No mention of Galatians 3:28?[edit]

I would have expected to see it somewhere. I wrote an article a while back at Galatians 3:28 since it has an extensive bibliography. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentions slavery, but not race. But most of the civil rights movement saw racial equality as part of Christian ethics. (t · c) buidhe 05:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Hi! Glad to see you here! You know, of course, that this article is, of necessity, just a summary overview of some of the big issues, and that there is more that is left out than is discussed. But this is a good point concerning modern issues. None of the sources I looked at made this a major point, and if they mentioned it at all, it was about gender not race. But there is a series called New issues in Christian ethics, and perhaps there is one on race that I could add in here. That might actually be a better section heading than slavery. I'll look! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If combined, I think the heading should be "race and slavery" since slavery was an issue in Christian ethics long before modern race concepts existed. (t · c) buidhe 04:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe So far I can't find a decent discussion of this issue within Christian ethics. I think I will have to widen my search. Christianity is in denial and doesn't talk about race apparently. I did add Gal.3:28 to the inclusivity exclusivity section however, though I don't think I'll stop there. I'm all het up over this now. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animal ethics[edit]

It's hard to believe that Animal rights is more significant than the rest of Environmental ethics, given how significant issues of global warming and pollution have been in recent Christian debates. I would try to cut down the animal section to 1 paragraph if possible. Also, I think one should mention the conservative Christian case against environmentalism, explained here[1] (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe Ugh. I suppose even flat-earthers get to be included don't they? I will work on editing down animal rights, but tomorrow. It's 1:30 Am here and I am signing off for tonight. buidhe - thank you - sincerely. I greatly appreciate your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Okay those are both done now - I hope... Your comments are always pertinent and offer genuine improvement. You never tell me to change happy to glad as so many do and have. I am grateful for what you offer - and what you don't. :-) Thanx again - keep it up as long as you can stand! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I don't really do prose nitpicking, you'll have to get that from someone else :) (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However I would recommend getting a copyedit from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests before FAC since that tends to prevent prose issues from derailing a nomination. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will check out that info for my own information but I will never put an article up for FAC again buidhe. Prose reviews aren't my problem. There are lots of ways to say the same thing, so I always cooperate figuring it doesn't really matter, but it gets to be a grind when multiple reviewers go over the same ground, and one says change A to B, then another comes along and says, change B to A. There ought to be a limit to how many of the same thing people can put you through as FAC reviewers - if prose has been reviewed twice, that should be seen as enough for any article, it should be posted on the review page as closed and done. One reviewer put too many templates in his review and I got fussed at for that - I guess I was supposed to know better if the reviewer didn't. Another reviewer would make two comments a day and took too long - there should be a time limit to how long each individual reviewer is allowed to take - and that was interpreted as disinterest, but by what standard? I found it to be a very haphazard approach that I spent three months responding to, every day, and it was all for nothing. I won't do it again. People like you come along and critique my work and I'm grateful. You make me better. You and GA will just have to be enough. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that FAC didn't work out for you :( My first FAC didn't go well but I learned from that experience and now write articles that meet the criteria. I don't see your biblical criticism FACs as failures because they resulted in considerable article improvement, which is after all the point, but it can be a stressful process so I understand if you don't find it enjoyable. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Thank you for understanding and not holding it against me. As long as you don't abandon me, I should be okay. It lifts me a little to think that your first FAC didn't go well - I suppose I will have to take that into consideration since I think of you as the pinnacle of WP. And yes, article improvement is the real point, so I am okay with that result, and you're also right that I did learn some good stuff from the experience. I am more careful about quotations and images and citations. I'm more aware. What I find enjoyable is the writing itself - the research - take a look at the version of this article from six months ago for example. It took a while on the talk page to get cooperation, but we negotiated and the other guy was reasonable and we worked it out. I think I'm as proud of that as I am of the article itself.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capital punishment[edit]

