Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible)


 * 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 List_of_names_for_the_Biblical_nameless. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a blatant POV fork of List of names for the Biblical nameless, after no consensus was reached at Talk:List of names for the Biblical nameless. StAnselm (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since it was made clear that List of names for the Biblical nameless concentrates only on the Hebrew Bible, we would be doing our readers an injustice by having incomplete information and not including the books that that article omits. As the article creator previously stated, a complete encyclopedia should include all pertinent information, which includes the Catholic Bible as well. If there's still any POV issues I'm sure a change of article title to something more neutral can rectify that. -- &oelig; &trade;
 * Actually, nobody was taking that position. Rather, some editors (including me) were saying that the Deuterocanonical books should appear in List of names for the Biblical nameless in their own section, rather than being mixed with the Hebrew Bible (since they were never written in Hebrew, and are not accepted by Jews as part of their scriptures). -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I disagree that the former list is only about the "Hebrew Bible" or the King James Version. List of names for the Biblical nameless can be edited by anyone.  I think that the comment that it "concentrates only on the Hebrew Bible" comes from someone else's observation that the article had, up to that point, only been the Old Testament and New Testament, without consideration of the Apocrypha.  That doesn't mean that there's some type of bar against edits that regarding books that are in the "Catholic Bible" but aren't in the "Protestant Bible", however one would want to define those terms.  It should be noted that the "Biblical nameless" article doesn't simply refer to people who are unnamed.  It refers to people who are nameless in one book, but who do have a name in another source (from the article, Lot's wife, not named in the Book of Genesis in any version, is called "Ado" in another work called the Book of Jasher).  The examples given in this article (the four angels out of seven who aren't named in the Book of Tobit) would be appropriate if they have names elsewhere).  Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. I certainly cannot see any reason to object to a third separate section identifying people who are nameless in the non-Hebrew language books of the Septuagint that are named elsewhere.  I began the head article quite a few years ago.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Smerdis of Tlon, assuming there is relevant content to be merged. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  Merge Delete. This material should have been added in an "Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical" books section of List of names for the Biblical nameless. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That was discussed, but the author of this new article did not want that - here he says, "I could not see a section entitled Deutroconical & Apocrypha, grouped together as one section, giving credence to them as appendages, whereas Deutroconical are an essential part of The Bible for me." Hence, no consensus was reached, and this article was created as a POV fork. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep. As I have already said, for a Catholic, the Bible contains a number of Books and sections of Books that are not in the Hebrew Bible. No agreement could be reached to their inclusion in the original article page.  As I have already said the apocryphal are utterly seperate from deuteroconical and have a seperate history.  An Encyclopaedia should have a comprehensive coverage on all subjects.  I have taken the subjects from a scholarly point of view and have shown clear references to well known Exegets work on these subjects. I created the article as no alternative was open to me or others, and you yourself said to me you wanted closure on this issue to get on with your lives (StAnselm). This article is not meant as a fork but as a complement to, as no agreement could be found. I have not covered the same material that is covered already in the List of names for the Biblical nameless, hence, it List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible), is not a fork but a complement to. The material covered in List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible), is only the most obvious, and leaves the many others to when/if agreement has been reached.


 * You say that anyone can edit the List of names for the Biblical nameless, yet when someone attempted, their edit was deleted even more than, I think, three times. And no way forward was open to any additions, or any ammendments.  This gave me no alternate but create a new page, and on scholarly lines.


 * Hence, I say keep the Article page until a clear agreement/alternative is reached, otherwise we are bordering on a sensorship.


 * I proposed catagories on the lines:


 * 1/ Hebrew Bible


 * 2/ Deutroconical


 * 3/ New Testament including Revelation


 * 4/ Apocryphal


 * But even this was unacceptable. Please do remember that deutroconical literature are an intrical part of the Bible for a Catholic, and cannot be confused with apocryphal. To propose a section made up of both together is offensive to a Catholic and according to the talk page it is offensive to The Orthodox Churches.  I have heard and headed the Orthodox feed-back.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The difficulty I had with your fourfold division, is this: Does "apocryphal" include books that are not included in the canon of any Christian church? If so, in what meaningful way can those books be said to be "biblical"? StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I proposed this article page on the talk/proposal pages at least for a week prior to creating it.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if you started it in your own user space (User:Bernard Mc Nally/List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible)), that's your business. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I note the rejection of good advice from &oelig; &trade; about notifying the creation of this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From a scholarly point of view, a lot of Books / Literature had to be autentacated to be cretatable. Hence, the history of its acceptance is important.  In The Letter to The Hebrews, tradition accepted it was sourced to Saint Paul.  The content of the material itself is a crediable point, and this is were the study of Hermeneutics comes in.  (see: The Jerome Biblical Commentry, Article 71, Hermeneutics, Raymond E. Brown, S.S.).&.(Epistle to The Hebrews, Article 61, Myles M. Bourke)


