Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian views of women

I can't even begin to start on this page. If you go through all the Biblical references, you'll notice that it quotes Judges 14:1-3 (I'll quote the NIV which is accurate enough for my points):

Samson's Marriage

1 Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. 2 When he returned, he said to his father and mother, "I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife." 3 His father and mother replied, "Isn't there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?" But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me. She's the right one for me."

You'll notice that this is not a proper Christian attitude (incidently, quoting OT and saying they are Christians might be debatable, considering Christ wasn't yet around, thought the OT does point to Jesus), you'll note later in Judges that Samson pays the price for his folly.

Judges 19

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." 23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. 27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. 29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"

Look at this in it's wider context - there were awful consequences for the Benjamites because of this.

Genesis 29 24 And Laban gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her maidservant.

No mention of the context of this verse. In fact, there is no mention of the context of any of the verses. Any Bible college student, or even historian, knows you can't read out verses without explaining what they mean!

This appears to be just a list of the "worst" verses from the Bible. In fact one of them appears to be commenting on Christian behaviour, yet is totally wrong because it's referring to another non-Israelite tribe! The verse quoted is Judges 5:30 (Song of Deborah):

Judges 5

The Song of Deborah

1 On that day Deborah and Barak son of Abinoam sang this song:

2 "When the princes in Israel take the lead, when the people willingly offer themselves- praise the LORD !

3 "Hear this, you kings! Listen, you rulers! I will sing to [1] the LORD, I will sing; I will make music to [2] the LORD , the God of Israel.

4 "O LORD, when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens poured, the clouds poured down water. 5 The mountains quaked before the LORD , the One of Sinai, before the LORD , the God of Israel.

6 "In the days of Shamgar son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the roads were abandoned; travelers took to winding paths. 7 Village life [3] in Israel ceased, ceased until I, [4] Deborah, arose, arose a mother in Israel. 8 When they chose new gods, war came to the city gates, and not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel. 9 My heart is with Israel's princes, with the willing volunteers among the people. Praise the LORD !

10 "You who ride on white donkeys, sitting on your saddle blankets, and you who walk along the road, consider 11 the voice of the singers [5] at the watering places. They recite the righteous acts of the LORD, the righteous acts of his warriors [6] in Israel.

"Then the people of the LORD went down to the city gates. 12 'Wake up, wake up, Deborah! Wake up, wake up, break out in song! Arise, O Barak! Take captive your captives, O son of Abinoam.'

13 "Then the men who were left came down to the nobles; the people of the LORD came to me with the mighty. 14 Some came from Ephraim, whose roots were in Amalek; Benjamin was with the people who followed you. From Makir captains came down, from Zebulun those who bear a commander's staff. 15 The princes of Issachar were with Deborah; yes, Issachar was with Barak, rushing after him into the valley. In the districts of Reuben there was much searching of heart. 16 Why did you stay among the campfires [7] to hear the whistling for the flocks? In the districts of Reuben there was much searching of heart. 17 Gilead stayed beyond the Jordan. And Dan, why did he linger by the ships? Asher remained on the coast and stayed in his coves. 18 The people of Zebulun risked their very lives; so did Naphtali on the heights of the field.

19 "Kings came, they fought; the kings of Canaan fought at Taanach by the waters of Megiddo, but they carried off no silver, no plunder. 20 From the heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera. 21 The river Kishon swept them away, the age-old river, the river Kishon. March on, my soul; be strong! 22 Then thundered the horses' hoofs- galloping, galloping go his mighty steeds. 23 'Curse Meroz,' said the angel of the LORD . 'Curse its people bitterly, because they did not come to help the LORD, to help the LORD against the mighty.'

24 "Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, most blessed of tent-dwelling women. 25 He asked for water, and she gave him milk; in a bowl fit for nobles she brought him curdled milk. 26 Her hand reached for the tent peg, her right hand for the workman's hammer. She struck Sisera, she crushed his head, she shattered and pierced his temple. 27 At her feet he sank, he fell; there he lay. At her feet he sank, he fell; where he sank, there he fell-dead.

28 "Through the window peered Sisera's mother; behind the lattice she cried out, 'Why is his chariot so long in coming? Why is the clatter of his chariots delayed?' 29 The wisest of her ladies answer her; indeed, she keeps saying to herself, 30 'Are they not finding and dividing the spoils: a girl or two for each man, colorful garments as plunder for Sisera, colorful garments embroidered, highly embroidered garments for my neck- all this as plunder?'

