Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms

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 Keep as dab-style page with links to separate lists. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms

Article no longer needed, categories like Category:Hebrew words and phrases can act as a listing for all such terms without need to repeat information from hundreds of main articles into another listing article. Bikinibomb (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Admin Jossi stated in the article talk page that new material may be added to this glossary which doesn't exist in main articles, opposed to my concern that it this would breed more opportunity for OR and POV forking. As a result terms have been added with no main articles and no citations, therefore some of the concerns existing with previous AfDs on versions of this article have not only not been addressed, but intentionally ignored. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on topic -- to nobody in particular: Please use this page to vote, hopefully with reasons, on the AfD. Discussion of the article can be on article Talk. Discussion of how the AfD was submitted, etc., can be placed on this AfD's Talk page. Keep the page as tightly focused as possible for the sake of the closing admin. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and KEEP: these are two different religions. It's a lovely format... very pretty. Would look great as two separate glossaries. And, guys, we can always add a LINK between the two. So, my reasons:

The concepts and words don't match between the two (the same words are used in different ways, and the same concepts link to different words). If a matrix was bad, this is worse.
Well, these are two different religions. People don't SEARCH Wikipedia for "Jewish and Christian terms". They are more likely to search for "Jewish terms" or "Christian terms". Don't you want traffic?Tim (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The content seems useful in a list form. It should probably be split into separate articles, though. --Eliyak T·C 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important note to closing admin. The two previous "Keep" votes support splitting this article into two separate articles. (Besides those who've commented here, similar views have been expressed by IZAK and LisaLiel in a poll in article's Talk. Drboisclair opposes a split.) Plus, as indicated in the next comment, these split versions have now been created. Thanks HG | Talk 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separated versions. Okay, guys. If you want to keep it together, then delete these (Glossary of Christian terms and Glossary of Jewish terms). Do whatever you want. I'm tired of all the arguing. But I'd suggest everyone part company just like the religions chose on their own 1800 years ago.Tim (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the 2 split version and the polling so far, I'd think that it'd be best to delete this article and then judge each of the split versions on their own merits. Any objections? HG | Talk 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a long history and discussion associated with this article that I think should be preserved as a record of how we got here, if nothing else. I'd suggest making Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms a disambig-style page pointing to the two new glossaries.--agr (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Well, a DAB page is really for common terms that have multiple meanings or alternative names. I would think that the new (split) glossaries would be easy to find via search.~~ There could also be helpful links in WikiProject pages, Judaism/Christianity categories, and the WP category of Glossaries or Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. ~~Meanwhile, discussion histories for a deleted article can be saved by a closing admin.~~ Thanks. HG | Talk 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My main concern is keeping the history and discussion available in an archive without requiring some special admin access request. Ideally the two daughter articles' talk pages would each point to that archive. Preserving article history is important if the content persists and I think it's required by the GFDL. Another advantage of a disambig page is that it would preserve the thread from the three AfDs to the talk page and the daughter articles. If there is a way to accomplish these thing without keeping a shell of the original article, that's fine with me. --agr (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on dab. Arnold, you (and Jossi and Kim) are right that, to preserve Talk and edit history, if only for GFDL purposes, as the article gets split in two then it should be turned into a DAB. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the pages have now been split, and if there are any further issues with either of the seperate artciles, raise them away from here. As to the mention of some kind of a link, i only hope Chrismukkah is considered to fill that role! Carlyle 3 Carlyle 3 Contributions/Carlyle 3
Redirect or dab the talk page history is handy to keep around. Possibly also need to keep page history, just in case people have been copying over, and we'd like to maintain GFDL compliance. If people have been copying over, do not delete under any circumstance, as that would constitute a copyvio. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or Keep as disambig page. Do not delete for all good reasons explained above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment this is a very controverisal page that has in different forms be nominated for deletion seveal times. IZAK recently set up a poll on the article talk page concerning its future, and there has been some discussion about what to do. I would rather wait to see if good-faith editors on that talk page reach a consensus, before deleting it. My own personal view is this: the page serves right now as a good process for eliciting important terms that need to be discussed. i think once the list is fairly stable, terms relating to Judaism should be incorporated into the Judaism article, and terms related to Christianity should be concorporated into the Christianity article, and we can also use the process to develop stubs for new articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article stays, or the new articles stay, there should be agreement that:
- Notable terms would consist of those having their own articles. If you really want a term included like "Normal mysticism" create an article for it first if it doesn't exist, then add it to the glossary.
- Entry information should be primary points of a term derived from the introductions to those main articles to avoid POV forking and to maintain consistency if the glossary is also to be used as a point of entry to those articles. If the introductions are too weak or long-winded to use in the glossary, it should be improved on in the main articles, or summarized, then added to the glossary.
- If there is debate about any one term or concept, it should be done in main articles, while glossary/list article Talk should be only about how the lists are structured, etc.
If those points were agreed to and posted as editing guidelines for those articles I'd withdraw my support of this AfD and support consensus to keep this article or those other two, either way. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To add, this would solve a lot of the problems with this article. There would be no debate as to what is notable to include in the list, if it has a main article it is notable. No one would be making up their own definitions from OR that do no exist in main articles, or picking the "juiciest" parts of an article to reflect their own POVs, they would need to use introductions to reflect only main points agreed to by editors in those articles. There would be no more long discussions of figs or shituf or whatever to disrupt list development, those would take place with a consensus of editors regularly working on those main articles in order to coherently incorporate conclusions into those articles. Then if those conclusions end up in the introduction, they can be used in a glossary, if not they will benefit those main articles without involving glossaries. I think these are reasonable guidelines to implement and live by, to help avoid further disputes of the magnitude we've seen here. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added the following as guidelines to each alphabetical section of terms in all three articles, similar to what is done for List of drummers so they are readily seen when edited: Only add a term if it has its own article. Include brief summary of main article introduction content only for term descriptions. Discuss introduction content in main article Talk, not here. If someone really wants the wording changed I can take care of it, however I won't really agree to not keeping the general ideas of all three guidelines in if these articles are going to proceed without the type of disruption experienced before. -Bikinibomb (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that LisaLiel has rejected guidelines and is replacing intros with her own POV. I will revert to article intros up to 3RR as it takes place. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reject Bikinibomb's "guidelines". I've given examples on the talk page of the article as to why this is. Here are a couple of them. Currently, the only article on Chesed is a redirect to Chesed (Kabbalah). But chesed is an extremely common, notable, and important concept to Jews, and has nothing to do (directly) with the Kabbalistic concept. Kabbalah is neither commonly studied by most Jews nor accepted at all by a significant percentage of Jews, while chesed is the general term for the category of actions that include things like visiting the sick, giving to the needy, taking in guests, etc.

