Talk:Stumbling block

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Bible  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Catholicism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Move to stumbling block per common use[edit]

Nothing specifically Roman Catholic about this entry, even in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Generic. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move per request - "Stumbling block" is the most common name for this concept in English and no other encyclopedic use of this term in English is as prevalent as this one. Neelix (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Scandal (theology)stumbling blockRelisted Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC) The article started in 2006 surviving a deletion nomination, and taking up "Scandal" as the title of 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia, from Latin scandalum. However rationale for the proposed page name change per common English today and WP:IRS in article, checked with usage on Google Books and JSTOR. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a non-controversial move and I think should just move without fanfare. History2007 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment that's not the common English meaning of "stumbling block". "stumbling block" didn't even redirect here, it used to point to Lifnei iver. Seems like a disambiguation page should exist at "stumbling block", since that meaning is not the common English meaning either. 70.49.125.226 (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate stumbling block between this, the former target, Stolperstein, obstacle and wikt:stumbling block. 70.49.125.226 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Move to stumbling block as nominator suggests, and merge/redirect Lifnei iver into it. This is primary usage/meaning in English. Put a hatnote on top for obstacle, etc. Neutralitytalk 20:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but the lead needs serious work. The article is not about the idiom, it's about the topic that this idiom describes (twelve occurrences in the ESV). Disambiguation doesn't appear necessary as there's no prospect of another article named stumbling block. The term scandal is one I've never heard, and while I'm not a theologian I've done quite a lot of reading in popular theology, and I'm very surprised by the claim that it rather than the term used in most common English translations of the Bible is the common term. Google books and JSTOR are quoted above, but can we have the URLs of the actual searches? The results obtained as well please, as our Google results may vary, and JSTOR is not universally accessible? While I assume good faith of course, the simple claim that unspecified searches support the current title isn't sufficient evidence IMO. Andrewa (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
JSTOR can be accessed by Google Scholar
Stumbling block
rather difficult to do a search on scandal that doesn't make false positives In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. As you say, this search for scandal is plagued by false positives. And it raises the point... while scandal is used in some English versions to mean stumbling block [1], in others [2] it has a different meaning. WP:AT: recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources... (my emphasis). Stumbling block seems unambiguous, and I would claim recognizable; Scandal is both ambiguous, and I would claim not as well recognized. No change of vote, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that giving "stumbling block" a religious connotation is going to be very strange, but at the same time, the explanation for why this article is named "scandal" doesn't occur until halfway through the article. Moreover, the usage would seem to be based on a Christian framework (coming from the later Greek translation) as opposed to Judaic (lifnei iver mentioned above), which I think is problematic when dealing with Old Testament material. However, this is English WP. The solution is to pick one, redirect the other two to it, and adjust the lede so that it adequately explains why the article is called that (which can be done, as soon as the title is chosen). I would lean towards Stumbling block because the modern connotation of scandal is too confusable here, and the other term is in Hebrew. If someone wants to let me know when the decision is made, I'll even volunteer to redo the lede. MSJapan (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.