 * Apocryphal literature, would always remain a source of study, for this literature is defined as of uncertain origin. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a particular example, see: (The Jerome Biblical Commentry, Article 68, Apocrypha; Dead Sea Scrolls; Other Jewish Literature, Raymond E. Brown, S.S.). Every good Commentry will include all this literature, and any good Encyclopaedia will, too.  They all throw light on The Bible.  The truly independant sources would be the histories of Pliny and Pliny the Younger.  The writing of Jonathan would be questionable if they were Biblical.


 * I hope I have explained how apocyphal literature is seen as truly Biblical. If you do not assept my word then consult Raymond E. Brown, S.S. in the articles attributed to him as mentioned above and below.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I highly recommend; Raymond E. Brown, S.S. article 71 on Hermeneutics, considered the best in it's field. The answer to all your questions are to be found here.


 * Item 54: "...He believes that the literal exegesis of NT texts, limited though they may be, is the exegete's primary theological duty, while the reader's duty is simply to be obedient to what the authors of the NT wanted to communicate as revelation, even if it is quite foreign to the modern mentality (cited in J. M. Robinson, New Hermeneutic, 41). This is meant as an example of the study.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can assure you, if something comes to light in history or in Archaeology that throws extra light on the source or authorship of any of the apocryphyal, then you could find them being added to The Bible! I can give you some parallels of this.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest that (1) the part of List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible) regarding authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews belongs in that article, and (2) there is limited value in listing all people and angels with no names anywhere. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Angels' names are mentioned in other literature!


 * The article page is about the Biblical nameless, not their names. Their names could be found in other sources. Why is there such an economy of thought here?


 * The article page is meant to be a list, rather like a list of contents of a book, etc. Indeed there could be an article page on everyone of the entries, but as a contents list is valuable to a book, so this is to an encyclopaedia and as a spring to study and read further. Have you read The Jerusalem Bible and studied The Jerome Biblical Commentary or others?


 * If you are so objecting to the apocryphal literature and their inclusion, where do you think we should look for the Angels' names? Or for the names of others? If they are missing from the Bible where should we look for them, and if we do find them could we include them?  I feel if I encluded them, with their sources, they would be objected to, too!  If I mentioned the Book of Jasher or The Dead Sea Scrolls to a source of missing names and place them in, then surely those who object to apocryphal literature on the grounds that they are not accepted as Canonical by any Church will object.  Hence, the reason to keep the page Scholarly.


 * This article page is meant to be an aid to study further, not as merely a show-piece.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Was it not very clear that there was no way forward?


 * It would appear that any inclusion on the article page would be challenged or removed. Those who do not accept apocryphal literature here would object. Hence, there was no clear way forward, for the names of the nameless in the Bible are all to be found in extra-biblical literature.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I'm still having trouble getting a full understanding of the details behind this disagreement. Could you explain once again, clearly and simply for the uninitiated, why a separate section entitled "Catholic books" within the List of names for the Biblical nameless article is unacceptable to you? -- &oelig; &trade; 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try to explain. What you have asked, would be a way forward and would be totally acceptable, to me.


 * However, it may not be agreeable to all.


 * When someone attempted to place an entry in List of names for the Biblical nameless, of a family in a Book that is found in a Catholic Bible that are without being named ( 2 Maccabees ), was deleted from the article page. Then the entry was placed back again. This happened approx. three times. The objection was that it was in a catagory for The Hebrew Bible, and it should not be there.  Which is understandable.  However, no one of deleting attempted to place it in a new category.


 * However, when I tried to open a discussion about what catagories would be acceptable to all, no agreement could be found.


 * Someone objected to apocryphal being in (that is Books, not in the Bible, but of uncertain origin). This seemed to be contradictory as the names in the article page all come from this source!


