- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The article prominently contains certain conclusions of critical scholarship which are stated in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution to show that they originate in the perspective of critical scholarship. On the 30th of August, I edited attribution to critical scholarship for these statements on the grounds of WP:NPOV. The same day, Bishonen undid my edit, with the summary 'Undo unsourced POV additions', and tgeorgescu posted on my talk page stating that my edit did not conform to WP:NPOV. I undid Bishonen's edit, because I did not make any unsourced POV additions. I raised this point to tgeorgescu who replied that the policies which are relevant to this dispute; WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:GEVAL. I stated that critical vs. non-critical scholarship is not a case of mainstream vs. fringe. Tgeorgescu responded with quotes from critical scholars outlining the fundamentals of critical scholarship. I responded that not all biblical scholars would accept these points (and further they actually represented controversial and contested theses, in the terminology of WP:WIKIVOICE, therefore they should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice). I gave a quote from a critical scholar, Bart Ehrman, who speaks on this issue. Doug Weller let me know that I should make a talk page post about this, which I did (linked in 'Resolving the dispute'). ViolanteMD expressed agreement with my proposed NPOV edits, and also gave some further argumentation which I also agree with, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. Bishonen, tgeorgescu and Doug Weller are convinced that we misunderstand WP:NPOV. We allege that the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#This_article_contains_bias_towards_critical_scholarship
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I would appreciate if my original argument, the first post in the topic, could be evaluated, which I do not believe has occurred so far despite so much debate unfortunately. Especially the views of Ehrman should be addressed, whose practice I believe we should conform to in applying WP:NPOV. In addition, a review of the dispute in general and the quality of the arguments, to determine the course of action going forward regarding the article.
Summary of dispute by ViolanteMD
[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu
[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic—ridiculous: nobody in the mainstream academia (i.e. mainstream historians) believes that the Mosaic authorship is an even remotely tenable view of the Bible. Mosaic authorship falls under WP:FRINGE as patent pseudohistory. I'm not saying that JEDP is the only scholarly way of making sense of the Bible, but the Mosaic authorship isn't a plausible way. It's dead in the water in the mainstream academia. That is, the consensus that the Pentateuch was compiled from four large documents, each coherent on its own, is crumbling, but no historian worth his salt believes that Moses wrote a jot of the Bible.
If you need scholarly voices to that extent, watch the series Patterns of Evidence. I enjoyed it very much, but I kept in my mind that:
- it's fundie propaganda;
- it overtly seeks to give the lie to mainstream history, mainstream archaeology, mainstream linguistics, and so on.
The film opposes every Bible expert who knows what he/she is talking about. The film is worth seeing because it very clearly and honestly defines what it is opposing.
I'm not sure what they are asking, I suppose they have an axe to grind against the WP:RULES, but WP:DRN is not the venue for changing the WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Bishonen
[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't think I will take part. For one thing, I'm not any too interested in theology nor in Biblical criticism, and for another, it's a bit of a mistake to list me here, since the DRN rules above state that the preliminary talkpage discussion should normally have "more than one post by each editor". That's not the case for me; I've posted one time on talk. But I do believe Joshua Jonathan, who has now posted extensively on talk and has also edited the article quite substantially, should be listed here. (Their absence from the list is no fault of Violoncello10104's, since JJ only just turned up at the article. But they could surely help.) I thought of adding JJ myself to "Users involved", but I'm not sure that would be permitted. This noticeboard calls itself "an informal place", but the vibe it gives off is actually quite rules-heavy and bureaucratic IMO. Instruction creep? Anyway, JJ, whether or not you get listed, I hope you will take part. Bishonen | tålk 14:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Summary of dispute by Doug_Weller
[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm not participating. It would be a waste of my time and energy, both of which I have little, ie for the future and today. Others have already said what I believe to be the case. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis creation narrative discussion
[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Genesis)
[edit]On the one hand, I am ready to act as a moderator if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion. On the other hand, I am not sure that there will be moderated discussion, because I am not sure that two editors will agree. Please read DRN Rule D . If you are willing to take part in moderated discussion, please state that you agree to the rules, and that you understand that the topic is a contentious topic because the Genesis creation narrative is considered pseudoscience if taken as a historical account. If you agree to the rules, please also read the ArbCom ruling that pseudoscience is a contentious topic.
One editor appears to have declined to take part in moderated discussion. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Notification is required, except for the editor who has already replied.
Any editor who wants to take part in dispute resolution is also asked to answer one question. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
We will begin discussion when two editors make statements about what the article content dispute is.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree to DRN Rule D. I have notified the other three editors. I understand that the Genesis creation narrative is a contentious topic because as a historical account, it would be considered pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community (in the wording of the ArbCom ruling). While Genesis as history may be considered pseudoscience by Wikipedia's voice solely on the basis of WP:MAINSTREAM with respect to the current scientific community, authorship and consistency are an entirely different question, and to do with history and literary analysis.
Statement of article content dispute: WP:WIKIVOICE states that 'Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice'. According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree. Please see my original post in the talk page for the full quote (source: [1]). For reference, traditional scholars universally say that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are not inconsistent and often deny the conception of composite authorship. Therefore, we propose that Wikipedia should not state the critical claims in its voice, but attribute them to critical scholarship (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Furthermore, the current article misleads readers into believing that critical claims have widespread acceptance among Christians and Jews, when the opposite is the case.