Bikinibomb's "guidelines" would require an entire article to be written on the subject before it is mentioned in this glossary. But while it is an important Jewish concept, I'm unsure whether it is needful to have a Wikipedia article on it, and even if it is, I don't have the time, right now, to create one.

Another example is the issue of Christianity as a monotheistic religion. Jewish authorities dispute this characterization. Noting that dispute in a glossary of Jewish and Christian terms is both pertinent and appropriate. But is it appropriate to note that in the article on Christianity? Maybe, but then again, maybe it's gratuitous. The contexts differ, but Bikinibomb would have us dismiss all context and work like robots.

One of the cardinal ideas of Wikipedia is "Ignore all rules". Rules are descriptive, and not proscriptive. When they get in the way of making a good encyclopedia, we're supposed to ignore them. How much more so a "guideline" proposed by someone who has been putting in bad faith edits, which he's admitted to doing in order to "test" other editors?

Here is his admission of bad faith edits, incidentally: "So as a test I changed 'Christ' to a shared term to see if she would revert it and of course she did as a Christian only term, she did the same with Yeshua even though it was a common Hebrew name." In other words, he deliberatedly put in edits listing "Christ" and "Yeshua" as shared terms, despite knowing that they were not and that I would revert those changes. If that isn't grounds for at least a temporary ban, I don't know what would be. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "Christ" to a shared term because you made "Christian" a shared term, one naturally follows the other. That I also wondered what you would do with it was incidental. I made Yeshua a shared term because it is a Hebrew name, nothing to do with the other issue. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is the closest to consensus I've seen on this. The article split seems like a good idea, as do Bikini's restrictions on what is included. Delaying deleting this article as Slrubenstein recommends until the other two are stablized is also a good idea, as is making this a dab page as Kim/jossi suggest. Who would have thought, cats can collaboratively herd themselves : ) --MPerel 19:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Port it to Wiktionary I guess. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Drboisclair (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) I think that it serves a good purpose. Perhaps it could be appended to an article that deals with the distinction between Judaism and Chritianity.--Drboisclair (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A transwiki or copy of some useful version or other to the Religeon wikia at religion.wikia.com might well be appreciated by many! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC) procedural note: if you do so, GFDL compliance requires you copy&paste page history to the talk page at religion wiki, and/or make a subpage with that data.[reply]