 * Someone wanted the Books of uncertain origin grouped with Books in a Catholic Bible but not included in the Hebrew Bible (deutroconical). This catagory I could not accept.


 * Someone wanted unnamed people in the Bible but not named elsewhere not to be included.


 * Hence, I started a new page of the "nameless", not offering to put in suggestions of their names from other literature. List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible), contrasted with; List of names for the Biblical nameless. These names all come from extra-Biblical sources, by definition.  Hence, to object to the use of apocryphl (books of uncertain origin), in the article page is objecting to the article page itself!


 * Hence, if clear new categories were created in the original article page along the lines of what you have suggested, that would be a way forward. However apocryphal literature is essential to the article page, as how are we going to suggest and source names for them if not from these extra-biblical material?


 * The new page I started was on scholarly lines, traeting the material from the most sure and trusted commentaries, hence excluding any from mere uncertain origins, or of popular publications and devotional publications.


 * I hope this is clear, OIEnglish. If not, indicate and I'll try to put it differently.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still struggling to understand the argument here. The intention of List of names for the Biblical nameless was that it include characters who are unnamed in (some version of) the Bible, but whose names do appear in writings that (from one or other point of view) are extra-Biblical.  There are at least 5 different versions of "Bible" that could be used (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox), but I can't see why the article can't reflect a compromise.  A major issue at Talk:List of names for the Biblical nameless was one editor's insistence on including Deuterocanonical works in the "Hebrew Bible" section, but that editor now supports a section on List of names for the Biblical nameless. Also, if any editor feels that the sources in List of names for the Biblical nameless are not sufficiently scholarly, there are ways of improving the article that don't involve creating a POV fork. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want a clear and safe way forward so we can build up a good article page. But the article page I started is just a List of the nameless. If the deleters had antisipated this and made a new category and placed the item in there, in the original article page, there would not be a problem.


 * The article page could indeed have categories that are agreeable to all, if only everyone were agreeable and are sensitive to others.


 * When some were objecting to apocryphia being in the article page on the ground that they were not accepted by any Church, then there was no way forward. The created page was just a list of the nameless not their names so not a fork.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK.. So that we may move forward.. Bernard already said this is acceptable, now does anyone at all object to having a section titled "Catholic books" within the List of names for the Biblical nameless article? If not then we can merge the relevant information into that section and close this as a merge/delete. -- &oelig; &trade; 11:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! Where did that name come from? No, that's a particularly bad section title, since there is a section called "New Testament", which has considerable overlap with "Catholic books". StAnselm (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "Catholic canon" then? Or "Books of the Catholic canon"? There's got to be a section title that both you and Bernard can agree upon. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And what about Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox books? Why would we discriminate against them?  What's wrong with "Deuterocanonical books," which is the Catholic term for non-Hebrew Old Testament books? -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure.. I don't have the answers to those questions, that would be for you subject-matter experts.. I'm just trying to mediate here so we can reach some sort of outcome that all parties can agree upon. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I admire you for attempting it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of names for the Biblical nameless. The latter article includes a section on the Apocrypha. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the only way forward is to keep the Article page List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible), for even if we get agreement on catagories then would come the names sourced from apocryphal/tradition/& visionaries/ or the Saints/The Fathers of the Church/etc., these would then be objected to, and this stand would be illogical to the very aim of the article page itself, i.e. the names of the nameless.


 * The Old Testament contains the Catholic Books not in the Hebrew Bible, and there appears to be no objection to the New Testament, until we get to the Book of Revelation! So I think for now there is no way forward and to allow the article page "List of Biblical nameless" for now, perhaps we can build up the page from there.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge as others have said, providing an "Apocrypha" section. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the answer is having a policy regarding deleting, that stipulates that the deleter should try to see a helpful accommodating way where possible.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What categories would be worthy of an Encyclopaedia? From the Commentaries I am familiar with there is a proper way to include all sections.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bernard, when you refer to "categories", I believe what you are referring to would be the article's "sections". Sections is the commonly used term, Categories in Wikipedia are something different.
 * I think what the problem is now is that we need to come up with a proper section heading to put your content under, a few section headings have been proposed. Perhaps a way to move forward would be to list all possible section headings and have a poll to reach consensus on which one to use. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have a consensus here that List of Biblical nameless (Catholic Bible) should be merged into List of names for the Biblical nameless, and the obvious section there is List of names for the Biblical nameless, which already exists. Debating the section heading there is probably necessary, though a little outside the scope of this AfD: I'm not sure of the best mechanism for doing it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all the relevant material now exists at List of names for the Biblical nameless. I'm therefore changing my !vote for this article to delete. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you.