According to Bishonen, tgeorgescu and presumably Doug Weller, this would give false balance to pseudohistory (WP:GEVAL), since non-critical views are fringe. However, this is not how mainstream academics such as Ehrman regard non-critical views; 'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats [sic] of NT writings) or not' (Ibid.). Here Ehrman states that it is possible for a non-critical scholar to make an argument in support of a traditional/non-critical Christian view which must then be accepted by a critical scholar. Violoncello10104 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]- I agree that the talkpage discussion is not exhausted because of @Joshua Jonathan's contribution. So I think the DR should be suspended for at least some time. Also, it seems that tgeorgescu's participation is contingent on Doug Weller and Bishonen but they are not interested. Thank you very much for your time and contribution to this! Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not want to be the only editor on "my" side. So, my acceptance depends upon whether either Bishonen or Doug Weller will join DRN.
- Also, the belief that the Pentateuch has only one author is pseudohistory, see e.g. Friedman, Richard Elliott; Dolansky Overton, Shawna (2007). "Pentateuch". In Skolnik, Fred; Berenbaum, Michael; Thomson Gale (Firm) (eds.). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 15 (2nd ed.). p. 734. ISBN 0-02-865943-0. OCLC 774684287.
From the 11th to the 21st centuries, however, scholars have been expressing doubts about Mosaic authorship. At present, except for Ortychodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians who believe in Mosaic authorship as a matter of faith, no scholar on earth holds that Moses – or any one person – was the recorder of the Torah.
You'll find the full article at encyclopedia.com .
tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statements by editors (Genesis)
[edit]I think that the talkpage-discussion is not exhausted yet, nor are the options available at the page itself. I've created a section Genesis creation narrative#Interpretation of the creation narrative where alternative interpretationd couls be added; alternatively, relevant alternative views could also be added to the subsections on "Authorship and dating" and "Two stories." Yet, it's not clear to me what content is contested; from these edits by Violoncello10104, and their summary of the dispute, I gather the following:
- the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
- separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ("Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
- the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;
- borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
- the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;
- the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."
I'm wondering, though, about the statement the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts.
Controversial according to whom? This has not been explained yet at the talkpage, not have alternative views been proposed; so there has been no option yet to evaluate what exactly is "controversial and contested," and if such alternative views have to receive due weight. So maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've evaluated these points; see Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Arbitrary header #2; I see nothing that is "too controversial and contested," which corresponds with the judgement of Bishonen, Doug Weller, and tgeorgescu. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt Ehrman is an academic authority. But is he an authority about the WP:RULES of Wikipedia?
- While JEDP are somewhat contested in the mainstream academia, scholars agree that we can at least speak of a difference between Priestly and non-Priestly, with the Deutoronomistic History added to the book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by possible moderator (Genesis)
[edit]It does not appear that the situation is ready for moderated discussion at this time, so I will leave this thread in hold, and will comment briefly.
I have added User:Joshua Jonathan, and I thank him for his comments, and I suggest that the other editors follow his lead in discussing on the article talk page in a new section.
I will address User:Bishonen briefly. Her comment about formality is well taken. The statement that DRN is an informal lightweight place has been there for more than a decade. This forum has become more structured, now that it is the last content stop before RFC, and instead too often the last stop before WP:ANI or a misguided Request for Arbitration. We no longer have either the Mediation Committee or the Mediation Cabal, so this noticeboard does the work that was previously done by those mediation groups. I have found that rules are often necessary because disputes come to DRN after the editors have personalized them, and it is necessary to impose structure to separate content from conduct (and not discuss conduct).
If Bishonen, or anyone else, has any suggestions either for streamlining some or all disputes here, or for another forum in addition to this one and Third Opinion, I and others would be glad to see them, maybe at the Idea Lab, or the DRN talk page.
On the one hand, User:Violoncello10104 has not really answered my question in two ways. First, their answer is not really concise. Second, their answer isn't really about what they want to change in the article. On the other hand, I will try to summarize what I think that they are saying. I think that we really have a disagreement as to what can be viewed as the range of mainstream scholarship in Biblical criticism, including of the Genesis creation narrative. The issue is whether the mainstream includes Bart Ehrman at the "left" and Mosaic authorship at the "right", or is more restricted to what Violoncello10104 calls critical scholarship. Within critical scholarship, it is agreed that the Pentateuch was assembled from various sources, although the JEDP documentary hypothesis is no longer the leading theory within that viewpoint. Bart Ehrman is not within the tradition of critical scholarship, but is outside it on one side, and is calling for a broader concept of the mainstream that includes both Ehrman and the ultra-traditionalists. So what Violoncello10104 is arguing for is not necessarily any specific changes to the article, but a more expansive concept of mainstream scholarship.
If that is what User:Violoncello10104 is saying, then this dispute is not exactly about article content, but about sources and scholarship, and more discussion on the article talk page, as outlined by User:Joshua Jonathan, is in order.
If anyone has any specific issues about changes to the wording of the article, please state them concisely.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, thank you very much for your help and apologies for the excessive length of my statements. @Joshua Jonathan and I have resolved the issue through consensus and compromise in the talk page of the article, so I consider this issue resolved. Violoncello10104 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors (Genesis)
[edit]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.