenetrable jargon. Despite the general-looking title, it seems to be constrained to specifically Roman Catholic seminary-level theology even to begin to understand it. (And any communicator at that level wouldn't produce these contents for an encyclopaedia such as WP.)

It fails NPOV. There is no attempt to discuss the topic; it simply dumps data supporting a specific viewpoint.

There is a far, far more approachable description at Accommodation (religion).

There is a case for an article of this title to exist. But these contents definitely do not comprise that case. And it this were being submitted for review as a new article, there is no way it would be accepted.

Almost nothing links here. I strongly propose deletion. An acceptable compromise would be to move it to draft space and re-submit it into the usual review process. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I’m not sure what the copyright status of the Catholic Encyclopedia is, but this article is ripped straight from this, which appears to be copyright. Mccapra (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Both the Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1911 version of Encyclopaedia Britannica, where the text wa probably first published, as acknowledged in the article, are out of copyright.  The 2020 copyright claim on that page is misleading at best.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough  16:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC).


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On a meta-level I'm not sure what grounds for deletion are being advanced here. Also there is no such thing as "strongly proposing" deletion, you either propose it or you do not.
 * While NPOV is not a ground for deletion, it would still be useful if you indicate how the article is NPOV? Or better still fix it.
 * The article seems pretty straight-forward. Perhaps it's been significantly edited since the proposal.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough  16:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC).


 * Further Accommodation (religion) seems to be describing different concept. All the best: Rich Farmbrough  16:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC).


 * Draftify? My "strongly propose deletion" (and such a concept is perfectly rational, isn't it?) was explained in the immediately following sentence, which began "an acceptable compromise...". Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The concept has been the subject of an entire scholarly book. Seems to merit an article on its own, even if it needs work in its present state? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify? If it were currently in draft, would it be accepted into main space? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection here. Agree it needs a lot of work before it's encyclopedic. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject is notable, an article being in poor shape is no reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify? If it were currently in draft, would it be accepted into main space? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -   t • c 14:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. -   t • c 14:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -   t • c 14:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination's claim is false as the opening paragraph is reasonably clear and the only jargon-like word – exegesis – is explained in line. Other long words such as "condescension" are not a reason to delete because this not the Simple English Wikipedia. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: "I don't understand the article" is not a good rationale to either delete or draftify. If you're worried that this article is written in a confusing way, then either learn more about the subject and make some edits, or leave it alone and let someone else work on it. Moving a 15-year-old article into draftspace is functionally equivalent to deletion; the improvement that this article needs will never happen if it's taken out of mainspace. You can help, or you can leave it alone; there really isn't a third option. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The worst underlying problem is that this article makes a bunch of "in-universe" arguments about how God behaves.  Check out the use of the passive voice in the first three paragraphs ("divine revelation is adjusted"; "the manner in which the Biblical text expresses its content"; "descriptions of events... had simply been accommodated to human perceptual capacities").  Who is the actor doing all this accommodation?  Unnamed divine forces, that's who.  This article describes the behavior of divine forces.  That's the NPOV problem the nominator was driving at.  I agree and I think it's incurable here.  Remove the framework of Catholic belief from this article & you have nothing left & that's what we should do. --Lockley (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue here is the interpretation of text. We have numerous articles about this issue in a legal context including the plain meaning rule, textualism, letter and spirit of the law, &c.  Theologians spend much of their time trying to interpret scripture too and, as they have written a lot about it, the topic is notable.  See also WP:PETTIFOG. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course textual interpretation is successfully handled elsewhere in wikipedia. I'd also probably agree the topic is notable enough for a separate article.  Nobody in this discussion has claimed otherwise (yet).  Invoking WP:PETTIFOG means you think somebody here is using a bunch of legalistic arguments in bad faith and in violation of common sense.  I don't see that either.  The original core of this article was written by Catholic believers for Catholic believers.  The result still uses the capitalized phrase "Sacred Scripture" with utter seriousness, to take one small example of its baked-in NPOV, in a way that's inappropriate for those who believe differently or who don't believe at all.  --Lockley (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)philsophers
 * The point about WP:PETTIFOG is that Wikipedians fuss over the meaning of rules and text just like the lawyers and theologians. And then there's the philosophers who spin huge clouds of fog about language and meaning too.  As we're an encyclopedia, we cover it all. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I quote from the scripture of WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article... even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." This topic is discussed in reliable sources, therefore notable. The POV writing problem can be fixed through normal editing. "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee." (Matthew 5:29) — Toughpigs (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Toughpigs you seem ready for an argument about notability, when and if somebody makes one. Good.  But if we're quoting chapter and verse, may I offer this, about the quality of the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source:  "While the text is public domain PLEASE do not simply dump text from the CE into Wikipedia without modification. The Encyclopedia was written to serve the Catholic Church and reflect its doctrine, therefore nearly every article has a distinct POV and no article should be included word for word."  That's strong support for the nominator's original complaint.  What's the source of that radical statement?  WikiProject Catholicism.  Does this article really quote the Catholic Encyclopedia verbatim?  Yes, in several big chunks.  What's the simplest and best cure for a mass of NPOV material?  Deletion.  --Lockley (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep . Redirect to Accommodation (religion), but keep this page history if anyone wants to merge the content. This is an important subject in the field of theology, as explained here, for example. However, this page is misleading and useless - as written. I do not think the concept is correctly defined in the lead of this page, but this just needs to be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question: The description there was my addition post-AfD, and I am no expert in theology so could well have made a mistake. However, it struck me that there is an ambiguity in the concept and/or terminology, between (1) accommodation in general, referring to the various ways, including but not limited to the Biblical text, in which revelation and divine guidance is conditioned to human limitations; and (2) specifically Biblical accommodation, in which the text of the Bible is held to be literally true (or not), depending on one's view about how the text is adapted to human limitations. I take it that accommodation (religion) is about sense (1), and the reason to have this article was to address the more limited and technical sense (2). If that's not correct, and there is really no distinction between the two, there seems no reason to have this article in the first place—since everything could be covered in "accommodation (religion)" without potentially misleading readers to think that there is a strong distinction between the two senses. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I simply do not think that the following description (as defined on the page) is correct description based on the source: "Biblical accommodation refers to a number of distinct views in Biblical exegesis, or the interpretation of the Bible. Such views broadly concern the question of whether, or to what extent, the Bible may be said to be literally true." This is not a definition of anything. As described in Accommodation_(religion), "accommodation (or condescension) is the theological principle that God, while being in His nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way which humans can understand and respond to.". That is something different, understandable, and indeed consistent with the linked source . Is "it literally true" an entirely different question. I can see the reason for confusion because the Catholic Ecyclopedia gives a different definition, but this is hardly a good source here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Does this edit take care of some of those concerns? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like improvement, but I know too little on the subject. I am certain this page should be merged/redirected to Accommodation_(religion), especially because Accommodation_(religion) only tells about this concept in Christianity and also heavily relies on the Bible. I am not sure how and if this works in other religions. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Old (1911) edition of EB gives 3 different meanings in religious context, only 2nd of which corresponds to the one above. This is an addition reason to merge. This WP page is misleading and useless right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge (selectively, and identifying the claimant as appropriate) to Accommodation (religion), which already very much about the same concept. BD2412  T 05:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.