 * If you delete the page in favour of the (sorry: section); Deutroconical Books, then a short explanation of what they are are, and where the term comes from, would be necessary. Do remember that many dictionaries do get this wrong.  The Orthordox Churches do have some extra books here.  But also, about the suggested names of the nameless would come from all questionable sources, if everyone is happy with that?  Do keep in mind that the subject is the names of the nameless, and they will come from extra-biblical sources.


 * I do prefer the term; Catholic Biblical Books and sections of Books and the term Orthordox Biblical Books as they are instantly more undestandable, and avoid further confusion over the term deutroconical as it is now used often in confusing ways.


 * I can cover what different Commentaries give for their different sections. They do cover things from a scholarly context and tend to sweep away all other sources.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) In Wikipedia we generally use wikilinks for much of the explanation. Distinguishing between Catholic and Orthodox Deuterocanonical books only needs to be done if there are "Biblical nameless" in the Orthodox canon but not the Catholic one. So far we only have 2 Maccabees and Tobit.
 * (2) In List of names for the Biblical nameless the names have always come from (according to at least someone's point of view) extra-Biblical sources.
 * (3) I do not understand your comment about Commentaries. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did say that I included the most obvious, and kept the rest to when we have a clear way forward.


 * No. The sections have to be clear to allow for additions, not in a patch-work fashion, and properly defined, otherwise there is no clear way forward.


 * Some have objected to the inclusion of extra-biblical sources, and material.


 * Most Commentaries have encountered this problem and catered for it.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish you would follow standard indentation conventions on these pages. And I'm not aware of anyone who has objected to extra-Biblical books as a source of names for List of names for the Biblical nameless. However, I think we have now achieved consensus on the topic of this AfD. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you follow the talk page of the original page you will see it.


 * All I want is the sections to reflect the standard fitting an Encyclopaedia and to follow Scripture study and standards.


 * "Why have Apocryphal at all as no Church has ever considered them part af their Canon", I remember destinctly the comment.


 * If you use the term "deutroconical", you need to define it and its use, and indicate its books and part of books.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) On apocryphal books, I suspect you misunderstood something somebody said.
 * (2) As I said before, the definition of Deuterocanonical books need not be duplicated from the main article on the topic: all we need is a short explanatory sentence (such as already exists) and a wikilink to express the fact that the definition of Deuterocanonical books used is the one in that article.
 * (3) As to your implication that List of names for the Biblical nameless does not "follow Scripture study and standards," you should address the issue there, not here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I did not say that. I did not say or imply that the article page does not follow correct lines. What I said was that the sections planned for should be correct and follow Scripture study lines.  A completely different thought. "All I want is the sections to..."  "to", here implies the future.


 * No, I did not misunderstand, the person was objecting to the use of and inclusion of Apocryphal literature in the article page. I do not and have not objected to this, in fact I have advocated for this.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you opt to delete, will there be new sections created in the original article page, or are you going to prevent development of the page? If so how can that be a way forward?  You have already deleted an item in Biblical nameless(Catholic Bible), that is clearly sourced and correct in the New Testament, without including it in the original page, on the pretext of tidying-up.  How can that be a way forward? The New Testament, The Acts of the Apostles, is in the Catholic Bible.  Hence, it would appear that there is no way forward, that good faith is missing?


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't think there was anything specifically Catholic about the New Testament, since every Christian denomination accepts it. List of names for the Biblical nameless was already available. And what new sections do you mean? -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You have removed the entry of the Letter to the Hebrews, the entry on the Acts of the Apostles, these were correctled cited and an intrical part of The Catholic Bible. You work on an economy system that appears to be your own. No matter what I say no heed is taken.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a separate article of its own. The Ethiopian eunuch can go into List of names for the Biblical nameless as soon as we have a name for him. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The nameless is the subject. They belong here.  How are you going to find his name?  This sort of economy of paging is not correct.  I cannot assume your good faith.  You are pre-empting the decision on the article page before any decision has been made.


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2010 (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.