Talk:Immersion baptism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

POV wide-ranging edit

Taiwan boi's reversion of the Esoglou text (now modified) to his own Taiwan boi text means that he insists on his POV:

1. Tb presents "immersion baptism" as meaning only baptism by total immersion, since he has the article open by stating that immersion baptism is also called "submersion baptism".
2. Tb rejects as insufficient the statement in the Esoglou text that the usages that distinguish "immersion baptism" from "submersion baptism" are "less common" than the usage that treats the two terms as synonymous, and demands that the article treat the latter usage as the only correct one, what he calls "normative use".
3. Tb seemingly seeks to discredit those who distinguish "immersion baptism" from "submersion baptism" by unsourcedly presenting them as merely "discussing from a Catholic or Anglican perspective". He then says that their view "is not supported by professional archaeological commentary", leading the incautious reader to think that their view is contradicted by the whole of professional archaeological commentary. Tb quotes one article (not a full-scale book) by one writer (the only source who speaks from an archeological point of view) three times, to make the majority of Tb's five citations appear to be archeological commentary. Tb's "professional archaeological commentary" is thus a single not particularly well-known article, ignoring the much-quoted study by Rogers (reproduced here and still, over a hundred years later, of great interest, as shown by its inclusion in the lists that booksellers publish), and more recent books such as Davies's (quoted in this other book
4. In the citations Tb gives, he treats all sources that mention "immersion baptism" without specifying what they mean by the term as necessarily referring to total immersion, doing away with the separate listing, in footnotes 1-5 of the Esoglou text, of the citations that do not specify and that therefore cannot be cited as upholding one view or the other.
5. With that distinction removed, Tb's statement that "standard Bible dictionaries differentiate between immersion, affusion, and aspersion as modes of baptism" is made to look as an indication that, for all standard Bible dictionaries, "immersion baptism" means exclusively submersion baptism. Furthermore, those who distinguish "immersion baptism" from "submersion baptism" likewise differentiate between immersion, affusion, and aspersion as modes of baptism. So the statement is a seriously misleading one on more counts than one.
6. Tb presents as "scholarly reference sources" only those that can be seen as holding that immersion baptism requires submersion, allowing only a single exception (he stresses that it is "one"). The one he chooses to admit as an exception is of far less prestige that the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which he excludes, as well as others mentioned in footnotes 10-15 of the Esoglou text.
7. Tb presents submersion baptism as what he calls the "normative mode" in early Christianity. (The term "normative mode" is of his own coining, not found in the sources.) He takes it as certain, that when the Didache speaks of baptism in water, it means submersion in water, although that is not stated in the text of the Didache, a fact remarked on by a reliable source included earlier in the article, but for some reason deleted by Tb at 06:42 on 1 November, a deletion that he has now repeated.
8. Tb says that "standard general English dictionaries" register the use of "immersion" in connection with baptism in the sense of submersion. He relegates to a separate paragraph the mention of English dictionaries that register the use of "immersion" in connection baptism in the sense of partial immersion, as if they were mere "non-standard" English dictionaries!
9. Tb says that "modern lexicography" "unanimously agrees" that βαπτίζω, the Greek word that the New Testament uses of Christian baptism and other actions, "is differentiated from pouring", thereby suggesting that "immersion baptism" must mean "submersion baptism". He has removed the fact that βαπτίζω is used in contexts, even in the New Testament, where it is clear that the immersion is only partial, a fact mentioned in Greek lexicography that is by no means "non-modern".

Enough? Or should I mention too the authoritative sources that he cuts out, classifying them, it seems, as non-scholarly? Esoglou (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all I note that Esoglou has given absolutely no reason as to why he removed a significant number of WP:V/WP:RS, the overwhelming majority of which just happened to be those with which he disagrees. I also note that he failed to address any of the points I made when registering the difference between my edit and his.

1. I don't present immersion as meaning only total immersion. Right in the beginning I make the point that it is carried out in a number of different modes, and later I include extensive discussion of the non-submersion view.

2. Of course I reject the view that usages that distinguish "immersion baptism" from "submersion baptism" are "less common" than the usage that treats the two terms as synonymous. It's simply not true. I've proved this by quoting a large range of standard scholarly reference sources. Esoglou acknowledges that he has found only two which say otherwise. I have never said that the latter use is the only correct one. I have simply identified it as normative.

3. I identified certain sources which you provided, as writing from the Catholic or Anglican point of view, because having read them it's clear that they were. One of them is "The Book of Common Worship", a standard Anglican theological text. How could you miss this? If you didn't read them with sufficient care to identify this, that's not my problem. I also provided more than one archaeological commentary. I provided three sources. One was Flinn, ‘Encyclopedia of Catholicism’, article “Baptism”, Encyclopedia of World Religions, 2007), p. 52, which specifically directs the reader to the section on archaeology, and the same work in the article 'Architecture' which describes the archaeological evidence from baptisteries. One was Sanford La Sor, 'Discovering What Jewish Miqva’ot Can Tell Us About Christian Baptism', Biblical Archaeology Review, (1987), 13.01). Another was Rice, 'Baptism in the Early Church', Bible and Spade (1981) Volume 10 (2) (64). Three sources, not one, and all of them commenting from an archaeological perspective. Most importantly I chose commentary which was actually citing the scholarly consensus. In return Esoglou appeals to a study from 100 years ago, another book written twenty years before the article I cited, and another book which isn't even an archaeological commentary, and which relies only on the 100 year old study of Rogers. So Esoglou presents three sources which, on inspection, prove to be the 100 year old study by Rogers and two people citing Rogers. This is simply not credible when compared to modern archaeological commentary by actual qualified archaeologists.

4. I do not misrepresent any sources in the way Esoglou claims. Sources which identify standing in water and having water poured over the head as affusion, do not use the word immersion to speak of this. This is verifiable, and anyone can check my sources to see if they are being misrepresented. To date Esoglou has failed to do this with even one of my sources.

5. My statement is that standard Bible dictionaries differentiate between immersion, affusion, and aspersion as the only three modes of baptism, and I contrast this with those which identify four forms of baptism, differentiating between immersion and submersion (as you do). The fact is that standard Bible dictionaries identifying three forms of baptism as immersion, affusion, and aspersion do not make the immersion/submersion distinction which the ODCC makes, and this is verifiable. If you really believe I'm misrepresenting my sources then please go right ahead and read them, and come back and show us all that they actually differentiate between immersion and submersion. If you make claims like this you will be called on to prove them.

6. I present as "standard scholarly reference sources", those sources which are actually "standard scholarly reference sources". That's it. I specifically include the ODCC I include in these the ODCC. I certainly do not exclude it, contrary to what you claim. Your claim is false.

7. The sources I cite identify immersion as the normative mode of earliest Christian baptism using words such as 'The record left by these various witnesses overwhelmingly testifies to immersion as the normal mode of baptism', 'In the early days of the Church, total immersion, often in streams or rivers, seems to have been most commonly used', and 'there is a similar consensus of scholarly opinion that both the baptism of John the Baptists and of the apostles was by immersion'. I have let these sources speak for themselves. Please read them for yourself and show how I am misrepresenting them. I did not use the word "submersion" with reference to the Didache, nor even the phrase "total immersion". I used simply the term "immersion", and let the sources speak for themselves. Your source for the Didache, Brownson, is a theological work from the Reformed perspective, not a scholarly commentary on the Didache. It falsely claims the word baptizo does not indicate any mode of action, which is contradicted by every standard lexical authority, and its claim with regard to the Didache is contradicted by the scholarly sources I cited. Your source is clearly POV, does not represent modern scholarship, and does not belong in that section. If you want to find another place for it, go ahead.

8. It's a particularly weak objection that I separate with a single line (for the sake of visual clarity), two dictionaries from the other dictionaries.

9. It is a fact that modern lexicography unanimously agrees that βαπτίζω is differentiated from pouring, and I provided a WP:RS (scholarly), saying exactly that. This is verifiable, just check the standard lexicons (cited earlier in the article). Idirect readers to the more extensive discussion of the word in the "Baptism" article, where I have made it clear that βαπτίζω is used in contexts, even in the New Testament, where it is clear that the immersion is only partial.

Is that it? No response to my points? No explanation for why you removed numerous WP:RS/WP:V with which you disagree?--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

0. Tell me what important citation I have omitted, and I will put it in (accompanied by a corresponding citation for another POV).

1. You insist on saying that immersion baptism is also called submersion baptism. What room does that leave for a form of immersion baptism that does not involve submersion?

2. Have you misunderstood? If, as you say, you "reject the view that usages that distinguish 'immersion baptism' from 'submersion baptism' are 'less common' than the usage that treats the two terms as synonymous", it would seem that you accept that the distinguishing usage is not less common than the synonymizing usage! I gave more than two sources that enunciate the distinguishing usage. If you admit that the distinguishing usage is a correct view, why do you not accept that it be placed right in the lead as one usage of the term "immersion baptism". And what do you think "normative" means in this context? Introduction of this term, which you see as having practical consequences for the article, requires sourcing not only for the term but also for the alleged consequences.

3. Insinuating that the religion of the writers prevailed over scientific method might well be thought to betray prejudice, especially when done only in relation to writers quoted for the distinguishing usage and omitted in relation to writers quoted for the synonymizing usage (Flinn is just one of the Catholic sources that you quote as synonymizing). Flinn's article is not on archeology: it merely directs the readers to an article on archeology. He does mention the Dura Europos baptistery, which is quoted in several sources as one in which immersion in the sense of submersion was impossible. Rogers has stood the test of time and, as you indicate, is still quoted as an authority. Unlike Rice.