(editconflict)Turn into a disambiguation page. Separate glossaries of Christian and Jewish terms would be encyclopaedic (and both, in fact, already exist), but I'm not so sure this is. It could easily be considered a synthesis of published material, thus constituting original research. I think the best option is to simply make it a disambiguation page between Glossary of Christian terms and Glossary of Jewish terms. Terraxos (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be consensus on splitting the article and on the need to keep it as a dab to preserve history. Is there any reason not to go ahead an do this and moot this AfD?--agr (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Articles can be changed during AfDs. If somebody objects, they can simply revert. When the AfD is closed, the closing admin can affirm the consensus. Be well, HG | Talk 14:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and done this. I would further suggest renaming this article to List of religion glossaries and adding several more that already exist.--agr (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good idea. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that, added several more glossaries and categorized the page.--agr (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because now that distinct "glossaries" have been created, one for Glossary of Christian terms and another for Glossary of Jewish terms there is no need for this "merged glossary" that was in effect nothing but poor WP:NOR trying to weigh opposite and conflicting religions. Now each can belong to its own religion as it rightly should have been done from the start. They can also be easily cross-referenced to each other via "See also" links just like all other articles function on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful information indeed on this shared faith called Judaic-Christian Tradition, tremendous light on the subject comes shining while reading this article, very valuable indeed. Thanks for the authers--יודל (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Yiddisheryid: It is not an article, it is a mumbo-jumbo. Yes indeed, there are already very good articles about what Judeo-Christian means and describing and discussing Judaism and Christianity. There are also more than sufficient Category:Judeo-Christian topics and Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics that have worked just fine and cover all the bases, whereas these new efforts at creating long "glossaries" trying to combine opposite and contradictory religions come across as WP:NOR efforts to fit a square peg into a round hole. IZAK (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Opposite and contradictory religeons? Hmm, that sounds like an extremely POV position to hold. Wow, I can just feel the vehemence. Whence such strong feelings? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- IZAK, although I agree with the termination of this page, the concept of matching concepts to terms and terms to concepts is sound. The fact is, each religion uses the word "Trinity" in different ways. One uses it for Trinitarian ideas (Christians) and one uses it for Arian ideas (Jews). The idea is not to show who is right, but what subject people are on so that they can at least FIND the articles that correspond to each other (Trinity -> Shituf -> Arianism, etc). This article, though, does not accomplish it.Tim (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd encourage everyone to focus on the AfD question and our critiera. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Increasingly a POV pushing tool. Function can be performed by a category. WP:NOT a glossary/dictionary. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be cut down to a list that only inluded common terms. Lobojo (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eventually Assuming that a glossary is appropriate content for WP, there are a variety of definitions that need to be transferred to the Glossary of Christian terms (e.g. the explanation of "paraclete" and I expect there also are for the Jewish equivalent. However some of the entries in the Christian glossary are currently somewhat odd, for example the inclusion of the Hebrew for New Covenant and the definition of New Testament as a synomym for new covenant. In strcit semantics, they may be the same, but to my mind, the New Testament is the book (or rather collection of books) that are the Christian scriptures, while the New Covenant is the new relationship between God and man atthe root of Christian beliefs. Accordingly, deleteion should not take place until these matters have been addressed. However, most of the terms probably have their own articles, so that a list of Christian (or Jewish) terms (which is what the various articles seem to be trying to be) have little value as articles and might be much better as categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pages have been split. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Significant edit history will be lost if this is simply deleted, violating the GFDL. We need to find another way. Andrewa (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved the page to List of religion glossaries, which preserves the edit history. I think this new list has merit on its own as it provides navigation to half a dozen separate glossaries. Accordingly, I would support the suggestion Bikinibomb made on the article's talk page that this AfD be closed.--agr (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As discussed above, the edit history can be kept w/article as dab (or redirect). Currently, the article has been revisted into a dab. Alternatively, it could redirect to the existing List of glossaries for religion. Given this existing list, I've reverted Arnold's move (sorry, Arnold). Thanks. HG | Talk 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no List of glossaries for religion and I find it inappropriate to use a pipe to a portal, Portal:Contents/List of glossaries#Religion and belief systems, to suggest this article already exists. It's my understanding that portals are a separate navigation tool and are not intended to replace articles in the primary name space.--agr (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Andrewa below, let's continue on portals etc at the article Talk page. HG | Talk 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll (reluctantly) leave this AfD to another admin to sort out, but my suggestion would be to hold back from any further moves, reverts or whatever, until we can get a consensus somewhere. And I think the article talk page is the place to do it, rather than an AfD. IMO, opening and closing the various AfDs and RMs is not good use of anyone's time. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The previous content of this article, which is currently a dab, has recently been ported over to Glossary of Messianic terms. Thanks. HG | Talk 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.