Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern pseudepigrapha


 * 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 no consensus. There is discussion, which is good, but would serve better on the article's talk page. However, my first impulse would be to redirect to Pseudepigrapha, which is what I would advice at this point, until the lack of sources can be fixed. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern pseudepigrapha

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about something that seems to be entirely original reserach. Googling the term demonstrates the notability of this (there doesn't seem to even be a class of text that is called this). The one cited source, Goodspeed's Famous Biblical Hoaxes doesn't even use this term. The word "Modern" generally has a meaning that means contemporary/recent or between late 1800s to mid 1900s. This article describes medieval and earlier texts as "modern". Then there is the term "pseudepigrapha", which just means a writing forged in someone else's name. However, this article seems to be more about apocrypha, deuterocanonical or simply religious texts. I believe this was an attempt to categorize late Christian writings that at some point posed as authentic texts, only the attempt was full of original research. Look through the list and you will find a hodgepodge: there is a recent book that collects ancient texts (some of them pseudepigraphical, but not many modern), there is a book written by a 19th century spiritualist, then there is an actual pseudepigraphical text, the Gospel of Barnabas, but it isn't "modern". Andrew c [talk] 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure Andrew is right on all these points, but with some or all of a rename, copyedit, addition of dates, and clearer lead, I think a satisfactory start article is within fairly easy reach. Johnbod 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Another one of these self-important articles that use sesquipedelian words for an added sense of security. Once you get past the 14 letter word, however, it's an indiscriminate list that's served by the category "New Testament Apocrypha".  I remember all the articles about the "tetragrammatron" or something that came down to the four letters used in Hebrew to express the name of Jehovah.  This one is about apocryphal works (i.e., ones whose authenticity is in doubt), but it sounds more, uh, doctoral, to call it "pseudepigraphia".  Use that term next time you see a Wikipedia hoax.  Just say, "Hey, that's a bit of modern pseudepigraphia!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As the article says, these are not apocrypha, and I don't think calling things presumably written in the last century in many cases by that term would be a positive move. Johnbod 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: Is this where things like the forged Hitler Diaries, The autobiography of Howard Hughes by Clifford Irving and maybe the Salamander Letter would go?  Should this, perhaps be a category?  I'm not sure who cares anyway, but maybe there is something to this modern pseudopigraphia thing that might be worthy of something. --Blue Tie 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer The word pseudepigrapha is (usually) specific to religious works. Wanderer57 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There will certainly be enough sources on every one of them; the general phenomenon is worth an article, and there are sources on it to. the word used is meaningful, and standard, and items misplaced here can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments I have several points. I'll try to keep it short.
 * This is complicated, though the article is brief. It is also sensitive.  As indicated in the article Talk page, some people assert that religious Books at the core of other people's beliefs are "pseudepigrapha".
 * I don't think pseudepigrapha just means "a writing forged in someone else's name." (I'm no expert on this.)  It is rather a technical term referring to certain writings from between 200 BC and 200 AD.  Compared to that, pseudepigrapha as old as the Middle Ages are modern.
 * Andrew is right that the term "Modern Pseudepigrapha" is not in general use. The article would be on solider ground if it talked about "modern pseudepigrapha" (all in lower case).  This would not imply that "Modern Pseudepigrapha" is standard terminology.
 * As Johnbod says, there are issues with the article that could be fixed.
 * Five days is not enough time to consider the AFD. I raised my issues #6 and 7 (see below) on the Talk page of Modern Pseudepigrapha 5 days ago.  As of earlier this evening there were NO responses.  I thought my note was BOLD enough to draw some comment.  Either few people care about the article OR those who do care do not look at Wikipedia as often as Wikipedia addicts (or maybe my writing lulls people to sleep.)
 * The most important point is the ambiguity of the article. The body of the article does not say the 14 or so works listed ARE pseudepigrapha. It says:
 * "The following is a list of works commonly alleged to be modern pseudepigrapha. Groups supporting the authenticity of these works would not agree with this classification." (emphasis added)
 * This casts suspicion on works, without proving anything about them. Perhaps the "test" for inclusion in the article should be stronger than "commonly alleged to be...".  Maybe "the scholarly consensus is that these books are..." or something similar.
 * If the wording now in the article is acceptable, how much "alleging" is required before it is considered "common"?  Wanderer57 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Johnbod and per some of Wanderer57's points (there are a few I don't agree with). My principal additional concern is that the nomination mistakes "modern pseudepigrapha" as a term of art, failing to recognize that it is "pseudepigrapha", a term of art in religious scriptural and historical scholarship, modified for Wikipedia article organizational purposes by the logical adjective "modern"; we regularly and routinely split articles and topics in such ways. If the billiard ball article got to be very long, and a wealth of article information were being written on modern manufacturing techniques (phenolic resins, polyurethanes, acrylics, and other modern plastics) as opposed to historical ones (ivory, wood, clay, bakelite, celluloid, etc.), it would be perfectly reasonable to move that material to Modern billiard balls or billiard balls (modern); it wouldn't be original research, and there would be no need whatsoever to demonstrate any usage of the phrase "modern billiard balls" as an industry term of art. The stub has issues, yes, but they are reparable. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 11:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment what I am hearing is that editors believe that it is useful and encyclopedic to have an article on the concept of Christians writings that purport to come from "Biblical times" (NT would be 50~200 CE, OT would be of course earlier), when in actuality most scholars believe that they come from at the very least hundreds of years later. Ok, I can accept that. However, the title still has issues. If we can work out a name change, I'd be glad to withdraw my nomination. However, I still have big concerns with calling medieval work "modern". As for pseudepigrapha, are we to limit the works to religious writings that claim to be by some figure from ancient times? We need a title that conveys something along the lines of "Writings that allege to be biblical but most likely originate from the 2nd millennium". Of course, that is too verbose for an article title. Another issue that has come up is the inclusion of Mormon texts. I believe objectively, they do belong in this category, but because the Mormon followers are larger than say various New Age movements that accept the validity of some of those other texts, it is more offensive to categorize Mormon texts as "false" or "forgeries". I'm thinking an article title along the lines of Recent alleged biblical texts and define recent as a few hundred years past the apostolic period, or Second millennium alleged biblical texts? Anyway, I'm curious if anyone else has similar concerns with the title, or at least has any ideas that would help alleviate my concerns, and I'm also curious what others think about if the Mormon texts fit into this general category.-Andrew c [talk] 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * probably the most judicious way to handle the Mormon texts is as a separate article. Those who believe, can see this as indicating their distinctiveness as true revelation. Those who disbelieve, can see it as a prominent special case of the general phenomenon. Personally, I consider people well able to judge if what the texts say is objectively presented.DGG (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think that the Mormons consider their texts biblical. But I also do not think that pseudopigraph must be biblical.  I think pseudopigrapha must be writings falsely attributed to another... usually with intent, though not necessarily with intent to harm. --Blue Tie 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Mormon texts are best left out of this, except maybe for a see also on the cat page. Is "Post-Antique" better than "modern"? Recent is also a bit vague. Post-Antique alleged biblical texts might work. Johnbod 03:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Questions. First, should this article be redone as a "list" in Wikipedia? Second, what are the specific criteria for inclusion in this list/article? To avoid the problem of original research and a synthetic compilation, we'd need to have reliable sources that identify each item as worthy of inclusion. Specifically, a secondary source needs to use a term like "pseudopigrapha" to describe each listed item. Does Goodspeed do this and is he a sufficient source?  I think it's a fascinating topic but I'm skeptical if you can only find one source that uses this terminology. To bring this more within my own area of expertise, how would you decide whether or not the Zohar belongs on this list? If the criteria are too vague, or too reliant on Wikipedians' opinions, then it's hard to justify this article. Thanks! HG | Talk 08:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the key question is the one HG just asked, "what are the specific criteria for inclusion in this list/article?"   I would say 'Keep' if I thought this question could be answered adequately. I am doubtful that it can.  I hope someone with knowledge of the subject has an answer.  Wanderer57 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep, verifiable concept. Mukadderat 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per above --129.115.102.13 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the preceding Keep voters could say why they assert that it's a verifiable concept, since it doesn't appear that way from the current article's sources. Or, asked another way, by what sources and criteria would you expect to verify items for inclusion? Thanks. HG | Talk 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Apocrypha in the first instance, and redirect, then if the section expands sufficiently at a later date consider re-creating as a separate page. At the moment it's just a definition, not an article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see how a merger would solve any of the issues raised above. (Though that does not mean they would not solve any, as the first two quotes on my user page are meant to remind me.)  Wanderer57 03:31, 4 October 2007 (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.