4. Sources which identify standing in water and having water poured over the head as affusion, do not use the word immersion to speak of this. Obviously. But sources that make no mention of this particular mode of baptism (standing in water) cannot be shown to classify it as affusion rather than immersion.

5. "Immersion baptism" is a term that covers both partial and total immersion. Your taking the term "immersion baptism" to mean only total immersion is a petitio principii.

6. I made a mistake in this. I thought it was the Canterbury Press publication that you were referring to. So perhaps I should have objected to your omitting the less important reference book. Still you omitted the other sources that I quoted as explicit statements distinguishing the kneeling in water mode from affusion, and you included as sources identifying that mode with affusion statements such as "The word baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo which means to plunge, to dip, or to immerse."

7. So, to judge by the quotations you appeal to, by "normative" you mean "normal", the common way, not a way imposed by rule? That would perhaps solve everything about the terminology. Impose no rule. Just recognize that both forms are used, with one more common than the other. Isn't that what I am saying? As for the Didache, is it OK to put expressly what you are now admitted here, that it says nothing whatever baptism by submersion? It doesn't even use the word "immerse": it only says "baptize". We should not even attribute the word "immerse" to it in a context where it is being suggested that "immerse" means only "submerge".

8. It is objectionable to divide dictionaries into two separate paragraphs and describe as "standard English dictionaries" only those in the first paragraph. If for some reason you want two paragraphs, you should add to the second something like "Other standard English dictionaries say".

9. It is an obvious fact, even without dictionaries, that the words for "baptize" and "pour" are different. It is false to say that the word for "baptize" is interpreted unanimously as excluding the idea of pouring. Esoglou (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

0. Look at this diff. You omitted the entire "Lexical criticism" and "Syntactical criticism" sections, along with all the references contained in them. Not only that, but you wiped out the entire "Archaeological evidence" section, including all the archaeological references with which you disagreed (Rice, La Sor, Finn).

1. Of course I insist on saying that immersion baptism is also called submersion baptism. That's the differentiation you wanted, and I'm accommodating you. It's the differentiation made by people like you, who believe that "immersion" can refer either to submersion or pouring. That is a view which is well represented in my edit.

2. Sorry, I missed out a "don't" in that sentence. I deliberately made the lede neutral by not referring to any specific mode of baptism as the definition of "immersion". I can't see why you're complaining about that. If you don't understand what "normative" means, then please look it up. If you really think that readers won't understand that "normative" means "typical" or "using a norm", then we can place a link to Wiktionary in the article.

3. I haven't insinuated that the religion of the writers prevailed over scientific method. I've pointed out that the writers in question were speaking from the Catholic or Anglican perspective. You can verify this by checking your sources, as I did. Look at the "Book of Common Prayer". It's a theological work describing Anglican norms. I didn't say Flinn's article was "on archaeology", I pointed out that it was written from an archaeological perspective, and cites relevant modern archaeological evidence and research (check both the Archaeology and Architecture articles). In case you're unaware, it has been recognized of late that the the Dura Europos baptistery (at 2.57 meters long, 1.83 meters wide, and just under 1 meter deep; absolute overkill if people are only going to be standing in it), is certainly sufficient to immerse someone completely. See for example Esler, 'The Early Christian World', p. 738 (2002), Guy, 'Introducing early Christianity', p. 224 (2004), and Espin & Nickoloff, 'An introductory dictionary of theology and religious studies', p. 611(2007).

4. Great, we're agreed that sources which identify standing in water and having water poured over the head as affusion, do not use the word immersion to speak of this. Sources which make no specific mention of standing in water and having water poured over the head can absolutely be shown to identify it as affusion, since they make no distinciton between immersion and submersion. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that sources differentiating between immersion and submersion identify pouring as immersion, and that sources which don't differentiate between immersion and submbersoin also identify pouring as immersion. When a source says there were three modes, immersion, affusion, and aspersion, it's clear they aren't saying there were four modes, immersion, submersion, affusion, and aspersion.

5. I have not been taking the term "immersion batpsim" to mean "total immersion". Look at my edit, I make it totally clear tha tthe term "immersion baptism" is used by different people in different ways, and that one of those ways is a reference to pouring.

6. Thank you. Please read my edits in future so you don't make mistakes like that again. If I've omitted any relevant sources of yours distinguishing the kneeling in water mode from affusion, then please list them and we'll put them in the section with the other non-normative use sources. Of course I included sourcesidentifying that mode with affusion, that's what the overwhelming number of standard scholarly reference sources do. I can hardly supress this information. Statements such as "The word baptism is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo which means to plunge, to dip, or to immerse" are simple statements of fact. You'll note of course that "pouring" or "standing in water and having water poured over the head" is omitted from this definition.

7. Yes that's what I mean by "normative". No it is not ok to say that the Didache says nothing whatever baptism by submersion. That is simply non-factual, and I have never said that. What I said was that in the article I didn't describe the immersion of the Didache as a submersion, I let the sources speak for themselves. That the Didache's immersion was a submersion is not possible to dispute, and its differentiation between baptizo and affusion makes it impossible to claim that it is referring to standing in water while having water poured over the head. It says "baptize", which standard scholarly reference sources identify as meaning "immerse", where "immerse" does not mean standing in water while having water poured over the head. Just let the sources speak for themselves, as I'm doing.

8. I'm entirely happy to refer to the two other dictionaries as "Two other standard dictionaries".

9. I'm so glad you agree that the words for "baptize" and "pour" are different. What I have said is that the word "pouring" is never included in any standard lexicon as a meainng of the word. This is verifiable; if you have another standard lexicon which I've somehow missed, do quote it. That the word "baptize" when it became used as a technical term, was later used to describe an act which was carried out by pouring, has never been in dispute. But even then the word did not mean "pouring". The word never meant "pouring", and lexicons are unanimous on this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

0. As promised, I have now at your request incorporated the rest of your Rice quotations (I had thought one was the essential one and was enough) and your quotations from La Sor and Finn in the archeology section. You are mistaken in thinking I had removed that section. I had only moved it down and made it correspond to the title: you had used it as a repository for the views of those (both groups) who hold that "immersion baptism" should be considered as quite distinct from "submersion baptism", instead of being considered a generic term that could cover both partial and total immersion, in accordance with the range of meanings that the word "immersion" undoubtedly has. But do you really want the other sections you mentioned, "Lexical criticism" and "Syntactical criticism", to be incorporated. They are only arguments against your thesis that full immersion is "normative". I think they are not needed. I do not want the article to state that full immersion is definitely not required, all I want it to avoid having it be a POV article proclaiming that full immersion is obligatory, is the rule that should be followed, is normative – except, of course, within the Baptist Church and some other groups, where it is normative, it is the rule that should be followed, it is obligatory. In other words, both views should be presented, without declaring that either alone is the correct one.

1. To say that A is also called B does not differentiate between them. It identifies them.

2. On the contrary, in your one-line lead you do refer to a specific mode of baptism as the definition of "immersion baptism", by making it identical with "submersion baptism". (With regard to the mistake that you say you made, I take it that it was some quite understandable slip, one that does not call for any "please don't make mistakes like that again". I admit that, with "don't" now added to the first sentence, I find it even harder to understand, as expressing your view, the second sentence, "It's simply not true", than I did to understand the first sentence sans "don't". But I don't want to pursue this matter. Let it be.)

3. You say what is evident: that you "pointed out that the writers in question were speaking from the Catholic or Anglican perspective". The question is: Why did you? What is your reason for inserting a comment that might be seen as casting doubt on their objectivity?

4. To say that "sources which make no specific mention of standing in water and having water poured over the head can absolutely be shown to identify it as affusion, since they make no distinciton between immersion and submersion" is not logical. To make it logical, you would need to show that they hold that nothing but submersion can be called immersion. You need evidence that they excluded partial immersion from the meaning of immersion.

5. Your response, "I have not been taking the term 'immersion batpsim' to mean 'total immersion'. Look at my edit, I make it totally clear tha tthe term 'immersion baptism' is used by different people in different ways, and that one of those ways is a reference to pouring", does not seem to be in accord with what your text says: "Standard Bible dictionaries differentiate between immersion, affusion, and aspersion as modes of baptism, with immersion being identified as submersion and affusion being identified as pouring water on the head of an individual who may or may not be standing in water" (emphasis added). Citing as support for the emphasized statement sources that, without defining immersion, distinguish between immersion, affusion and aspersion, also seems quite unjustified.

6. You did omit a number of scholarly sources that "distinguish the kneeling in water mode from affusion": you gave only one (which you have now increased to two) of those that are indicated in footnotes 13-16 in my text. You also omitted the sources in footnotes 10-12 of my text, which also distinguish between immersion (partial) and submersion, when you gave only one source for your statement, "One dictionary of theological terms differentiates immersion from submersion and affusion".

(I see now how it was that I mistook what you meant by "one dictionary": your description, "a dictionary of theological terms", seems inadequate for the ODCC and more appropriate for the Canterbury Press Basic Church Dictionary.)

I am by no means asking you to suppress information. On the contrary, I am asking you not to suppress information.

7. The section we are talking about is headed "Normative mode in Apostolic Christianity" (note the use of "normative", i.e. preceptive, not just common) and it begins with the statement, "Standard scholarly sources indicate that complete immersion was the common practice of the earliest Christians" (emphasis added), followed by a reference to the Didache – as if the Didache were an illustration of that statement. You say now that you "let the sources speak for themselves". You did not let the main, the essential source speak for itself. It would be easy to quote that very short Didache passage. Read it and you will see that it does not say that baptism was by submerging. And you eliminated a source that drew attention to this fact, an important fact in the context of this article. By saying that the Didache differentiates pouring from immersion (merely on the basis that it uses the word "pour" in one context and "baptize" in another), you actually make the Didache say what it does not say, namely, that no pouring whatever was involved when someone was baptized in water. The Didache does not say that.

