Talk:Idolatry/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

I had written "It is generally believed that idolatry is based on the worship of the idols themselves. Even though this belief persists to this today, it has long been known to be errorenous". This was then removed. I don't understand why this statement has been removed, nor do I understand why someone labeled it as POV. It is not biased to note that this historical information has long been known to some people. What POV is being pushed by noting this? I am merely pointing out that what your average person commonly believes is not the same as what scholars of religion may believe; that is true not only for today, but also for centuries ago. RK

According to Wikipedia policy, NPOV means that one should "present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree" and "fairly represent all sides of a dispute and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." These are quotes from the linked page. The plain meaning of "it has long been known to be errorenous [sic]," however, does not present ideas such a fashion that the person who believes that idolatry is the worship of idols (such as the OED, see below) can agree with. Furthermore, the statement clearly and unambiguously takes sides as to what opinion about the meaning of idolatry is correct. In fact, I'm having a hard time understanding why one would not see such a statement as POV. The defense that it "has long been to some people" is beside the point since the objectionable text failed to limit "known" to "some people".

No, that is not true. You have totally misunderstood what NPOV stands for. Historical facts and scientific facts are not to be presented as mere opinions, on the same level as proven mistakes and falsehoods. You really, really need to stop editing articles until you do more reading, and learn a bit more about science, history, archaeology, and about Wikipedia's own NPOV policy. The text, as written, was NPOV. RK

What is true is that a highly-respected dictionary gives a definition that is at variance with your understanding of the term. Either you are wrong, the dictionary is wrong, or there is a fair dispute over the meaning of word idolatry. A dispute over the proper definition of a word does not fall within the ambit of a historical or scientific fact, so it is POV to take sides by writing "it has long been known to be errorenous [sic]". SCCarlson

An even more serious problem with the statement is that my dictionary (an abridgment of the Oxford English Dictionary) explicitly defines idolatry as its first definition to be the worship of idols, supporting what the text asserted to be a long erroneous belief. If it is truly the case that "it has long been known to be errorenous [sic]," no one bothered to inform the editors of one of the most esteemed dictionaries of the English language of this supposedly well-known fact. If there is a debate about the meaning of idolatry, it is POV to take sides, especially in such absolute terms. SCCarlson

Um, this is a real problem. Since when is a one or two sentence definition from a dictionary the source for an encycloepdia article? How many books on this subject have you read? Have you ever actually spent a few weeks reading encyclopedia entries on this topic, and chapters of books on this topic? I have. So have many others. Please, please, do not write about topics of which you know very little. I cannot compromise if you insist on making claims which are definately false and unsupportable. As to the accuracy of your dictionary, you are simply wrong. Dictionary editors 'never intended their work to be a substitute for scholarship. They simply give common uses of a word. They never go into detail and explain things like an encyclopedia does. RK

Maybe you should take your complaint to the editors of the OED. While you are at it, maybe you should also complain to Mirriam-Webster which defines idolatry as "1. the worship of a physical object as a god." In fact, I'm really curious to learn which of your sources says otherwise. As great as Maimonides was, he lived and died a bit too soon to impart much insight on the meaning of modern English words. SCCarlson

Stephen, I will respect and agree with your argument and sources. Yet I note that what the dictionary says is different than what I have read. It seems that different people use this word in different ways. I have been pushing this article to follow the definition I am most familiar with, but I concur that isn't the only one. I appreciate the time and work you are putting into this article. RK

---

I am rewriting the following paragraph because, as it was written, it is confusing, and may lead readers to some rather erroneous conclusions.

Catholicism is a rather colorful example, which employs symbolic themes that many scholars of comparative religion see not only as similar but related to many Eastern religious symbols. In fact, such symbols were literally substituted upon occasion. For example, some Buddhists in the Far East to consider Catholic saints and Christ himself to be examples of bodhisattvas, and some early Catholic missionaries believed that the devotion to Guan Yin was in fact a Chinese version of the Virgin Mary.

This needs to be rewritten; the fact that modern day scholars of comparative religion have studied this issue in no way alters the past: The small number of Catholics who interpreted Guan Yin as Mary mother of Jesus did not do so as part of modern day comparative religion; they were simply pushing their belief system onto a people with a totally different belief system, and who probably would not even approve of this claim. Further, why was a rather significant point (i.e. that this idea was never accepted by the masses) removed? Seems important to me. I am not opposed to others rewriting this paragraph, but this must be done clearly and in a way that preserves historical context. The way it was written introduced a gross historical anachronism! RK

The Hebrew bible speaks of idol worshippers as worshipping gods made of wood and stone. It is not obvious to me, from reading those passages, that the claim was being made as anything other than a rhetorical ploy. They were attempting to portray as absurd the notion that a human being could sculpt a god-image using simple techniques, and then people would bow down and pay homage to that image as if it indeed represented a deity. They called attention to the fact that the idols were really physical objects; they did not speak, they could not move; they did not answer prayers. I am not at all certain that even these prophets imagined that the worshippers of these images thought that the idols could or should do any of those things, or were anything other than symbols. The idea was instead to poke fun at the very idea of a "symbol rich tradition" from the perspective of their ideal monotheism -- IHCOYC 02:16 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

That is great. However, it is not obvious to many other readers. In fact, the great majority of Bible readers have come to different conclusions. Again, let us remember NPOV. RK

Upon reading and rereading the paragraph, I do not see what can support the inference that those Catholics who interpreted Guan Yin as Mary mother of Jesus did so as part of modern-day comparative religion. The above text simply does not assert or imply that. In fact, the reasoning runs in the other direction. The reason why modern scholars of comparative believe the symbols to be such is because of the actions of those Catholics. Finally, the point about the equation being rejected was already covered quite well (and more specifically than a vague appeal to majority belief) in the immediately following paragraph. For these reasons and also because of the rather confusing changes introduced by Susan Mason you had to deal with, I'm reverting to article to before her edits where we can hopefully start over again if it is warrented. SCCarlson 02:45 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

No go. I explained why the paragraph was so confusing...and your solution was to insist on keeping it confusing, rather than rewriting it to make it clearer. That kind of hostility doesn't make me trust you much. RK

Were you confused by the paragraph, or do you feel that someone else might be confused? I addressed the latter point, to which I have not yet received a clear response. On the other hand, if the former is true, then we have a valid data point that it was confusing, and it should be rewritten more than I did. SCCarlson

---

Why would you revert my changes simply because u don't understand them? Wouldn't it be proper to ask for clarification first? Susan Mason

Upon further review, some of the changes were good, some helpful (linking), some innocuous, so I restored them. I do have a problem with the avoidance of the term Hebrew Bible, which in fact is the preferred bias-free term in the Society of Biblical Literature and other academic organizations. SCCarlson 03:06 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

What do Jews call it? In any case, its redirecting to Tanach and I think if u feel the name is inappropriate, the place to change it is at Tanach. Susan Mason

SBL includes as its members many of the best Jewish scholars in the world, who do use Hebrew Bible in academic publications. The hard part is getting Christian scholars to use Hebrew Bible instead of Old Testament. SCCarlson

Susan Mason seems to be bigoted against people who understand that the Jewish Bible and Christian Bible are not the same (they are, of course, related). She therefore tries to rewrite articles to hide this difference, or to ridicule it. For shame. RK

So do u want to change the Tanach article or is there some reason why the Idolatry article must use different wording than Tanach? Susan Mason

Actually, I think Hebrew Bible needs its own article, because the term only refers to the contents of the books and takes no position on their order, while the terms Tanach and Old Testament imply different orders pf the books. SCCarlson

Then make one. Susan Mason

Huh? The Hebrew Bible does have its own entry. It always has. What precisely is hard to understand about this? I even gave you the link for it. RK 14:43 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

I just created an entry for Hebrew Bible to explain the position of the Society of Biblical Literature and how its meaning is subtly different from that of either Tanakh or Old Testament. SCCarlson 02:49 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

I think Stephen and Susan , and maybe RK need to recuse themselves from this article... Both have been doing a wonderful job in their own rights, but are polarized... and there is little fair solution other than to say "take a breath guys(girl)"...

Let it settle for a bit... I liked RK's initiative in reintegrating the split article (which came from here to begin with but some people (Susan) kept dragging the material into idol worship. Do you see, people why It was a decent solution to separate idolatry from idol worship?- at least from an editing perspective... I cant tell what Stephen is doing... Im havent even looked at the article....

But I cant argue with the sense of wanting it integrated. Sue, Id like to tell you alone to 'bugger off' for a while.. but that would single you out.. So I suggest everyone whose tinkered with this stupid thing more than ten times leave it the hell alone for a few days. Get a life. Do something else.. go to the beach. Get laid. Rest your eyes. -&#35918&#30505sv

uh, how am I dragging the article into idol worship? Susan Mason

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about Stevertigo and that may have something to do with not having "even looked at the article" but I've been reasonably satisfied with Mason's attempt at compromise for quite a while. SCCarlson

Perhaps... But maybe my message was pre-emptive.. in anticipation of a situation wherin polarization... aw fuck it... Miss a day, miss a lot, I guess. -&#35918&#30505sv

In that case, you were projecting... Slrubenstein

---

The Hindu point of view needs more attention. See e.g. Ishta-Deva that I wrote. I think it is strange that there is one headings for 2 religions i.e. Buddhism and Hinduism. They should have seperate headings Andries

---