31 "So may all your enemies perish, O LORD ! But may they who love you be like the sun when it rises in its strength."

Then the land had peace forty years.

The ladys aren't Israelites, they are Canaanites. See Judges 5:2:

2 So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim. 3 Because he had nine hundred iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the LORD for help.

I guess this was the clincher for me. It really is badly written, poorly researched piece of writing. It's almost a candidate for removal IMHO.

One last thing: there seems to be a lot of weasel words in this piece:


 * "Some interpreters view the two verses from Deuteronomy" - which ones?
 * "Others see these ancient Jewish scriptures as elevating women from the status of chattels" - which ones?
 * "Some historians believe that in ancient times, men used their superior strength to force themselves on women to whatever the degree their physical or power permitted." - which ones?
 * "Some recent Biblical scholarship suggests that Paul has been partially misunderstood" (no link explaining this evidence, we need proof!) which then says "Other scholars, however, disagree" (which scholars?)
 * "many take this as the Bible implicit agreement with the double standard that men may be promiscuous and women may not" - who are the many? please give an example
 * Others suggest that there is an implication that men would be held to the same standard, and that certainly there is no open statement that men are allowed to be promiscuous (numerous verses in the Bible denounce extramarital sex on the part of men and women). - this is a doubly bad sentence. Firstly, who are the others? Secondly, it's just stated that many verses in the Bible denounce extramarital sex on the part of men and women. This may be the case, but which verses?
 * "Some Christians look upon these passages" (which Christians?)
 * "Christianity, in many of its variations" (OK, should be self-evident, however because it says "in many of its variations" it needs to state which ones, or state which ones don't believe in the Bible.
 * "Some opponents of Christianity and Fundamentalist Christians tend to focus on these verses which seem to deny women equality." - excuse me? I believe this is a POV I don't necessarily agree with. I want some evidence (quotes will do!).

Also, though the article states that the verses are from the Bible, it neglects to mention which version.

Ta bu shi da yu


 * Hmmmmmm. You appear to be arguing against the neutrality or factual accuracy of the article.  This is something which is better discussed on the article's talk page, or by listing it on cleanup rather than VfD&mdash;it's the content of the article that's questioned rather than the subject itself.  I'm voting keep for now,  because unless this is covered elsewhere, it seems like it warrants an article.  (PS, please sign VfD listings so it's obvious who listed it without looking at the history). &mdash;Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile | Talk 14:14, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

What I believe he's arguing (and I'm sorry I missed the vote, I would have voted Delete) is that the sole purpose of this article is to slam Christians to the Political Correctness crowd. "Oh look! Evil Christians have kept women in bondage for ages!" is the basic tone of this article. I might also add that it doesn't even come close to representing the Biblical view of Men and Women and what the social relationship between the two should be. Respectfully - DavidR 16:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Precisely! I'm making modifications on and off - Ta bu shi da yu 22:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry! Have signed it. This is my first VfD, so you could be right that it should become a stub. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:42, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: Isn't it policy to delete rants, even if their topics are worthy? The article deserves to exist, but not if its reason is solely to bash.  I absolutely agree with the POV objections.  Thing is, is cleanup possible? Oughtn't this mean a blanking of the whole article and a recreation from scratch? Any existing NPOV religious encyclopedia will give material for constructing such a piece.  (Again: I completely agree with the objections; they seem accurate, and in particular the "proof text" approach used, the weasel words, and, essentially the POV/rant of it.)  Geogre 14:20, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)  Also, it seems that the article was VfD before.  According to the Talk pages, that debate was all-but-one for delete.  The talk page arguing the POV violations is now longer than the article itself.  Seems like this one is a repeat offender that won't be solved easily. (The talk page is more informative than the article, too, IMO.) Geogre 14:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Consider that a tentative keep if it's cleaned up [particularly given the previous VfD: I saw that after writing this comment] rather than something definite.  I don't know enough about the subject matter to comment authoratively, but it does appear to be at least very POV and certainly cleanup-worthy.  On the other hand, I'm sure there's someone here who can write a reasonable stub on the subject rather than having to delete it&mdash;and I'd rather see that, and perhaps (eventually) a nice article, than have this one deleted and the subject itself vanish from WP. &mdash;Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile | Talk 14:32, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
 * I should have explained my particular bias first I guess... I'm a Sydney Evangelical Christian... take this as you will. I have no problems with a page that talks about Christian views of women. In fact, some of the Judges passages are really pretty bad and would deserve a mention. However, when it comes to quoting passages from the Bible, context needs to be applied (remember, a text without a context is a con) and a brief NPOV explanation would surely be in order! Do you think it could be done though? It seems to be a pretty explosive piece of writing, by an author with a very obvious bias. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:42, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I think an article on this topic could be written&mdash;carefully&mdash;but I also agree that this article is not that one, by a long stretch. I'm really not sure... if it hasn't been cleaned up in a few days I may well change my vote.  &mdash;Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile | Talk 14:56, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)