8. Thank you for agreeing to qualify the other dictionaries also as "standard English dictionaries". All you need to do now is to skip your synthesis of two different entries in the Longmans dictionary, and you will arrive at my text.

9. Nobody disputes that the word "baptize" doesn't mean "pour". But your text declares differentiated from pouring the act indicated by the word "baptize". The word "decorate" doesn't mean "paint", but the act of decorating can involve painting. No doubt, you yourself can think of many more numerous and more appropriate parallel examples. Esoglou (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

0. You have broken WP:WEIGHT with your treatment of the archaeological section. Yes, I want the criticism section included in the way I had it. As I worded it, that section does not say that full immersion is definitely not required, nor does it sayt hat full immersion is obligatory. We have already been over the word "normative", and it does not mean what you claim here.

1. Previously you have argued that "immersion baptism" should be differentiated from "submersion baptism". Now you say you don't. Which is it to be?

2. The lead I wrote does not refer to any specific mode as the definition of "immersion baptism". It specifically says it is a method of baptism the precise mode of which differs among Christian groups.

3. This has nothing to do with objectivity. The sources are not even claiming objectivity, they are speaking from a POV. Any source which speaks from a POV must be identified as speaking from that POV. It's that simple. The fact that you want to conceal their POV shows you want people to think they're objective.

4. I have asked you to read the sources. Please read the sources. As I have shown, they identify only three methods of baptism; immersion, affusion, and aspersion. You cannot claim that sources differentiating between immersion, affusion, and aspersion make a difference between immersion and submersion. You are making an argument from silence. There would be no need for the minority sources to differentiate between "immersion" and "submersion" if "immersion" was not normatively used to mean "submersion".

5. Of course it's in accordance with what my text says. I said I make it clear that the term "immersion baptism" is used by different people in different ways, and that one of those ways is a reference to pouring. My text actually says this. My comment about what standard Bible dictionaries say is a simple fact. I realise you dislike what they say, but you can't insist that these facts be suppressed.

6. I didn't omit scholarly sources. I moved POV and non-scholarly sources to where they belonged.

7. The title "Normative mode in Apostolic Christianity" says nothing to indicate that it is speaking prescriptively. Indeed, the opening sentence uses the word "common". My statement "Standard scholarly sources indicate that complete immersion was the common practice of the earliest Christians" is not followed by a reference to the Didache. It is followed by two scholarly references which say this:

• "In the early days of the Church, total immersion, often in streams or rivers, seems to have been most commonly used (Mark 1:9; Acts 8:38)." (Tischler, ‘All Things in the Bible: An Encyclopedia of the Biblical World’, volume 1, 2006), p. 57
• "Of special note are early baptisteries. The earliest preference was for baptism in running streams or in the sea (Mark 1:9; Acts 8:36; Didache 7). Next in preference was total immersion in a fountain or bath-sized tank (Tertullian, Baptism 4). Total immersion recalled the abyss of the Flood or the Red Sea, and reemergence into the light of day reenacted the death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 6:1-5)." (Flinn, ‘Encyclopedia of Catholicism’, article “Baptism”, Encyclopedia of World Religions, 2007), p. 52

That is letting the sources speak for themselves. The term "sources", as you know, is being used to speak of the secondary sources I'm using. What you are trying to insist on by quoting the Didache and giving your own opinion on it, is WP:OR. The Didache, as is well recognized in the relevant scholarly literature, insisted on immersion as the normative method of baptism, and allowed pouring only in extremis. The Didache does differentiate immersion from pouring, and I quoted more than one scholarly source saying exactly that.

8. You're welcome, but there is no WP:SYNTH in my edit. I note how Longman defines both "immerse" and "immersion".

9. What you are doing here is a great example of a logical fallacy. The word "decorate" doesn't mean paint, and just because decorating does not mean you get to refer to painting as decorating.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

0. In the archeological section, I have expounded Interpretation A and Interpretation B and also the view that no definitive conclusion can be drawn as to whether A or B is right.

1. What does the article say now?

2. Your lead says that the precise mode of administering a baptism by submersion differs among Christian groups. It excludes any other interpretation of "immersion baptism".

3. Levelling a charge of "speaking from a POV" against one group alone isn't impartiality. Even more important, saying that a scholar is expressing a POV requires proof. The fact that the scholar is of a particular religion or is an atheist does not necessarily mean that he or she is expressing the view of that religion or of atheism.

4. You shouldn't take it that those who speak of immersion without distinguishing it from submersion hold that there is no such thing as partial immersion. You have not shown that the only possibilities are either to identify "immersion baptism" with submersion, as you do; or to contrast "immersion baptism" with submersion, as for instance Davies does, when he distinguishes what he calls "immersion baptism" (dipping the head with or without the candidate standing in the water) from what he calls "submersion or total immersion".

5. On "standard Bible dictionaries", you wrote: "... with immersion being identified as submersion and affusion being identified as pouring water on ..." How can you now claim that you "made it clear that the term 'immersion baptism' is used by different people in different ways"?

6. You must have a very personal idea of which sources are scholarly.

7. What is laid down as the rule to follow is not always what is most commonly done. Do you still fail to understand the word "normative"?

There are sources (take Maxwell E. Johnson as an example) who differ from those whom you choose to quote on what was common.

8. The section heading is "Meaning of the English word immersion. The Longman dictionary does not explain "immersion" as "submersion", and to say, as you did, that the Longman dictionary explains it "similarly" to the way the Webster World Dictionary does is simply false. By your putting together (or synthesis) of what the Longman dictionary says on "immersion" and what it says on a distinct though closely related word, you suggested that it does explain "immersion" in a way similar to the Webster World Dictionary's way.

9. What logical fallacy do you claim to find in saying that, though the words "decorate", "embellish", "renovate" are different from the word "paint", the actions of decorating, embellishing, or renovating a house may involve painting it? Esoglou (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

0. In the archaeological section you have (a) failed to differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources, (b) violated WP:WEIGHT, (c) misrepresented Rice, who identifies the art to which he refers (you claimed he didn't), and (d) given readers the false impression that scholarship on the subject is not settled.

1. It says exactly what you want it to say; your POV. It should be NPOV.

2. We have been through this before. Identifying a source as POV is necessary wherever the source is POV. I have already shown you, using direct quotes, that several sources you have used are explicitly POV. For example, a book which is explaining the Anglican theology and liturgy is explicitly POV.

4. I have already been through this. If you believe the sources I cited mean "partial immersion" when they say "immersion", and if you believe they mean "immersion" when they say "affusion", then please prove it. We're not talking about Davies, we're talking about the WP:RS I cited.

5. I can claim that I made it clear that "immersion baptism" is used by different people in different ways, because I actually said so in my edit. I had an entire section called "Differentiation of "immersion" and "submersion" by some Christian groups" which did exactly that.

6. No I don't have a very personal idea of which sources are scholarly. If you believe my differentiate is astray, take it up on the WP:RS noticeboard. I know you won't, because you don't want others seeing the sources you use, and you know that others will agree with me that the sources I use are scholarly. See Good research. As it says, we are supposed to be using "the best and most reputable authoritative sources available". That is not optional.

7. You already agreed with me on the meaning of the word "normative". Why have you changed your mind? The source you quote is inadequate because (a) it is not a professional archaeological work (b) it wrongly treats iconographic evidence from the third century onwards as indicative of what was normative two hundred years earlier, (c) it is contradicted by standard professional archaeological commentary, and (d) it does not even demonstrate any awareness at all that early fonts sufficiently large for adult immersion were often filled in later and made smaller for affusion or infant baptism

8. The Longman dictionary explains "immersion" using the word "immerse", and explains what it means by "immerse". Your attempt to conceal this is POV. This is not a synthesis, these are simple facts. You can't claim that Longman is using meaning for "immerse" other than the one it gives itself. As I said, Longman describes baptism similarly to Webster, because Longman says that immersion means to immerse, using the meaning "submerge" for "immerse". This is undeniable. Unlike your edit, I also provide readers with all the facts, so they can't be misled.

9. That is not what I wrote. Please read what I wrote.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

0. What gave you the idea that one interpretation (yours) was "settled"?

1. It does not say what you want it to say, namely, that "immersion baptism" and "submersion baptism" are identical ("also known as ..."). Instead it admits more than one interpretation, without excluding yours. That's exactly why it is NPOV and why your text was not.

2. Of Davies, Thomas, Schloeder, Stauffer, Bower, ODCC, Meaking and Johnson, how many, if any, can you show not to have given their considered scholarly judgement on the historical question but to have been merely presenters of a confessional point of view?

4. Since you are attempting to draw conclusions from the alleged fact, isn't it up to you to prove that, wherever a writer does not explicitly distinguish between immersion and submersion, the writer is saying that there is no such thing as partial immersion?

5. In the section we are talking about, you explicitly identify immersion baptism with submersion baptism.

6. Isn't it up to you to prove that none of the sources cited, other than your own, are reliable and that they should therefore be excluded?

7. Whether I changed my mind or not on the meaning of "normative" (and I firmly deny that I have done so), the word does refer to something that is required to be done, some prescriptive rule. Submersion baptism is normative for Baptists. It is optional, not normative, for Anglicans.

