Talk:Peccatism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peccatism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Muller ISBN

@Ibn Juferi: In Peccatism § CITEREFMuller2000, a citation for "The Unaccommodated Calvin" by Richard Muller (theologian), you give ISBN 9780195145984. However, both Google Books and the Open Library show that ISBN as being for "Systematic Theology" by Robert Jenson. Which did you mean to cite here? jlwoodwa (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just a nitpick – I'm attempting to verify the claim that Calvin's doctrine of total depravity […] closely aligns with the idea of peccatism, and I want to make sure I'm checking the right source. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the ISBN. Ibn Juferi (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology citations

@Ibn Juferi: I noticed that you removed both {{citation needed}} tags from § Etymology. I don't think the existing citations in that section directly support the claims that The term "peccatism" is derived from the Latin word peccāre and The suffix "-ism" […] form[s] the term "peccatism" to describe the belief in the inherent sinfulness of human beings. Following WP:CHALLENGE and WP:DETAG, I believe those {{cn}} tags shouldn't have been removed. Do you know of any sources that directly support those claims, or do you have any objections to me readding the {{cn}} tags? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited clearly says that "peccare" is a Latin word. Ibn Juferi (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but they don't say that the term "peccatism" is derived from the word peccāre. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on Google and the correlation is made: https://www.google.com/search?q=peccatism&oq=peccatism&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg7MgYIAhBFGDsyBggDEEUYOzIGCAQQRRg8MgYIBRBFGDwyBggGEEUYPNIBCDE3ODFqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Ibn Juferi (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you mean. That's a Google search for the word "peccatism". It returns eight (non-Wikipedia) web pages; as far as I can tell, none mention the Latin word peccāre. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the statement The term "peccatism" is derived from the Latin word peccāre is now followed by an inline citation, I didn't tag it with {{citation needed}}. Instead, since the cited source doesn't support the claim, I tagged it with {{failed verification}}. Please do not remove that tag unless you are replacing it with an inline citation to a source which directly supports the claim. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation quotes

@Ibn Juferi: Thank you for adding page numbers after I tagged the article with {{page numbers needed}}. I was able to find a copy of "The Unaccommodated Calvin", but it has ISBN 0-19-511681-X, which corresponds to the 13-digit ISBN 9780195116816. Since this differs from your copy (ISBN 9780195151688), we may have different editions with different pagination (see Wikipedia:Citing sources § Books and print articles). Could you include a brief quote with your citations, as described in WP:FOOTQUOTE, so that I can identify which portion of the text you're citing? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibn Juferi: Thank you for adding a quote to that citation. Page 166 has the same quote in my copy, so it looks like we have the same pagination after all. With that in mind, why did you originally add the page number 103? That page is about Calvin changing the title of one of his books, and has nothing whatsoever to do with total depravity or peccatism. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must have made a mistake in the page number, I apologise for the error. Ibn Juferi (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also make an error in § CITEREFLewis2001? In my copy (which has an identical ISBN 978-0-06-065292-0), page 173 discusses the ontological relation between the Father and the Son, and seems completely unrelated to your statement that Peccatism highlights the belief in the human need for a savior. Redemption through Jesus Christ offers hope and transformation, allowing believers to overcome their sinful nature and aspire to live a life pleasing to God. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a better quote, although I personally don't think 173 is wrong but I guess it sounds ambiguous. Ibn Juferi (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]