 * Delete. One could write an NPOV article about how Christians in various times and places used Biblical texts in debate about the proper roles of men and women. This isn't that article and there's nothing here that would help anyone knowledgeable enough to create such an article. This is off-the-cuff sermonizing without concern for validity of the statements. For example: "In John 4:7 we find him talking to a woman, something no Jewish male of that day would lower himself to do." Really? I'm somewhat knowledgeable about sources related to the period and I never knew that Jewish males never talked to women in Jesus' time. jallan 16:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You can quote the Bible to support anything ; directly quoting is wrong without going through layer above which consists of various teachings dished out by the self-appointed worthy. Cleanup and POV notice. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:33, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm with Dunc. Keep, cleanup & POV notice. -- Jmabel 19:33, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I believe you can come to an understanding on your own. That's not really the point I'm trying to make. It's nearly impossible to detail how all Christians view women. I mean, why don't we have an article Atheist views of women, or Agnostic views of women? - Ta bu shi da yu
 * Indeed, perhaps we should have an article on secular humanist views of women. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 12:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * That would be a legitimate topic, but I don't think there'd be very much material for it. That material could be accommodated in secular humanism, which is a short article.  I don't see how there'd be any material for the "atheist" or "agnostic" articles. JamesMLane 19:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, while we're about it, perhaps we should make the topic Feminist views of women? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Look, Ta bu, this is just getting silly. If you think the article takes a Biblical verse out of context, add the context and explain how it changes the apparent meaning.  If you think there are other verses that should be cited, add them.  Personally, I think that what the article needs most is to go beyond quoting the Bible and examine its subject more broadly.  For example, some Christian denominations ordain women while some don't.  This article could include official statements from church leaders on both sides of the question, presenting the differing views on ordination of women.  Nevertheless, I don't see the omission as a basis for deleting the article.  I also don't see how the proposed deletion is supported by suggesting an article like Feminist views of women.  (As to the latter, by the way, if you want to write an article that quotes some feminists who argue that women are equal, and others who consider women superior, I think that could well make a legitimate article.) JamesMLane 01:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I was jesting, my friend. Seriously, this is a really explosive article and I don't believe things are getting that silly. The whole article is badly slanted and nothing short of blanking it and starting from scratch will fix it. However, even if we did this, how would you approach this issue? The answer you give will be opposed by a cast of thousands! Really, this is not a valid article for Wikipedia. It requires the discussino of too many point of view, and this is not the function of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * If there are multiple points of view to be discussed, then we discuss them. The function of Wikipedia is to present human knowledge, even in areas of controversy.  Your approach would require the blanking of numerous articles, e.g. concerning the Middle East.  As for my approach, see above.  If the article is slanted because of misquotations, correct them; if because of quotations taken out of context, explain the context; if because of the omission of material that cuts the other way, add it. JamesMLane 15:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Christian Bible views of women? &mdash;Lady Lysi&#0331;e Iki&#0331;sile | Talk 12:47, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
 * Nah, see talk:Christian views of women, IMHO the page needs to be an article with subpages e.g. Roman Catholic views of women. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 14:42, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep solely only the grounds that this discussion doesn't belong on VfD. RickK 20:00, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of new to VfD, so this may be the case. However at the very least, the entire article needs blanking and for someone to start it again. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:55, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep solely only the grounds that this discussion doesn't belong on VfD. Article needs cleanup with something strong, like sulfuric acid.  SWAdair | Talk  01:50, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much of the Biblical analysis above should be incorporated into the article, but it's not a basis for deletion. JamesMLane 08:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good topic, needs work and is obviously going to get both the work and the works. Difficult to NPOV, sure, hey what's new? Besides, no argument as long-winded as the one that started this discussion can possibly (-> be valid. Andrewa 13:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Difficult? It's impossible! How would you start the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have a look. I've had a quick try at a new introduction. The whole article now needs refactoring to follow the example of description rather than prescription set by the introduction. Andrewa 03:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - just because it is hard to NPOV isn't a reason to delete it - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  22:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Invalid reason for deletion. Ambivalenthysteria 05:58, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)