8. The word under discussion is "immersion".

9. You did write, didn't you, of some logical fallacy? Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Esoglou on point 6. I have noticed that only sources that Tb cites are ones that he consideres scholarly while others are not. No comment on the rest of the debate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That is clearly false, since I have identified one of Esoglou's sources as scholarly. You have it backwards. It's not that I only identify as scholarly those sources which I use, it's that I make sure I only use scholarly sources. This is because I follow WP:RS, which you have claimed is "petty".--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, Taiwan boi has shown good reason for considering one source as "scholarly" while rejecting another as "non-scholarly." These parameters are consistent with normative usage, as anyone with a university education will know. Your lack of familiarity with academic terms of reference is neither here nor there. I personally believe there are scholarly sources Esoglou could cite to support his argument; the trouble is, he doesn't appear to be aware of them. This is what happens when people attempt to edit an article on a subject they don't know very much about. Sankari Suomi (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Far from clearly false if at least two unrelated group members have been struck with the same impression. While he may show good reasons for his consideration the fact that he doesn't consider the sources of others as reliable is laughable at best. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you're hardly unrelated insofar as you're both pushing the same POV edit. Secondly neither of you are objective. Thirdly it is objectively and verifiably true that I have identified one of Esoglou's sources as scholarly, so your claim that 'only sources that Tb cites are ones that he consideres scholarly while others are not' is demonstrably false. Fourthly, I have never said I don't consider the sources of others to be reliable. On the contrary, I have included the overwhelming majority of sources proposed by Esoglou, and classified one of them as 'scholarly'. You are simply not telling the truth.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Tb they're hardly unrelated in terms of POV. When I created this article last winter, here's the message that Walter left on Esoglou's talk page about me: "Would you mind offering some oversight to the immersion baptism article. I get the feeling that the author is an evangelical or fundamentalist baptist who doesn't like the term submersion for full immersion. He's also skewing the article a bit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)" The post has since been deleted.Swampyank (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support; that's you and Sankari who have both agreed with me from an independent third party perspective. Walter is someone else who edits his Talk page to remove statements which he finds inconvenient (I posted relevant quotes from WP:RS on his Talk page, and he deleted them as 'vandalism', showing exactly what he thinks of Wiki policies). When Esoglou was editing the "Baptism" page in 2009 under the name "Lima" (a username he has abandoned for unspecified reasons, and the Talk history of which is now apparently unavailable), he was making all the same arguments and rejecting the relevant scholarly sources for all the same reasons. He hasn't changed his approach at all.--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not edit my talk page to remove statements which I find inconvenient. You have been hounding me and I revert that as vandalism. Be glad I don't cite you for the vandalism. I don't appreciate zealots invading my space. And please remember, it's my space. If you want to discuss things, place them in public spaces. Y'all need to learn about message archives.

As for being ignorant of the difference between usage and correct terminology, I stand secure in the knowledge that immersion is not the correct term for what I see during baptism services, although I won't confuse those who are of little knowledge and try to correct them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Tony Meakin, A Basic Church Dictionary

I was going to include this source (provided by Esgolou), in the "Scholarly reference sources" section.

"Immersion (Latin – past participle of immergere = immersum) A method of baptism whereby part of the candidate's body is submerged, whilst the baptismal water is poured over the remainder. To be distinguished from submersion or total immersion" (Tony Meakin, A Basic Church Dictionary. Canterbury Press 2001 ISBN 1-85311-420-0, p. 18).

However, close examination of the source proves:

• It does not pass WP:NOTE with regard to scholarly sources; only 10,000 copies have been sold
• It is not a peer reviewed scholarly work and does not pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:RS/AC
• It is not an independent source for the statement "Immersion (Latin – past participle of immergere = immersum)A method of baptism whereby part of the candidate's body is submerged, whilst the baptismal water is poured over the remainder. To be distinguished from submersion or total immersion", since it simply quotes this directly from the ODCC, which is already referenced in the "Scholarly reference sources" section
• It was written by an Anglican, specifically from the Anglican POV, to help people understand the Anglican POV (it was not written as a scholarly reference work):

'At the same time, many people find it difficult to understand just how the Church of England works, not only in its structure but also in its worship. This book tries to help with both problems.' (preface)

'We take so many 'Church' words for granted - there are so many 'Church' matters and words which are not understood. This book will, I hope, serve to enlarge people's grasp of their meanings and so help them to become better informed members of the Church of England.' (preface)

These are reasons for not including it in the "Scholarly reference sources" section. I still intend to include it elsewhere in the article.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now added this source to the "Differentiation of "immersion" and "submersion" by some Christian groups" section.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Why the current edit is POV

Investigating Esolglou's sources, we find the overwhelming majority of them are:

1. Catholic or Anglican liturgical sources, explaining the Catholic or Anglican theology and liturgy. Such sources are POV and cannot be represented as equivalent to objective scholarly sources. 2. Out of date, some of them by over 100 years. 3. Not remotely notable. 4. Misrepresented, not saying what is claimed.

Here are the sources with obvious problems, numbered as they are in the article.

• [10] John Gordon Davies, The Architectural Setting of Baptism. Barrie and Rockliff 1962. p. 23: written from a Catholic perspective, POV
• [11] (Charles Thomas, Christianity in Roman Britain to A.D. 500. University of California Press 1981 ISBN 0-520-04392-8. p, 204: not an independent source, quotes Davies (this is a duplication of sources to make it look like two independent sources are being used)
• [12] (Steven J. Schloeder, Architecture in Communion. Ignatius Press 1998 ISBN 0-89870-631-9. p. 113): a Catholic work written from a Catholic perspective ("This vision, then, is the heart and purpose of this book: to find appropriate arrangements and considerations for church buildings that are infused with the true spirit of the Second Vatican Council")
• [13] S. Anita Stauffer, On Baptismal Fonts: Ancient and Modern. Grove Books 1994, pp. 9-10): a tiny 73 page Anglican work written from the Anglican POV
• [14] Peter C. Bower, 'The Companion to the Book of Common Worship. Geneva Press 2003 ISBN 0-664-50232-6, p. 163): an Anglican work explaining the Anglican theology and liturgy
• [15] Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3, art. immersion): a work which has been criticized by many reviewers for its Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox bias; I included it in my 'Scholarly reference' section nonetheless, since it is WP:NOTE
• [16] Tony Meakin, A Basic Church Dictionary. Canterbury Press 2001 ISBN: yet another Anglican work, explaining Anglican theology and liturgy and thus POV; it simply quotes the ODCC, so this is a duplication of sources to make it look like two independent sources are being used
• [36]James V. Brownson, The Promise of Baptism (Eerdmans 2007 ISBN 978-0-8028-3307-5), pp. 74-75: represented as saying "The Didache does not say, however, whether immersion or pouring was recommended when using running water", when in fact it does not say this at all
• [37] "Liturgical Review": dated 1971, not a scholarly work, published by the Reformed Church of Scotland and representing their theological and liturgical POV
• [38] "Baptism and Christian Archeology": dated 1903, not considered authoritative by the scholarly archaeological community, completely outdated and contradicted by modern professional archaeological studies
• [40] Quoted in Francis J. Ripley, This Is the Faith (Gracewing Publishing 1973. 2007 ISBN 0-85244-678-0), pp. 176-177: "This is the Faith' is a Catholic work which declares its Catholic POV explicitly ('So the book becomes a handy sources of information about the doctrines and practices of the Church'), the work by Duchesne which is cited is "Churches Separated from Rome", dated 1907 and written specifically to argue the primary of the Roman Catholic Church and prove the Protestant churches heretical, blatantly POV
• [43] Michael Kunzler, The Liturgy of the Church (LIT Verlag 2001 ISBN 3-8258-4854-X), p. 262: actual title "The Church's Liturgy", this is a Catholic handbook of Catholic liturgy in the Catholic book series "Handbooks of Catholic Theology"; Stenzel's work cited was written in 1958 and is not an archaeological work ("Stenzel's introduction identifies his interest as liturgy, not theology or parallels from the history of religion", Ferguson, "Baptism in the early church", 2009)
• [44] R.C.H. Lenski, Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Augsburg Publishing House 1944, 2008 ISBN 978-0-8066-8075-0), p. 114: dated 1944, not an archaeological work, completely outdated and contradicted by modern professional archaeological studies
• [45] Howard Marshall, "The Meaning of the Verb "Baptize", in Porter, Cross (editors), Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (Sheffield Academic Press 2002 ISBN 0-8264-6203-0), p. 18): cites studies from 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1971, addresses none of the relevant modern studies, contradicted by modern professional archaeological studies

The misrepresentation of Duchesne is particularly badly misleading. Written over 100 years ago by a Catholic author specifically to argue the primary of the Roman Catholic Church and prove the Protestant churches heretical, this is how Esoglou describes it:

Rice's claim of the existence of these unspecified depictions that show total immersion is denied by Duchesne, who has been described as one of the greatest authorities on early Christian archeology:

Since Duchesne wrote in 1907, and Rice wrote in 1981, it is utterly false to say that Duchesne denied Rice's claim. It is even worse to represent Duchesne in the present tense, as if he is still alive. Statements such as "one of the greatest authorities on early Christian archeology" are nothing but WP:PEACOCK, and in this case are an attempt to misrepresent Duchesne's opinion as the most authoritative on the subject, when he is typically not even cited by standard archaeological works on this subject. For example, Ferguson ("Baptism in the Early Church"), does not even mention Duchesne, despite citing a very large range of archaeological studies from 1900 to 2000.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no justification for the claim that Catholic or Anglican sources cannot be used as scholarly sources. Any reasoning given to claim they are too pov to use is a reasoning that can also be applied to Baptist or Evangelical or even atheist sources. The source's religion is most irrelevant.

Second - where, exactly, does it say that Duchesne denied Rice's claims?Farsight001 (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that Catholic or Anglican sources cannot be used as scholarly sources. Please read what I wrote. What I pointed out was that the Catholic and Anglican sources used by Esoglou are overwhelmingly works which seek specifically to describe the Catholic or Anglican POV. They do so explicitly, explaining that they are descriptions of the Catholic or Anglican theology and liturgy. I have provided several quotes demonstrating this. As for your second question, the answer is in the "Archaeological evidence" section:

Rice's claim of the existence of these unspecified depictions that show total immersion is denied by Duchesne, who has been described as one of the greatest authorities on early Christian archeology.

Note the representation of Duchesne as denying Rice, the present tense verb 'is' (as if Duchesne was still alive), and the WP:PEACOCK phrase 'who has been described as one of the greatest authorities on early Christian archeology'.

I have left this critique of Esoglou's edit here for over a week now, and it has not been addressed by Esoglou or anyone else. This being the case, I now feel free to edit the article accordingly.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Farsight has answered it. I must have forgotten it, perhaps because the ridiculousness of the claim that statements about history or archeology by Catholic or Anglicans - those you have commented on above - are only POV statements is sufficient refutation.

If you would cite one or more of the hitherto unspecified archeological depictions of full-immersion baptism that Rice claims to be more ancient than the certainly existing depictions of baptism of someone standing in water, they would serve as refutation of Duchesne's claim. Esoglou (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't answered it at all. He made one inaccurate claim and asked a question which I answered. If you have any evidence countering what I have written, please feel free to present it. I will certainly provide a list of the specific depictions to which Rice refers. You should not have misrepresented him by saying he referred to "unspecified" depictions. You also need to remember that Rice is not the only archaeological source I have cited. Duchesne is completely out of date, and should not even have been referred to in the article, still less with the WP:PEACOCK term you used, which is against Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you still maintain that what the writers you make light of above say of history and archeoloogy are only POV statements? That is a charge that requires independent confirmation, if it is to be taken seriously.

The article sets forth both opposing views on the mode of baptism prevailing in the early Church, together with the view that no definite conclusion can be drawn. An article that sets forth these three views is certainly less POV than one that would propose only your submersion view. Esoglou (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't make light of any authors. I simply identify whether or not they are still relevant, whether or not they are in agreement with current scholarly literature, and whether or not they are POV. I have already presented my evidence for those sources I have identified as POV. To date you haven't responded to it.

The article as you have edited it creates the appearance of lack of agreement on subjects concerning which there is scholarly consensus, and breaches both WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEIGHT, giving equal weight to scholarly and non-scholarly sources. It also uses POV sources without identifying their POV, and skews the entire article away from the conclusions of the scholarly consensus in favour of the Catholic and Anglican theological and liturgical practice. My edit sets forth all three vies as well, but it does so in a balanced way. I have never made an edit which only proposed the submersion view.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You are still, on the basis of your personal opinion, running down, making light of, all the sources that you mention at the start of this section, still applying the description POV to all their statements on history and archeology and still excluding them all from "scholarly literature". Esoglou (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence please. Are you going to address what I actually wrote any time soon?--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is you who are saying the sources are proposing a POV about archeology etc. Esoglou (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for evidence that I am "on the basis of my perosnal opinion, running down, making light of, all the sources" that I mention at the start of this section, "still applying the description POV to all their statements on history and archeology and still excluding them all from "scholarly literature"". Evidence please. I have already provided the evidence for the specific statements I have made. To date you have addressed none of that evidence. Do you deny that The Companion to the Book of Common Worship is an Anglican work explaining the Anglican theology and liturgy? Do you deny that "The Church's Liturgy", is a Catholic handbook of Catholic liturgy in the Catholic book series "Handbooks of Catholic Theology"? Do you deny that A Basic Church Dictionary is an Anglican work, explaining Anglican theology and liturgy and quotes the ODCC?--Taiwan boi (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A statement in a book on Anglican or Roman liturgy about facts of archeology (or geography or mechanics or engineering or ...) is not for that reason alone a POV statement. You have not yet produced any evidence for your claim that the statements referred to above are not objective, but merely POV. Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A statement in a book of Anglican or Roman liturgy about Anglican or Roman liturgy, or Anglican or Roman interpretations of archaeological evidence, is a POV statement. I have provided direct quotes. You haven't even addressed one of them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that the author of a book on Anglican or Roman liturgy can make no objective statement about questions of archeology? Esoglou (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said any such thing. Please address what I have written, and not what I haven't written. Answers to my questions and specific engagement with the points I make would help.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Then what is your objection to citing what they say about questions of archeology? It seems above that your objection is one of POV, lack of objectivity. Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know what my objections are, please read what I wrote. You will see that the majority of the sources you cite don't actually address the archaeology at all, and those that do are completely out of date (Davies, Duchesne, Rogers), or repeating the outdated scholarship without even providing any evidence or examining the evidence independently (Thomas, Schloeder, Schaufller). All of them are contradicted by the most recent modern scholarship (Rice, Ferguson, France, and the others I've cited). Your other nine sources don't address the archaeology, and simply provide Catholic or Anglican POV. Do you deny that The Companion to the Book of Common Worship is an Anglican work explaining the Anglican theology and liturgy? Do you deny that "The Church's Liturgy", is a Catholic handbook of Catholic liturgy in the Catholic book series "Handbooks of Catholic Theology"? Do you deny that A Basic Church Dictionary is an Anglican work, explaining Anglican theology and liturgy and quotes the ODCC?--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed out below that Ferguson admits that the majority among those who approach the matter from the standpoint of archeology tend to disagree that submersion was the prevailing practice. 16:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly he doesn't 'admit' anything, secondly he says nothing about the majority, and thirdly he points out that the archaeological evidence and textual evidence together indicate submersion. He cites recent studies, and is supported by Rice and the other sources I've cited. If such a majority as you claim actually exists in modern scholarship, why can't you find any evidence of it?--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources cited by Rice

• A baptistry in the catacomb of San Ponziano (p. 124)
• The font of the Basilica of Saint John Lateran (p. 125
• A picture in the catacomb of San Ponziano (p. 126)
• A painting in a crypt of the catacomb of Santa Lucina (p. 126)
• A font for immersion in the baptistry of the Church of San Giovanni that has been subsequently altered for sprinkling (p. 126)
• A fresco in the ancient Basilica of Saint Clement (p. 127)

This is in agreement with Ferguson's lecture at McAuley Campus on the 27th March 2003.

• "The usual practice was a triple immersion"
• "That the practice was full immersion is attested by numerous express written statements"
• "John Chrysostom, on the other hand, if we are to make a distinction between immersion and submersion, is explicit about a submersion"
• "Many more literary sources could be cited. Moreover, the early baptismal fonts were clearly designed for something more than a sprinkling or pouring"
• "In early Christian art the hand of the baptizer uniformly rests on the head of the baptized. Thus it was in position to guide the head under the water as the person stood in the font"

It also agrees with Ferguson's very recent scholarly study on baptism, "Baptism in the early church: history, theology, and liturgy in the first five centuries" (2009), which I cite in my edit. It also agrees with "History of Humanity: From the seventh century B.C. to the seventh century A.D." (1996), "The baptisteries, centrally planned buildings with the baptismal pool located inside, complied with the liturgical requirements of baptism by immersion" (p. 95).--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I will try to incorporate the cases that, you tell me, Rice mentions. A quick glance is enough to show that at least some of them do not at all support his claim that submersion depictions are older than those showing only partial immersion. The font in the Lateran baptistery, for instance, is obviously later than the depictions in the catacombs. I may have to ask you for more information about his claims concerning the catacomb depictions, since I do not have access to his work. So I must look for other information about those he mentions. Is it possible that he interprets differently paintings that others interpret as showing only partial immersion? The article does mention that some (Rice?) dispute the partial-immersion interpretation of the same catacomb paintings. In that case, it is enough to mention that Rice (and others) and Duchesne (and others) disagree on their interpretation, without declaring one view to be right and the other wrong. Esoglou (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Rice does not claim that all the depictions he cites are older than those showing affusion (not "partial immersion", there are none which actually show "partial immersion"). The fonts and baptistery's to which he refers are those which were sufficiently large for submersion, some of which were later filled in when affusion became popular. None of this is mentioned by any of the sources you cite, because they're so out of date. As I have shown, his statements also agree with other WP:RS such as Ferguson, Wright, and the other archaeological commentary I've cited. Here's a quote from Rice, on page 127.

A number of pictures show the candidate in a pyramid of water, 'some up to their waists, some to their necks, and some entirely under the apex of the water pyramid'. Each portrayal apparently represents the same thing — immersion.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Another source agreeing with Rice is Houlden, "Jesus: the complete guide", p. 121 (2005).

"Submersion (often confused with immersion), whereby the whole body of the person being baptized is "submerged" under the water; that is what Cyril of Jerusalem describes in his catecheses, and it was clearly invisaged in the large baptisteries constructed, for example, at Pisa."

--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well then, what evidence does Rice produce for his claim that "Pictures of Jesus standing in water while John pours water over His head are of a much later date than those depicting immersion and they demonstrate the change in the mode of baptism that came into the church"? Esoglou (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The San Callisto images (the three earliest Christian baptismal images), and the baptismal image in the Catacomb of SS. Pietro e Marcellino (the next earliest image). As I have pointed out, Rice is supported independently by Ferguson, Wright, and other relevant scholarly sources.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferguson states that, in spite of his own personal opinion, those who approach the question from the standpoint of archeology tend to see pouring of water on people standing in water as a normal practice, doesn't he? Esoglou (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferguson does not give his personal opinion, and he does not say that. He says "Those who approach the study of baptism from the standpoint of archaeology tend to find greater probability that affusion, or perfusion, was a normal practice; those who come from the literary evidence see a greater likelihood of immersion, or submersion, being the normal practice". He cites a range of scholarly studies covering 100 years, and refers to the most modern scholarly interpretation, showing how the actual archaeological evidence and literary evidence agree that immersion was the normal practice. Of this conclusion, he says explicitly:

• "Unless one has preconceived ideas about how an immersion would be performed, 'the literary, art, and archaeological evidence supports this conclusion."

This is in agreement with Rice, France, and other relevant scholarly sources I've cited. He does not say that those who approach the question from the standpoint of archaeology tend to see pouring of water on people as a normal practice. He also cites the LaSor article I cited.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You yourself have correctly quoted what Ferguson says about the general tendency among those who approach the question from the standpoint of archeology: "Those who approach the study of baptism from the standpoint of archaeology tend to find greater probability that affusion, or perfusion, was a normal practice". That is the standpoint we are talking about. Esoglou (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I quoted him correctly (you didn't). He then launches into a review of historical studies and demonstrates that was the prevailing view in the past. He cites recent studies, and is supported by Rice and the other sources I've cited. If such a majority as you claim actually exists in modern scholarship, why can't you find any evidence of it?--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand you. It seems as though you have one author with a new claim that contrasts with prevailing views. You don't seem to have a majority with a single author. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you misunderstand me.

• I have Rice, "'Baptism in the Early Church", Bible and Spade (1981).
• I have Ferguson, "Baptism in the early church: history, theology, and liturgy in the first five centuries" (2009); this is the latest and most comprehensive study, which reviews 100 years of previous studies and all available archaeological evidence.
• I have Houlden, "Jesus: the complete guide", p. 121 (2005).
• I have "History of Humanity: From the seventh century B.C. to the seventh century A.D." (1996).
• I have Heieser, Die Taufe in der orthdoxen Kirche: Geschicte, Spendung, und Symbolik nach der Lehre der Vater (Trier, Paulinus, 1987), pp. 101-102.
• I have Ben-Pechat, "The Paleochristian Baptismal Fonts in the Holy Land: Formal and Functional Study," Liber annus studii biblici franciscani 39 (1989): 165-188 (pp. 180-181).
• I have Picard, Actes du Xie Congres International d'Archeologie Chretienne, Lyone, Vienne, Grenoble, Geneve et Aoste, 21-28 septembre 1986 (Vatican, 1989), Vol. 2, pp. 1451-68 (1455, 1457, 1459, 1462-63).

In contrast, Esoglou has two studies from around the 19th century, and two studies dated around 30 to 40 years ago which cite those previous studies uncritically.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In looking for information, I have found that Rice has a Ph.D., but nowhere I look says what its in or how he got it. I must therefore question his reliability for use.

You provided no page number for Fergusen's text, making it impossible to confirm. Though the book would seem to be an otherwise completely reasonable text to use.

I have just read p. 121 of Houlden's book, and he literally says the exact opposite of what you are claiming, saying that submersion was not very widespread in the earliest church while affusion was.

You have provided no page number for the History of Humanity cite, making it impossible to confirm what you say.

Your german text (Heieser), is found exactly zero times by various search results. Frankly, I question its existence a bit. To a much larger extent, because "tha intrawebs" makes no mention of it, I also question its voracity as a source. It is already discouraged for use for being in German, but the fact that I can find no mention of the text anywhere by anyone suggests a complete lack of respect towards and usability of it.

Ben-Pechat seems to have, as far as I can tell, absolutely no credentials whatsoever, and so would not be an RS

Picard's text is in French, and so highly discouraged. Strangely, the text is mentioned a lot, but nowhere is it attributed to Picard. Who actually wrote it?

So really, you have one source, and we can't confirm that it says what you say it does because you have conveniently left out a page number. On top of all this, even if all these authors were credible and did support your view, that would only mean that you then have 7 texts that oppose the prevailing scholarly view instead of just one. Either way, they oppose the prevailing scholarly view - they are the minority, and must be displayed as such.Farsight001 (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Rice published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal, and is thus a WP:RS. I don't care what you think of his qualifications, Wiki policy and peer review is what we're supposed to judge sources by, not your personal opinion.

2. I provided several page numbers for Ferguson; see my previous edit of the article in the history. See in particular pages 834, 852, 860, and 891.

3. I did not cite Houlden for evidence that submersion was common, I cited Houlden's comments with regard to evidence for baptisteries and fonts used for immersion; "Submersion (often confused with immersion), whereby the whole body of the person being baptized is "submerged" under the water; that is what Cyril of Jerusalem describes in his catecheses, annd it was clearly invisaged in the large baptisteries constructed, for example, at Pisa". Please read what I wrote.

4. You can't have looked very hard for the History of Humanity (page 95).

5. Heiser and Picard's conclusions are described in specific detail by Ferguson, who writes in English.

"The conclusions of Lothar Heiser on the administration of baptism after examining the literary and pictorial evidence accord with mine: the water customarily reached the hips of the baptizand; after calling on the triune God, the priest bent the baptizand under so as to dip him in water over the head; in the cases of pouring in the Didache and in sickbed baptism the baptized did not stand in the font.", Ferguson, p. 860)

"Jean-Charles Picard, working with the literary texts but correlating them with archaeological sources for southern France and northern Italy, concludes that the authors who furnish details of the baptismal rite speak only of immersion. Tinguere, merreger, and submergere seem to imply a total immersion, and he notes that there is no ancient representation where the celebrant pours water on the head of the baptized.", Ferguson, p. 852)

Ben Pechat is quoted directly by Ferguson, in English:

"Consequently I have come to the conclusion that an adult of average height should have adapted himself, helped by the priest, to the dimensions of the font and to its internal design by taking an appropriate position which would have enabled him to dip and rise [sic] his head without losing his balance. Either bending his knees, kneeling, or sitting, an adult could have been totally immersed as required in fonts from 1.30m to 60cm deep.", Ferguson, p. 852)

The paper by Picard is actually consistently attributed to Picard. You are confusing Picard's article with the publication in which it was printed. His article is "Ce que les textes nous aprennent sur les equipements et le mobilier liturgiques necessaires pour le bapteme dans le sud de la Gaul et l'Italie du Nord,", published in Actes du Xie Congres International d'Archeologie Chretienne, Lyone, Vienne, Grenoble, Geneve et Aoste, 21-28 septembre 1986 (Vatican, 1989), Vol. 2, pp. 1451-68 (1455, 1457, 1459, 1462-63)). How could you miss all this?

6. This actually constitutes the prevailing scholarly view. The only archaeological studies cited by Esoglou all predate these studies by over 50 years. This is not the minority view, it is the majority view in current archaeological studies of the subject.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it depends who the peers and the journal were. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I checked and Bible & Spade isn't professionally reviewed but it still meets WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Having taken a look at bible and spade, I highly highly doubt it. But if you really insist that it qualify, then why don't you try the reliable source noticeboard? Farsight001 (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to. According to WP:RS, a source may be considered WP:RS if the information cited from it is found in a range of other verified WP:RS. In this case Rice's conclusions are found in the independent studies of Ferguson, Picard, Heiser, and Ben Pechat, all of which are indisputably WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"may" means might, not automatically is. Plus 4 other RS's don't qualify as a "range of other..." A range is several dozen, not 4. In addition, while Rice's conclusions may be found in the writings of these other guys, Rice does not seem to himself be cited. Overlap of ideas does not mean that one got their idea from the other.Farsight001 (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't raised any valid basis on which to reject Rice according to WP:RS. Quibbling over my phrase "a range of" (which WP:RS doesn't use specifically), doesn't address the facts of what I wrote. In addition, I never said that the other sources used Rice; on the contrary, I said the opposite, that they are independent of Rice. The fact of the matter is that we have Rice making a statement which is also found made in standard WP:RS, so Rice's declaration of this statement is reliable. See WP:V, "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications".--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

1. having published in a peer review journal (which you have failed to point out) does not automatically make one an RS. 2. You claimed quite clearly that the belief you are promoting is found in that book on those pages. Now you give new pages and are annoyed with me for not checking page numbers that weren't even currently written anywhere? Geez, man. Check the attitude. 3. I did read what you wrote, now if you would better read what Houlden wrote - perhaps MORE than just the sentence you quoted - you would see what I'm saying. 4. I didn't say I couldn't find the book. I said you failed to provide a page number. You cannot expect people to read an entire book to find the one sentence you were referring to. That being said, the page number you provide gives mention of immersion, zero mention of submersion, and little more. It cannot be reasonably used as a cite for what you want. 5. You are turning things into Synth by using one source the explain another like that. We can't do that here. You should also read more than just the sentences you quote here because there is a lot more to what Fergesun is saying.

To conclude, you are looking for what is not there. The scholarly view is, frankly, not what you keep saying it is. Quote mining is often used intentionally to deceive other people, but from what I can tell, you have tricked yourself by doing it instead. Please read sources more carefully in the future.Farsight001 (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I agree that this doesn't necessarily make it WP:RS. But Rice's article does meet WP:RS. If you disagree you can take it to the WP:RS noticeboard. Rice's view is also in agreement with the independent studies by Ferguson, Ben Pechat, Picard, and Heiser.

2. No I am not annoyed with you for not checking page numbers that weren't even currently written anywhere. My objection was to the fact that you claimed I hadn't provided any page numbers, when I had. I provided them in my previous edits of the article. The fact that you mistakenly thought I hadn't ever provided any page numbers is not my fault.

3. You're changing the subject. You claimed that I was citing Houlden to support X; I have proved that I was citing Houlden to support Y. Houlden does support Y, so you have no argument.

