Content deleted Content added
Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) m →Original research: corr. |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 11 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 9 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Bible}}, {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Religious texts}}, {{WikiProject Gender Studies}}, {{WikiProject Women's History}}, {{WikiProject Feminism}}, {{WikiProject Ancient Near East}}, {{WPJW}}, {{WikiProject Books}}. Keep 2 different ratings in {{WikiProject Chr... |
||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Ruth, Book Of|1=
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Christianity| class= B | importance= top}}
{{WikiProject Judaism| class= B | importance= high}}
{{WikiProject Biography
{{WikiProject Religious texts
{{WikiProject Gender
{{WikiProject Women's History
{{WikiProject Feminism
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East
{{
{{WikiProject Books}}
}}
Line 68:
The article jumps into discussions of controversy about authorship and themes before it tells what the text /story actually IS. There is only 1 inline citation making verifiability nearly impossible - as it stands, the article appears mostly Original Research.[[User:207.69.137.11|207.69.137.11]] 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
== Storyline ==
Line 132 ⟶ 130:
This section of the article seems to keep coming and going. If it disappears again, I am going to request some level of protection on the page. It is merely one interpretation among several listed in the article, and should be treated as such. [[User:Sevey13|Sevey13]] ([[User talk:Sevey13|talk]]) 00:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
:Respectfully disagree. These "contempory interpretations" would be more accurately described as "[[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] interpretations" - and it seems to have been originally added by editors pushing a LGBT agenda. [[User:AnotherNewAccount|AnotherNewAccount]] ([[User talk:AnotherNewAccount|talk]]) 21:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
::Seems weird to delete it here when it's mentioned on [[The Bible and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible]]. However, it's not mentioned in the articles for [[Ruth (biblical figure)]] or [[Naomi (biblical figure)]], so maybe it's not essential here. [[User:Aristophanes68|<
:::The topic of homosexuality in the bible is an interesting one, and certainly homosexual activity seemed to have been prevalent in parts of the ancient world without the negative influence of social mores seen in the modern world. But it's vulnerable to POV-pushing LGBT [[WP:ACTIVIST]] editors gratuitously inserting fringe material in order to "rub Christian readers' noses in homosexuality". I did however have a quick look at those two articles, and there is more salient information and, I believe, a better rationale for a homosexual interpretation. Perhaps those articles would be a better place to discuss the issue, rather than taking up several paragraphs on this article and risk giving undue weight to the entire notion.
:::The material I objected to and removed specifically was based on a weasel term ("'''some''' contemporary interpretations") - with a single solitary example provided by Rebecca Alpert, who is, frankly, on the looney tunes end of scholarly opinion. I am unhappy with the inclusion of ideologically-motivated fringe interpretations without further analysis. [[User:AnotherNewAccount|AnotherNewAccount]] ([[User talk:AnotherNewAccount|talk]]) 17:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Line 201 ⟶ 199:
Yup, most germane comments seems to be:
{{talk quote|The Bible is a primary historical source document, and should only be used on that basis. It says X, that doesn't mean we can say that X is true, but is verifiable that the Bible says X and that fact can be included in relevant articles. You can't interpret a primary source: "This bit says X and that bit says says Y, therefore Z" is not acceptable; "This says X and that says Y" is broadly acceptable. However, you shouldn't need to doyour own exegesis. Every part of the Bible has been the subject of detailed study by experts. If there's a particular historical event that interests you, experts will have written about it, explaining its context and meaning in minute detail. The works of those experts should be the references for anything other than simply repeating or paraphrasing or summarising what the Bible says. In this the Bible is no different from any other primary historical source. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)}}
This one is shorter:
{{talk quote|The Bible, is at best, a primary source. I would not be surprised if there was not at least a book written on every single passage in the Bible. Just cite those if you want to mention the Biblical account of things. [[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]] [[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]] 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)}}
The reason is that we ''report'' Bible scholarship, we don't ''do'' Bible scholarship.