Capital punishment section seems to mostly give the pro- argument. But most countries in the world have abolished it and the largest Christian denomination (Catholic Church) is now opposed. Although probably for most of history capital punishment was considered compatible with Christianity, I think you might give more of a sense that Christian views on this issue have changed. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe Done. Your advice has definitely improved the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely an improvement. But it now reads a little US-centric, talking about possible future repeal of the death penalty in this country without mentioning the much more successful abolition of capital punishment in Europe, and initiatives like the United Nations moratorium on the death penalty supported mostly by Christian-majority countries. Also, it doesn't answer why denominations like the Catholic Church went from being in favor to opposition. (t · c) buidhe 06:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Pope Francis: death penalty was "a consequence of a mentality of the time – more legalistic than Christian – that sanctified the value of laws lacking in humanity and mercy."[2] (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe There are several areas where a global discussion would be pertinent, and I have avoided going there anyway. The section on wealth and poverty could include global economics - a hot topic today - but I left it out, going for summaries as short as I could make them, figuring that each of these topics probably already has an article of its own where all the details are covered. That's not here. I have a degree in philosophy buidhe, I really want to discuss all of these in detail, but it made it all too long, so I cut myself mercilessly. I cut out thousands of 'bits' that I had already written in that effort. Now you are tempting me to add here and add there, and I am trying. hard to resist. The image of capital punishment around the world partly serves the purpose you advocate, and while I am waffling a bit, because it's you, I don't think I support adding in more detail here. If you feel strongly about it, you can of course edit however you please, but do please keep in mind that length is an issue. These are all just short summaries of major points. That's all there's room for.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe So I went back and added half a sentence. It didn't cost me much space, and it added the global reference, which as you say, is appropriate, so that's done now too - okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Fine, okay, one sentence about the Catholics works, but I will rebel at any suggestion of tracing all the Protestant views on this topic. And no worries about Crystal: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It isn't my prediction. I accept and agree and even like and value your additions, but much more adding will require some removal elsewhere I'm afraid! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is with the sentence "As capital punishment is gradually being abolished around the globe". This implies a prediction about the future, which should not be in wikivoice. I submit that rewording to "Capital punishment has been abolished in many countries (around the world)", an objectively true observation that no one can object to, is more encyclopedic. (t · c) buidhe 07:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about Protestant views: too many of them! (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I get you! You're right. Changing it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Looks like you already did. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus proceeds[edit]

Sorry it's been so long. I proceed! I'm going to focus on content and organization for now and ignore MOS/grammar until the prose has settled down.

Will get to more later. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a cursory look-through, the sections in Applied ethics still seem rather long. I'll go through them eventually, but it can be hard to get through so much text. I genuinely think halving their length would be helpful. Ovinus (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay really, if it's too much, don't. I'll look at them, but I don't think I agree. One paragraph on subjects that have books on them is not too much, but I will look them over. Things can usually be cut a little even if not in half. Thank you for doing this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny, you know? Buidhe kept going through adding to various discussions. I think these applied sections are not going to satisfy people and will leave everyone wanting more - or less. All I can do is give a summary of main points, but that at least should be done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a count, it has under 10,000 words, so its length is fine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus proceeds some more[edit]

I have beefed up modern ethics and actually cut nearly 500 words from the rest, but as God is my witness, I do not see how to cut more. There are just so many separate topics here! I understand if you don't want to do more, but do know your comments are genuinely helpful - whether I am capable of following them or not! :-) Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus: Making changes in the modern section led to more changes in the definition and the lead. This is all an improvement. However, I am back to adding rather than subtracting. Sorry - but thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Christian ethics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'll be reviewing this article, probably will take about a week. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am looking forward to working with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I admire you for taking on such a broad topic! So many GAs (including my own!) are about narrow topics which are easy to write. Summing up a tradition of 2000 years is a daunting task but you've written an excellent article. Of course I have suggestions for improvement, but I have no doubt this article will be a GA once we finish the review process. My comments below are in no particular order, if you disagree with any of them just say so! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all of the "big picture" content comments I have, everything else will just be specific stuff about the prose, references, images, or whatever. I'll get that stuff to you Monday. I haven't read the talk page discussions so I apologize if any of this has already been discussed. My personal POV is secular so the comments above may be biased against Christianity, if you think so let's talk about it and find a neutral middle ground. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I am going to be late finishing the review :( There is an internet outage at my house and I am not good at editing on mobile. Spectrum is coming tomorrow night to make repairs, so hopefully Wednesday I’ll finish the review. Your responses above all seem reasonable, none of that stuff should be an issue. —Cerebellum (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebellum No worries mate! I hope it all works out swiftly and relatively easily. I will hear from you when I hear from you. Good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång I have now addressed that, to your satisfaction I hope, and removed the tag. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so WP did know: Theological virtues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Gråbergs Gråa Sång WP knows all... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry about the delay! On to the more formal portion of the review. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Definition and sources

