Talk:Religious exclusivism

This is not a fork of Chosen people; it covers a related aspect. If there is overlap between the two articles, let's fix it instead of deleting this one. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a terrifying lack of citations & much seems to be OR and surmise. TheresaWilson (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was written by Dan Fefferman, who offered the following references:

• Corney, Peter, and Kevin Giles. Exclusivism and the Gospel. Kew, Vic: St. Hilary's Anglican Church, 1997. OCLC 38819137
• Dickson, Kwesi A. Uncompleted Mission: Christianity and Exclusivism. Orbis Books, 1991. ISBN 9780883447512
• Griffiths, Paul. Problems of Religious Diversity. Exploring the Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell Publishers, 2001. ISBN 0631211500
• Küng, Hans. Christianity and the World Religions: Paths of Dialogue with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Doubleday, 1986. ISBN 9780385194716
• Quinn, Philip, and Kevin Meeker. The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity. Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 9780195121551

Can you explain the difference between a reference and a citation, so I can reduce your 'terror'? :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Take paragraph 2:

Exclusivism is most prevalent in Abrahamic religions.[1] In Jewish tradition, it manifests in certain interpretations of the concepts of the Chosen people, in which anyone who does not accept the teachings of Jewish monotheism is excluded from the messianic "world to come."[2] In Christianity, religious exclusivism is seen in the former teachings of the Catholic Church and the current teachings of several denominations that only those who adhere to the true faith will reach Heaven, while those outside of the true church will go to Hell.[3] Exclusivism is seen in Islam in the acceptance of sincere Jews and Christians as people "of the Book" along with Muslims, but the rejection of other religious traditions—as well as impious Jews and Christians—as "infidels" who have no part in Allah or paradise.[4]

The four statements numbered above are presumably referenced in the sources mentioned by you, but where? Am I required to read all from cover to cover?

Para 3:

Historically, religious exclusivism sometimes leads to the justification of religious wars, forced conversions of those outside the faith, bans against inter-religious fellowship and marriage, and the persecution of religious minorities. However, it is also possible to practice an exclusivist faith while generally respecting the rights of unbelievers, and this is often the case today. Many religions practice a modified form of exclusivism, in which other faiths are recognized as legitimate to a degree, but not as holy as the true faith.

This reads like opinion and should be referenced as such, or Original Research, in which case it shouldn't be here.

I could carry on, but you grasp my point - am I to take your word (and Dan Fefferman's [whom I know not]) that these statements and opinions are somewhere in any one of a number of (to me obscure - sorry) tomes?

Let me say, I don't disagree with the premise(s) of the article, but some more accessible citation is needed IMHO.

(The "terrifying" was the totality of noncitation from so experienced an editor as yourself :) ) TheresaWilson (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Interjection

Do we need this at all? It's only very subtly distinguished from Chosen People, after all. And the... "source" is somewhat unsavoury. I would vote we restore this to a redirect, or merge whatever is worth saving into Chosen People. — ラビット The Black Rabbit of Inlé_{(MeatballWiki is very savoury. Copy from them.)} 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"If there is overlap between the two articles, let's fix it instead of deleting this one" -- Well, no, let's follow the rules. — ラビット The Black Rabbit of Inlé_{(Appendix A)} 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, what's the template for "needs inline citations"? — ラビット The Black Rabbit of Inlé_{(Appendix B. I swear there are no more.)} 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the one I was hunting when I found the one I used. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here it is (found on the list here). Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks weaselish creature! ^_^ (There should be a scientific name for that)

So what are the chances that someone will read all of those books just so they can add the page refs to this article? — ラビット The Black Rabbit of Inlé_{(Also, there is the whole overlap thing...)} 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete or keep?

This has already been suggested above. I see a merge template has also gone up, but there's little or nothing here worth merging. It's just been copy-pasted from another site, which is best avoided, & the importer has made no attempt to modify it for Wikipedia. The text is more essayish than encyclopedic, with very few examples & lots of very questionable assertions (e.g. exclusivism is largely obsolete in Christianity; Islamic attitudes have changed little since the middle ages). It also wanders off the subject a lot: the article intro explains exclusivism in terms of one religion's exclusive path to salvation, but most of the text is about toleration of other religions, which is a related subject but really not the same thing at all. I suggest deletion. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Do we have to vote, or something? Or can we just restore the redirect immediately? After all, I don't think Uncle Ed is coming back. — ラビット The Black Rabbit of Inlé_{(I like voting)} 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here. I'm just slow. Also, I was hoping that instead of tagging the poor thing to death, you might help me fix it up. Fefferman is trying to distinguish between the main topic of the "chosen people" and one aspect that they share in common with other religious groups. He is also trying to delineate just how and when that exclusivity is manifest.

I find the discussion about whether' the article should exist separately a big distraction from the how of fixing it up. The more time I have to spend debating its worth, the less energy I have for repairs. Why don't you guys give me some support? Like, google up the first reference that was fact-tagged, so I have an idea of how it must be done (these days). Then I can continue with the others. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But Ed, if people generally think that it's not worth its own article, why should they chase your references? It's possible that Chosen people should be a section of this article, but until references are provided for the points flagged, that aint gonna happen. TheresaWilson (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Adding references is not someone else's problem. I have added an inline citation in the lead as an illustration of the format. Finding a relevant reference took little time as the topic is much discussed. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely: Ed seems to think that it is Someone Else's Problem. He's putting the onus on others to make his point for him, as if he were setting homework for a class. As I've said above, I do not disagree with the existence of the article, solely with its condition. As you note below, Chosen people could be treated as a subset of this article almost. TheresaWilson (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose deletion as religious exclusivism is a highly notable topic for which there are numerous scholarly references - please see links above. It seems somewhat different from the idea of chosen people in that the latter focusses upon a particular group, such as the Jews, while religious exclusivism is the idea that it is a particular religion, not a particular people, who are preferred. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've taken the tone of a teacher assigning homework. Actually, it's just the opposite. I'm not a good enough writer or researcher to be a teacher here at all. Long gone are the days when I was conversant with all WP policies and procedures. I am a mere dabbler now.