4. You don't have to read the entire book to find the sentence to which I was referring, you only had to search it using Google Books like I did. I did not cite the History of Humanity with regard to submersion at all. I cited it with regard to archaeological evidence for early baptisteries used for immersion, and it provides precisely such information. Pleas read what I wrote.

5. There is no WP:SYNTH violation. A WP:SYNTH violation would be me citing a number of sources which say A, B, or C, and claiming they all say D. Instead I am quoting Ferguson, who cites Heiser and Picard and who quotes Ben Pechat directly. This is not WP:SYNTH, it's direct quotation of Ferguson and proper referencing. If you disagree feel free to take it up on the relevant noticeboard.

To conclude, (a) there is no quote mining, all sources are being represented accurately, (b) I have cited the latest relevant professional archaeological studies (Ferguson, Heiser, Picard, Ben Pechat), all of which agree. That's it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bible and Spade is at least notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside from getting the Picard reference completely wrong, Farsight claims without evidence that Ben Pechat seems to have absolutely no credentials whatsoever. Malka Ben-Pechat is actually a professor in Israel, and Pechat's work is cited widely in the relevant scholarly literature.

• Christian archaeology in the Holy Land (1990)
• The archaeology of society in the Holy Land (1998)
• The Petra Church (2001)
• Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: the authorship of the Mystagogic (2001)
• Near Eastern archaeology: a reader (2003)
• Studies in the history and archaeology of Jordan (2004)
• Recent research on the late antique countryside (2004)
• Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land (2006)
• Washing in water: trajectories of ritual bathing in the Hebrew (2006)
• Early church architectural forms (2007)
• Religious Diversity in Late Antiquity (2010)

Most of these works specifically cite the article on baptism by Ben Pechat which is cited by Ferguson. This study by Pechat is typically cited as a standard work on the subject.

Farsight also claims without evidence that Heiser's work cited by Ferguson "is found exactly zero times by various search results". This is completely false. The work by Heiser which Ferguson cites is likewise widely cited in the scholarly literature.

• Bibliographia Patristica: Internationale Patristische Bibliographie (1985)
• Ostkirchliche Studien (1990)
• Sacramenta: bibliographia internationalis (1992)
• Frühchristliche Baptisterien (1998); by Sebastian Ristow, a study of the evidence for baptism in the early Church which is also cited repeatedly by Ferguson
• Tauffragen und Bekenntnis (1999)
• Theologische Realenzyklopädie (2001)
• Gnade in Welt: eine symboltheologische Sakramentenskizze (2002)
• Christentum: Von den Anfängen bis zur Konstantinischen Wende (2002)
• Spaltung der Christenheit (2004)

This is not difficult to verify.--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, you know what Taiwan Boi, if you want to have a discussion, you need to actually read what I wrote. You are completely twisting what I say to make it sound like I'm saying something else. re-read everything I wrote, start over, and try again. Your attempts to make me come across as a moron by bastardizing what I say are not appreciated.Farsight001 (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your words or not?

Ben-Pechat seems to have, as far as I can tell, absolutely no credentials whatsoever, and so would not be an RS

Your german text (Heieser), is found exactly zero times by various search results.

--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are my words, yes. And you are twisting and mangling them. I meant exactly what I typed and nothing more, yet you are finding far more meaning in them. Like I said, try again.Farsight001 (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I have quoted you directly, please demonstrate that I am twisting and mangling your words. Please describe what meaning I am finding in them that you did not intend. At present you are simply making an unsubstantiated claim.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rice on the archeological evidence

It seems quite possible that Rice based his view largely on the illustrations in Wolfrid Cote's book, which has recently been reproduced in facsimile. Not only did he quote Cote explicitly, but he spoke (see above) of pictures that show the candidate "in a pyramid of water, some up to their waists, some to their necks, and some entirely under the apex of the water pyramid". Cote did give this image in pictures centuries later than the early-Christian period. Esoglou (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rice used Cote's work as a source of illustrations. He gave his own interpretation of those illustrations, as well as Cote's. Rice's interpretation of those illustrations is the same as the view of Ferguson and the sources Ferguson cites. I note you haven't addressed the fact that sources such as Rice, Ferguson, and others agree that the earliest pictorial representations of baptism are of immersion in the form of submersion, and are not of pouring water on the head.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny that that Rice, Ferguson, and others hold the view that they hold. I do think that Rice's choice of a one-sided more-than-century-old source and his basing his argument about early-Christian practice on illustrations in that source about images much later than early-Christian times take something from the weight to be given to his view. That's all. Esoglou (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That is ironic given that you have relied on several one sided century old sources. As I have pointed out, Rice does not base his views on what Cote says. He uses Cote as a source for the illustrations, and then gives his own commentary on them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Including perhaps some dating from the ninth century? Esoglou (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevance?--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No need for me to say more. Esoglou (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferguson on the archeological evidence

No matter how convinced Ferguson was of his own opinion, and no matter how many writers he cited in support (perhaps largely literary-evidence rather than archeology-evidence writers) he did state: "Those who approach the study of baptism from the standpoint of archaeology tend to find greater probability that affusion, or perfusion, was a normal practice." Esoglou (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not addressing what Ferguson wrote. He was speaking of the general attitude which prevailed previously. He surveys virtually all studies between 1900 and 2000, and cites the most recent archaeological studies (not 'largely literary-evidence rather than archeology-evidence writers'), to demonstrate that the current scholarly view is different. You cannot get around this. The fact is that the writers you cite in support of your view are archaic at worst, and completely out of date at best. None of them represent the latest relevant scholarly studies and agreement on the subject. None of them even take any note of the fact that early large baptisteries were later modified to accommodate infants. They just didn't know enough about the subject.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferguson used the present tense ("tend"), not the past ("tended"). Esoglou (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

So what? Read what he wrote in context. I note that you haven't addressed my argument at all.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"So what?"! It's what he wrote. According to him, they do tend to interpret the archeological evidence in that way. Esoglou (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing it's what he wrote. I am asking you to read it in context. You are trying to make him support a conclusion which is the complete opposite of the conclusion with which his chapter ends. I note you still haven't addressed my points.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I am not trying to make Ferguson support a conclusion contrary to the conclusion that he himself reaches on the basis of his interpretation of both literary and archeological evidence. I am drawing attention to his statement about the tendency among those who concentrate on the archeological evidence to reach a conclusion different from his own. No more than that. Esoglou (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what he wrote by quoting only half of it, and removing it from the context. Ferguson's argument is that those who look mainly at the archaeology or mainly at the literary sources both come away with an inaccurate viewpoint; you do not make this clear to readers. He demonstrates that those who examine both the archaeology and the literary sources together agree that full immersion is the conclusion to which the two sources point. You don't inform readers of this at all. The result is that you represent Ferguson as saying that the archaeological evidence leads to interpretations of affusion as the typical mode of baptism, which is not what he is saying.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferguson's own view is one thing. What he says about others' view, not shared by him, is another. And the article explicitly makes that distinction, using the phrase "on the contrary". Esoglou (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not addressing what I wrote. I have never said Ferguson's view is not shown in the article, or that the article fails to disinguish between his view and the view of others. The issue is that you have not represented accurately what Ferguson wrote. You use only half of his sentence, and you are misrepresenting it. Ferguson's argument is that those who look mainly at the archaeology or mainly at the literary sources both come away with an inaccurate viewpoint; you do not make this clear to readers. He demonstrates that those who examine both the archaeology and the literary sources together agree that full immersion is the conclusion to which the two sources point. You don't inform readers of this at all. The result is that you represent Ferguson as saying that the archaeological evidence leads to interpretations of affusion as the typical mode of baptism, which is not what he is saying.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The other half of the sentence is about those who approach the question from the literary standpoint. It is not about the archeological evidence. 10:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, by deliberately concealing from the reader the context of what Ferguson said, you are misrepresenting what Ferguson says. You use only half of his sentence, and you are misrepresenting it. Ferguson's argument is that those who look mainly at the archaeology or mainly at the literary sources both come away with an inaccurate viewpoint; you do not make this clear to readers. He demonstrates that those who examine both the archaeology and the literary sources together agree that full immersion is the conclusion to which the two sources point. You don't inform readers of this at all. The result is that you represent Ferguson as saying that the archaeological evidence leads to interpretations of affusion as the typical mode of baptism, which is not what he is saying. I have said this more than once, and you have failed each time to address it.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the article an indication making clear that Ferguson bases on view on "both the archaelogy and the literary sources together". I think we agree that those who look mainly at the archeological evidence tend to reach a conclusion with which he does not agree. Esoglou (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is still not good enough. You are not representing him accurately. Ferguson's argument is that those who look mainly at the archaeology or mainly at the literary sources both come away with an inaccurate viewpoint; you do not make this clear to readers. He demonstrates that those who examine both the archaeology and the literary sources together agree that full immersion is the conclusion to which the two sources point. You don't inform readers of this at all. I think we agree that the latest scholarly archaeological studies, which look at both the archaeological and literary (Picard, Heiser, Pechat, Ferguson, Rice), have all come to the same conclusion on the matter and it is a conclusion with which Ferguson agrees. These are the studies which are the most widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature, another fact which you conceal from the reader. You leave the reader with the impression that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature, which is untrue.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added the explicit statement (already implicit in the previously existing text) that F. considers mistaken the tendency he talks about.