Historical background

Philosophical core

 DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Applied ethics

Misc

@Jenhawk777: Sorry for the long review :( Hope it is helpful. I will place the article on hold for now, take as long as you need to work on it before I close the review. More important to improve the article than meet an arbitrary deadline. Once again I'm humbled by the amount of effort you and other editors have put into this article. If you ever get tired of working on it perhaps it will help to reflect that it got 12,000 page views last month, probably a broader reach than the average PhD dissertation! --Cerebellum (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Did not expect you to work that fast! Pass. Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for your help as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer

Ok, here at his publisher [4], InterVarsity Press. Professor at Azusa Pacific University. Ok-ish I guess, but no Thomas Aquinas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's for sure, but I liked its summary for the context. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect backwards-copy[edit]

The URLs in the ((Backwards copy)) tag above are suspect, to say the least (not to mention the "malicious" comments – what is that?); the tag should probably be removed, since the article is at GAN. Miniapolis 23:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mini I found and added the backwards copy tags, but I did not add the malicious comment. If you look at this diff: [[5]] you will see that what I wrote was that this is a fishing address. Click it and you get directed here: [6] Pursue, and you will get redirected to any number of different sites for book sales, streaming movies, and others that all want your credit card before allowing you to see the supposed article. Even if you sign up, you don't get the article itself because you get redirected to those other sites. This is not a genuine article. I assume buidhe (talk · contribs) had good reason for overwriting my explanation and adding the malicious warning on 14 Feb. of this year instead. She generally has good reasons for everything she does. I suggest that if you disagree with our conclusions, that you click on those web addresses in each of the separate tags and see what you find for yourself. Then come back and tell us whether you think this backwards copy-vio tag is "suspect". Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF. I was trying to help you, because a malformed tag like that might affect the page's GAN. I'm glad I'm done here. Miniapolis 13:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What was the BF? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you added all three spam links, I strongly suggest that you remove the tag. Miniapolis 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template is there to warn editors (including GA and FA folk) of potential "false positive" copyvios. In what way, shape or form are the links "the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization" in this context? Note also that WP:SPAM is about mainspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis I do not for a minute doubt your good faith and I am thankful for all contributions that improve this article. I apologize if I came across as anything other than slightly confused - which I still am. I found these sites by running the copy-vio detector on this article. It said there was something like a 98% match and violation was therefore likely. I was distressed, understandably I think, since I knew I was not guilty of any copyright violation. So I investigated the sites, and found what I have already described, posting the BCV tag so anyone else who ran the copy-vio detector would know to ignore the results. Now you say the tags should be removed, and I am certainly willing to be taught by you as it seems you have more understanding of all of this than I do. I would be happy to remove them, but I have a question first: what is to prevent a reviewer, or anyone else, from running the copy-vio detector, finding that same violation, and no explanation, and immediately deleting the entire page in response? It isn't like that doesn't happen. Deletion is a legitimate response to that level of violation. I would prefer it didn't happen here, so how can I prevent possible future misunderstanding if I remove these tags? I can move buidhe (talk · contribs)'s warnings out of the date parameter and into comments and that will clean it up a little, but I am hard-pressed to see how removing the tags altogether is a good idea. As I said, I am willing to learn more about all of this, so if you can explain, that would help, and since you said you were trying to help, I hope you will take the time to work this through. Thank you, Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moving Buidhe's warnings to the comments parameter would help, and I don't think anyone would suspect copyvio since all three links are obvious spam. All the best, Miniapolis 01:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis If the tags are gone the links won't be there and there is nothing there to be obvious to anyone. Up front, they look like legitimate sites - they include comments from fake people on how wonderful the article is - to make it look real. There is nothing to prevent anyone from going part way through the process and believing it. Really, you should go through the process yourself. If you really want to help, take the time and run the copy-vio, click on the site that says this is copied from, follow it - and you will see it is only then that it becomes obvious that it's spam. Without the tag and warning up front you, Mini, would never have known any of this. As far as I can tell, there is only hindsight in this recommendation, not foresight, and I want to know how to protect the article in the future. If WP didn't invent backwards copy-vio tags to protect articles from being wrongly summarily deleted for copy right violations, why did they? What purpose do they serve otherwise? What will protect this article if the tags are removed? That's all I need an answer to Mini. I'm not being uncooperative, I just have concerns that need addressing, and I'm not getting any actual answers. "It's obvious" isn't a real answer because it's only obvious to you because you've been told. If the tags are gone, Mini, what would make it obvious to any one else? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) ((Backwards copy)) is used for a link to "a mainstream news article or publication", not a spam link. WP is a collaborative project, and it's not any one editor's job to protect an article. Miniapolis 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis You still have not answered my question or addressed what will prevent future problems if the tags are removed. It's everyone's job to protect WP articles - whether we have worked on them or not. I don't find that a backwards copy tag is limited to one thing; if it comes up as a copy violation then it needs to be explained. Otherwise it is a potential landmine. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered your questions and addressed the issue to the best of my ability. You've been pretty argumentative, and this thread doesn't look good on a GAN. I'm done here, so please stop pinging me. Miniapolis 13:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! That's pretty funny. I assume that's a joke of course, since after receiving various threats and warnings and no direct answers to a genuine question and reasonable concern, I have now also received a personal attack from you. Please don't post on my talk page anymore. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for quotes etc[edit]