<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />
{| class="wikitable sortable perennial-sources"
!rowspan="2" | Source
!rowspan="2" | Status<br /><small>([[#Legend|legend]])</small>
!colspan="3" | Discussions
!rowspan="2" class="unsortable center" style="width: 4em;" | Uses
|-
! class="unsortable" style="width: 4.5em;" | List
! Last
! class="unsortable" | Summary
|-
| ''[[Bible]]'' and every other holy book
|
| {{rsnl|25|Bible as a reliable source|1}} {{rsnl|35|Is The Bible (or other religious scripture) a reliable source?|2}} {{rsnl|244|Gospel of John|3}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2018}}
| The Bible is a [[WP:PRIMARY]] source only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Analysis of biblical content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited original research. Content that interprets or summarizes biblical passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of [[religious studies]]) and attributed when appropriate. Original research performed by Wikipedia editors upon holy books is prohibited by [[WP:NOR|website policy]]. All claims about holy books have to be sourced to [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP|scholarly]] sources.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|Bible}}
|}
I have restated it above. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 01:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Primal Groudon}}, you made this addition to the article:
*''Ruth 4:22, the last verse of the book, mentions David, his father Jesse, and grandfather Obed, but none of David's descendants, '''indicating that the book was written before any of David's children were born or well-known, which points to a late 11th or early 10th century BC date for the text being written.'''''
:The part in italics references the Book of Ruth, the part in bold gives your personal interpretation. As an interpretation, it's original research, and hence was reverted. Hope this clarifies matters. [[User:Achar Sva|Achar Sva]] ([[User talk:Achar Sva|talk]]) 21:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
::By long-standing practice and consensus, the entry upon the Bible, Quran and every other holy book has been added to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]]. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 21:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
{{od|::}}
{{u|Vaxorian}} has reverted disputed text, which is in violation of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:RSP]] long-standing practice and consensus. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 22:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
==Classic of world literature? I think so, could it be said?==
I am not a religious person, but consider the Book of Ruth to be of fundamental importance in the history of ancient literature that champions human rights against prejudices in the prevailing culture. The Book of Esther is another text I revere, but I like Ruth more. I don't want to edit the page myself, but couldn't something be said about what a precious piece of writing this is, for all ages, and believers and non-believers (like me) alike? Surely this book has had a documented impact on more than just the Judeo-Christian world that justly claims it. In its King James translation, for example, I'm willing to bet that it's one of the most quoted passages in English, along with the contemporaneous Shakespeare. (This example only intended to draw respectful attention to the reach of the Book of Ruth). [[User:Alan Canon|Alan Canon]] ([[User talk:Alan Canon|talk]]) 20:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
== Edit war ==
[[WP:PROFRINGE]] edit war has been reported at [[WP:FTN]]. No sources are now given according to [[WP:CITELEAD]].
{{talk quote|You misunderstand [[WP:NPOV]]; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)}}
{{talk quote|The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of [[WP:NPOV]]. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)}}
Quoted by [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
=== Recent vandalism ===
See [[WP:CENSOR]] and [[WP:NOBIGOTS]]. About {{tq|islamists}}: just research the issue of the pictures of [[Muhammad]]. Oh, by the way: many Christians ''are'' modernists. So why modernist Bible scholarship would be attacking Christians? In fact, seen the [[Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy]], only a minority of Christians are fundamentalists. And the screed of evangelicals is {{tq|we don't want to be modernists, but we don't want to be fundamentalists, either}}. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 02:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
{{quote|Another term for sexual intercourse is “uncovering the nakedness,” used repeatedly in a long list of persons with whom intercourse is prohibited: the mother, the sister, the aunt, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, and so on.13 “Nakedness” means both male and female genitals, as do several parts of the lower extremities of the body in their vicinity, such as loins, thigh, heel, and especially feet, another frequent euphemism. For example, in the Bible as in other ancient literature we find vivid descriptions of the horrors of ancient siege warfare. One such description, anticipating the destruction of Jerusalem as divine punishment for the Israelites’ disobedience, warns that in those dire days a woman will eat her placenta, “the afterbirth that comes out from between her feet.”14 Using the same euphemism, the prophet Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh will punish the Israelites through the king of Assyria, who will shave off all their body hair—“the head, the hair of the feet, and even the beard”15—symbolically reducing them to weak prepubescent boys.|[[Michael Coogan]]|[[God and Sex]]}}
{{quote|The Song of Songs, an ancient biblical love poem that speaks frankly of towering breasts, flowing black locks, kissable lips, and the joy of sexual fulfillment, offers a particularly striking example of this phenomenon, but other biblical passages are nearly as forthright. Ruth, King David’s grandmother, conspires with her mother-in-law, Naomi, to seduce Boaz, one of Naomi’s wealthy relatives. “Uncovering his feet,” a Hebrew euphemism for uncovering a man’s genitals, Ruth succeeds at gaining a home for herself and for Naomi, a woman she has promised to love until they are parted by death. By loving both her mother-in-law and her partner, Boaz, Ruth’s bold desire secures a future for herself and her family. The love between Naomi and Ruth is paralleled by the devotion of Jonathan to David, a friendship so strong that Jonathan comes to love David more than he loves women. After Jonathan’s death, when David spies the beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he invites her for a sexual rendezvous in the palace, though he already had many other wives to enjoy. The child of their adultery dies, but Bathsheba later becomes pregnant with Solomon, the famously wise king and the purported author of the Song. In these biblical passages, sexual longing refuses to be limited to the love between a husband and wife, or even between a man and a woman. In the case of the Song of Songs, desire’s heat can be applied not only to the love between a woman and a man, but also between humanity and God.|[[Jennifer Knust|Jennifer Wright Knust]]|Unprotected Texts; the Bible's Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire}}
To fill in the details: Coogan is a Catholic Bible scholar, Knust is a Baptist Bible scholar. None of them claimed to be atheist. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 05:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
:Regarding the edit, I think it should stay. It is sourced, and the statement is factual: that modern scholars have considered it to have sexual meaning. But on the other hand, I disagreed with the term "Many". While both are scholars, I don't think that the view is held by most of modern Bible scholars. In the spirit of [[WP:BRD]] I will remove the many, but I agreed with most of the edit.[[User:SunDawn|<span style="background-color:black; color:orange;">SunDawn</span>]][[User talk:SunDawn|<span style="background-color:green; color:yellow;">talk</span>]] 05:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
::Ok, further: [[Amy-Jill Levine]] is an Orthodox Jewish Bible scholar, while Gerald West is an Anglican Bible scholar. Not atheists, either.
::Morals: whatever the truth might be in respect to this interpretation, what is certain is that the Bible isn't a prudish book. Pretending that it is prudish only makes matters worse.
::Frankly, it is not even established as historical fact that Ruth was a real person, let alone what might have happened between her and a man when there was nobody else to witness it. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 12:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
== Reliable sources for a possible rewrite of this article ==
Just a few that I quickly found.[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-q46Uz4QSyAC&pg=PA7&dq=Rhema+doctrine+Hagen%7CHagin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwwpbL0PLWAhWH2xoKHeLTC8kQ6AEIRTAF#v=onepage&q=Rhema%20doctrine%20Hagen%7CHagin&f=false][https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RJHTpcwclS8C&pg=PA22&dq=Rhema+(doctrine)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWxc7Mz_LWAhVFfRoKHWRzAzsQ6AEIVTAI#v=onepage&q=Rhema%20(doctrine)&f=false][https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=buO3vdjzGl4C&pg=PA193&dq=Rhema+(doctrine)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWxc7Mz_LWAhVFfRoKHWRzAzsQ6AEITTAH#v=onepage&q=Rhema%20%20&f=false][https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iw-sVjMERQEC&pg=PA95&dq=Rhema+(doctrine)&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWxc7Mz_LWAhVFfRoKHWRzAzsQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=Rhema%20(doctrine)&f=false] I did find a lot of self-published material, but these sources seem to meet [[WP:RS]] which I'd argue many of the ones used do not. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
:Wikipedia standards allow for citations of people's online work to represent their own thought.
:[[WP:ABOUTSELF]] All the sources you deleted began by citing the author who presented them. The quotes present them as the thoughts of that author and those who follow that author's ministry.
:By your logic we can not quote the online catechism of the Catholic Church as authoritative for the Catholic Church because its published by the Catholic Church. That's not the Wikipedia standard.
:--[[User:Wowaconia|Wowaconia]] ([[User talk:Wowaconia|talk]]) 15:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
::We do [[WP:CITE]] the Catholic Catechism as [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]] for the Catholic Church. gotquestions.org is nobody's catechism. We just don't [[WP:CITE]] [[WP:RANDY]].
::See [[Talk:Internal consistency of the Bible/Archive 1#Is www.tektonics.org a WP:RS?]] and [[Talk:Jesus/Archive 127#Cause of death = pericardial effusion + pleural effusion]] and [[User talk:Dethbethlehem#Gotquestions.org]] and [[Talk:Hillsong Church#First few lines....]]
::He, himself, on his own, tell us that his own view is [[WP:N]]otable. But why would we believe him on his word of honor? According to [[WP:NOTFREESPEECH]] and other [[WP:RULES]], we only render the views of scholars and of representatives of big social, cultural, political or religious groups. He is neither.
::Your criterion of [[WP:N]] would be {{tq|a random priest or pastor published that in [[WP:SPS]].}} That's not gonna fly. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
{{od|::}}
Copy/pasted from [[Talk:Rhema (doctrine)]].
That is now [[Talk:Hillsong Church/Archive 2#First few lines....]].
{{talk quote|{{re|Pyrite Pro}} you're violating a guideline, gotquestions isn't [[WP:RS]] and should not be used.{{pb}}... and, it wasn't {{tq|unexplained}}. The explanation was [[WP:SPS]], you might want to read it.{{pb}}Gotquestions is not affiliated with a church, so they represent no church, they speak for no church, they speak for nobody in particular. So it even fails [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]].{{pb}}It is a self-published site written by a bunch of amateurs. Where did they got their PhD, ThD, or DD? In a box of crackerjacks?{{pb}}Rumor has it that they are Baptists. But they claim no formal affiliation with the Baptist Church, so they may not speak on behalf the Baptist Church. They cannot be [[WP:CITE]]D for the viewpoints of the Baptist Church, since they don't have the credentials of publicly representing it.{{pb}}Press statements by [[Ed Litton]] may be quoted to [[WP:V]]erify the POVs of the Baptist Church, but gotquestions is useless as a source for Wikipedia.{{pb}}What we won't do is quote amateur theologians who play hide and seek with their religious affiliations.{{pb}}And, correct me if I am wrong, gotquestions are a bunch of ''anonymous'' amateur theologians. That completely fails the [[WP:RS]] guideline. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 23:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)}}
Quoting myself. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 14:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
== Hebrew scrolls ==
{{tqred|absolutely no original Hebrew Scrolls exist to back up this era}} is [[moving the goalposts]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 22:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
:Not sure what you're trying to say, but there are no holograph manuscripts of any book of the Bible... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 10:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
== Perhaps the Book of Ruth was written by a woman ==
I find it surprising that in Chapter 3 the author go at length describing what Ruth need to do to lure Boaz especially verse 3. Women have been using those tactics since and who knows how much prior. As I read this Chapter I asked myself why are these words necessary to be included? For me, if I allow my sexist view that the author to be female, then such details would be expected. [[Special:Contributions/206.251.72.199|206.251.72.199]] ([[User talk:206.251.72.199|talk]]) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[Shaye J. D. Cohen]], [https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ here] (I don't remember which lesson), considers unlikely that any woman was involved in writing the Bible. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 11:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
| |||