I do not agree with your claim that on a scholarly level the debate is settled. I am not the only person your claim has failed to convince. However, your claim, which could be the topic of a different Talk section, is off-topic here. Esoglou (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you want Ferguson's entire statement quoted in context? Why don't you want the reader to know that the latest scholarly archaeological studies, which look at both the archaeological and literary (Picard, Heiser, Pechat, Ferguson, Rice), have all come to the same conclusion on the matter and it is a conclusion with which Ferguson agrees? These are the studies which are the most widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature, another fact which you conceal from the reader. You leave the reader with the impression that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature, which is untrue. Why do you say you don't believe that there's any scholarly agreement? As for who I have and haven't convinced, you're the only person who says you're not convinced and swampyank says he agrees with me.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

More views than one on the archeological evidence

The article presents more than one view on the archeological evidence, without taking sides on the matter. One editor among us wants the article to present as the correct view the opinion that the archeological evidence shows that full-immersion was the early-Christian mode of baptism, treating as merely minority ideas the two other opinions: a) the view that the archeological evidence points to some form of partial immersion, perhaps like being in a shower bath; and b) the view that the evidence is not clear enough to consider either of the other two conclusions certain. There is clearly no consensus among editors for a change to saying that the full-immersion opinion is what the archeological evidence demonstrates. Esoglou (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The article misrepresents scholarly views on the archaeological evidence, explicitly pushing the reader to one conclusion, giving the reader the impression that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature, which is untrue. It also fails to differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources, and cites liturgical POV works as if they were scholarly archaeological commentary. To date you have failed completely to address the fact that the latest scholarly archaeological studies, by Picard, Heiser, Pechat, and Ferguson (even leaving out Rice), have all come to the same conclusion on the matter. These are the studies which are the most widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature, another fact which you conceal from the reader.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferguson, p. 892.

"Claiming that the literature and the church orders represent the ideal and archaeology the average, Rogers examines the artistic representations in various media and baptismal fonts. His work is now quite dated ,especially in dates assigned to the items examined, is replaced by later, more complete knowledge, and includes many items later than the period of my study."

--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In what way do you think that the section on the archeological evidence "explicitly pushes" the reader to one conclusion? I find this objection a strange one to come from one who seems to want the section to do just that. But I am asking only so that this defect, if it exists, can be remedied.

(I will not pursue the question about Rogers, whom the article does not quote for his views. It only gives his book as a source of drawings illustrating early-Christian depictions of baptism, like Cote's still earlier book, which doesn't stop at early-Christian depictions.) Esoglou (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained how the section as you wrote it explicitly pushes the reader towards one view. You quote Ferguson to give the impression that the archaeology favours interpretations of affusion as the normal mode of baptism, you don't quote him in context. You fail to differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources, and cite liturgical POV works as if they were scholarly archaeological commentary, giving them equal weight with the scholarly sources. To date you have failed completely to address the fact that the latest scholarly archaeological studies, by Picard, Heiser, Pechat, and Ferguson (even leaving out Rice), have all come to the same conclusion on the matter. These are the studies which are the most widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature, another fact which you conceal from the reader. You leave the reader with the impression that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature, which is untrue. As I have proved many times, I am not pushing any POV. I simply want the relevant scholarly literature to be represented honestly, and given due WP:WEIGHT. You have never done this.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! So by saying that the section explicitly pushes the reader towards one view, you do mean that it does not push him towards the view that only one conclusion is scholarly. I don't think you will win consensus for that presentation. You certainly haven't as yet. Esoglou (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Please read what I wrote. The section explicitly pushes the reader towards one view. It pushes the reader towards a view which is POV. It does not provide the reader with an accurate description of the issue as it appears in the relevant scholarly literature. I have never said that only one view is scholarly. Please do not misrepresent what I say. You are still not addressing any of the points I have made. You quote Ferguson to give the impression that the archaeology favours interpretations of affusion as the normal mode of baptism, you don't quote him in context. You fail to differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources, and cite liturgical POV works as if they were scholarly archaeological commentary, giving them equal weight with the scholarly sources. To date you have failed completely to address the fact that the latest scholarly archaeological studies, by Picard, Heiser, Pechat, and Ferguson (even leaving out Rice), have all come to the same conclusion on the matter. These are the studies which are the most widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature, another fact which you conceal from the reader. You leave the reader with the impression that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature, which is untrue.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Which of the three views that it presents is the one the article is pushing the reader towards? Esoglou (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been explicit on that point, more than once:

• You leave the reader with the impression that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature, which is untrue.

I note you are still failing to address any of my points. You quote Ferguson to give the impression that the archaeology favours interpretations of affusion as the normal mode of baptism, you don't quote him in context. You fail to differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources, and cite liturgical POV works as if they were scholarly archaeological commentary, giving them equal weight with the scholarly sources. To date you have failed completely to address the fact that the latest scholarly archaeological studies, by Picard, Heiser, Pechat, and Ferguson (even leaving out Rice), have all come to the same conclusion on the matter. These are the studies which are the most widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature, another fact which you conceal from the reader. You leave the reader with the impression that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature, which is untrue.--Taiwan boi (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The point I was/am addressing is your claim that the article section pushes the reader towards one view. Which? It seems that by "pushing towards one view" you mean "not pushing towards my view". Esoglou (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have told you several times. You are pushing the view that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature. You are still not addressing any of the points I have made. You quote Ferguson to give the impression that the archaeology favours interpretations of affusion as the normal mode of baptism, you don't quote him in context. You fail to differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources, and cite liturgical POV works as if they were scholarly archaeological commentary, giving them equal weight with the scholarly sources. To date you have failed completely to address the fact that the latest scholarly archaeological studies, by Picard, Heiser, Pechat, and Ferguson (even leaving out Rice), have all come to the same conclusion on the matter. These are the studies which are the most widely cited in the relevant scholarly literature, another fact which you conceal from the reader. You leave the reader with the impression that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature, which is untrue.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean I am not pushing the opinion that the argument has been settled in line with your view. Your view is mentioned. Two other views also. There is no consensus for making the article say that one alone of the three views is valid and the others are not. There is almost total consensus for not presenting the argument as settled. Esoglou (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I write, and do not make claims for what I have never argued. I do not have a view and I have proved I am not pushing a view. I want the relevant scholarly literature to be represented in the article accurately. I want WP:RS to be given appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Please understand that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and WP:PNSD. You have failed to provide a single reason to justify the fact that:

• You fail to differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources
• You cite liturgical POV works as if they were scholarly archaeological commentary, giving them equal weight with the scholarly sources
• You fail to address the fact that the latest scholarly archaeological studies (Picard, Heiser, Pechat, Ferguson, Rice), have all come to the same conclusion on the matter

The only person who has insisted that the article should not cite the scholarly agreement on the matter is you. That is not "almost total consensus". It's also irrelevant because WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and WP:PNSD.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan boi has presented an overwhelming number of current scholarly works and detailed citations on the subject despite being harangued for doing so. These works should be given due weight in the article. Swampyank (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am sure that Sankari would also agree. Esoglou has not yet explained why he wishes these scholarly studies to be concealed from the reader.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Please read what I write, and do not make claims for what I have never argued"? Did you not write: "The section explicitly pushes the reader towards one view"? It pushes nobody, explicitly or implicitly, towards any particular view. It is you who want to push the reader towards one view, one that you, no doubt sincerely, believe some recent writers have made the only scholarly view. Have you persuaded Walter that there is "scholarly agreement" on it? Have you persuaded Farsight? There is no agreement among scholars on the question. And there is no agreement here for making Wikipedia proclaim that there is. Esoglou (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Several times you have claimed that I am making arguments I have never actually proposed ("You mean I am not pushing the opinion that the argument has been settled in line with your view", "It seems that by "pushing towards one view" you mean "not pushing towards my view"", "So by saying that the section explicitly pushes the reader towards one view, you do mean that it does not push him towards the view that only one conclusion is scholarly"). I have corrected you on this each time. Yes I said that the section explicitly pushes the reader towards one view. I have explained which view that is, several times. I have never said that some recent writers have made "the only scholarly view". Whether or not I have convinced Walter or Farsight is completely irrelevant because WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and WP:PNSD. Whats is relevant is that you have failed to provide a single reason to justify the fact that:

• You fail to differentiate between scholarly and non-scholarly sources
• You cite liturgical POV works as if they were scholarly archaeological commentary, giving them equal weight with the scholarly sources
• You fail to address the fact that the latest scholarly archaeological studies (Picard, Heiser, Pechat, Ferguson, Rice), have all come to the same conclusion on the matter

The only person who has insisted that the article should not cite the scholarly agreement on the matter is you. That is not "almost total consensus". It's also irrelevant because WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and WP:PNSD.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is it Tb? WP:RS, or WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, or WP:PNSD? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. All three policies apply. We should use WP:RS, and we should give them due WP:WEIGHT, and since WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:PNSD, I don't have to ask anyone before including WP:RS in the article with due WP:WEIGHT. It doesn't matter how many editors on the Talk page don't want to adhere to Wiki policies and want to exclude WP:RS they find inconvenient, you can't stop me editing the article according to WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Since you insist on talking about an alleged scholarly agreement that the interpretation of the archeological evidence is now settled, I am giving you a separate section to talk about that. This section simply recognizes the fact that the section of the article on archeology presents three different views on the conclusion to be drawn from the archeological evidence, and does not treat any one of them as the correct view. Your charge that the section of the article "explicitly pushes" the reader to one conclusion, a charge you also express as "You are pushing the view that the matter is not settled in the scholarly literature", turns out to mean that the section of the article does not push the reader to the conclusion you prefer, namely that the matter is settled in a particular way, and only confirms the fact of the neutrality of the section of the article concerning interpretation of the evidence. Esoglou (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You are simply repeating a false claim I have already rebutted. I want readers to be informed that the latest professional archaeological studies have come to an agreement on the interpretation of the archaeological evidence. That's it. You have thus far given no reason whatever why you wish this information to be concealed from readers.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)