I still have hopes for collaboration, though. Because over 1,000 articles that I started are still in existence. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I approach from the opposite point: I have created no articles here and do not know enough of the procedures which have grown over the years. I have no doubt that, given sufficient time, I could become fluent in WikipediaSpeak, but I am a dilletante here only.

From this position of ignorance, might I suggest that your method creation of this article was slightly misguided? A wholesale copy from another GFDL source is hardly reasonable, no matter how good it is. Some addition to Chosen people might be preferable, leading to an eventual fork (is that the correct word?). Anyhow, it's up to those who know better than me (and you by the sound of it :) ) to decide. TheresaWilson (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not opposed to having an article on Religious exclusivism as such. I'm sure that the "Chosen people" approach doesn't cover all there is to say about that subject. However, Ed, I think one major problem with trying to start the article in this manner is that you try to establish the present text as a baseline which needs to be improved upon, without taking the time to consider whether it is appropriate for WP in the first place. Whether or not that's the intention, it seems a bit too much like an attempt to quietly let the New World Encyclopedia POV in through the back door. It would be much better to let it grow out of Chosen people or perhaps Exclusivism, as TheresaWilson suggests. --Lanfranc (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been following Ed's work on Conservapedia for some time, and this rather odd behaviour of his is quite common there. He seems to have a habit of reading about something that catches his interest, then creating a stub or cut/paste like this one, without regard for whether the information already exists, or whether the article is already needed, or indeed discussing the matter with anyone. For instance, in this case it would have been appropriate to discuss at the chosen people page whether this was necessary in the first place. The stub will usually be rather random, with few wikilinks and fewer references. Then he'll expect others to run around and do all the actual work of finding references and finding some way of incorporating it into the wiki, all the while claiming it would be a shame to remove the information. But would it be a shame if the information is already there, or it could be better dealt with elsewhere? In this case, very likely not. I'd support a subsection in Chosen People, but this cut/paste job is best removed. --Kelseigh (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC) — Kelseigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• This method of developing articles is our explicit editing policy. It is not our policy to expect articles to be submitted in perfect form which other editors merely inspect for quality. Your comments also have an ad hominen quality which is uncivil. Are you here specifically to harass this editor? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete (i.e. restore the redirect to chosen people). There may be a case for a separate article on exclusivism, but if so, it should be a new article. Importing an article wholesale from another site is not a good alternative, even if it is non-copyright, & especially when it's as far off Wikipedia standards as this one is. It has broad generalisations, POV interpretations & is short on solid relevant facts. Making this a valid WP article would involve researching & rewriting it from the ground up - I.E. no different from scrapping this rubbish & starting from scratch, which would be far preferable in my opinion. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete If an article is to be made, it should be original and referenced. TheresaWilson (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (restore redirect) It could be a good article, but starting from here is more trouble than a stub. — ラビット The Black Rabbit of Inlé_{(We rabbits know of these things)} 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

At the moment there appears to be a majority in favour of deletion. Those against: it's importer creator and an avowed anti-deletionist. No-one has expressed any intention of chasing up references or otherwise improving the article. (excepting Colonel Warden who apparently thinks "do as I say, not as I do" will engage enthusiasm from otherwise disinterested bystanders). I suggest that Ed Poor either digs up some references himself or reverts his past edits (& The Col's) & return to the redirect. If Ed Poor wishes to create an article here, which would be a "Good Thing", then a less ambitious start might be in order. TheresaWilson (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not bandy around ad hominem characterizations like "an avowed anti-deletionist", they have little relevance to the specific topic at hand. As for deletion, we can't decide anything here. Someone should AfD it if they truly think deletion is warranted. This will get broader participation than the seven "disinterested bystanders" we have here (not counting myself, I'm just passing through). -kotra (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What we're discussing is reverting it back to a pre-existing redirect - is AFD appropriate in this instance? weaseL FETLOckS 18:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm not sure. It would help get more uninvolved eyes on the issue, if nothing else. 5-2 is pretty weak consensus. -kotra (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD is not appropriate per WP:BEFORE. I have requested comment by other editors. Please allow 30 days for input. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• As we seem to have several novice editors here, I again counsel reading of our editing policy. It is better to edit the article, as I have just done, than to debate it from the sidelines. Even if one does not care for the original, the process may still be productive as in the tale of the Stone Soup. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stone soup is all very well, but I wonder whether if, in place of a stone, the travellers had set up a pot of water with a turd floating in it, the villagers might have been more reticent to add their own ingredients & seasonings to it. weaseL FETLOckS 13:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• An RfC is not the correct place to discuss deletion. Although this article is problematic, it should be reduced to a stub. not deleted.Dillypickle (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: whatever the article's current flaws, it seems to be a notable topic. if you don't like the content as is, whip out your editing axe and prune it down to a stub. --Ludwigs2 20:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: should simply be a subheading under an article on major religions.