All quotation marks are used according to MOS standards in British style now, I'm sure. I went through the entire article. I did find about a dozen errors - out of 786 uses - and that improves the quality of this article, so thank you. I found two contractions, and removed them from the text, but there are still a couple contractions that remain within quotes and titles. I can't - cannot - do anything about those. There are no uses of quotation marks for emphasis and never were in this article. All quotation marks are around quotes from the source cited inline. All of them are quotes or references. Thank you so much to whoever contributed that! It has indeed improved the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twofingered Typist (talk · contribs) I know you are trying to help but you went through and changed back a few of the quotation marks I just changed. I was making those changes to be sure they are all British style - which puts the period after the quotes instead of before like us crazy yanks do it - so unless you are going to go through the entire article and check the entire list of 786 uses of quotation marks, and change them all from British to American, can you undo your changes? One or the other, I don't care which, just create consistency please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:LQ for Wikipedia's guidelines on punctuation and quotation marks. Also, italic markup (two consecutive single quote marks) is still being used for emphasis (example: ''prophetic ethics''), despite the removal of the ((cleanup)) template. See MOS:EMPHASIS and MOS:BADEMPHASIS for guidance. Good luck with the GA review; it looks like the article is developing nicely. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jonesey95 prophetic ethics has italics because that's what is proper for a title of something, which it is, it isn't for emphasis. I guess I could just capitalize it as Natural Law ethics and Divine Command are, but it's a new title, so it's italicized on its first use. It seems right to me and doesn't actually break any rules. There is after all some discretion allowed. Thanx for the good thoughts on the GA! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please check that MOS link again. If you want to emphasize "prophetic ethics", the recommended wikitext is <em>...</em>, not ''...''.
Jonesey95 You objected, so I changed it last night. I didn't want to emphasize it, but it is now. I hope that's cool with you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting[edit]

The article Christian values really sucks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it does doesn't it? I have added it to my list. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of suggesting a merge with this article, but "Christian values" probably have some specific use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories