Talk:Romans 1

Problems

This article is plagued with problems. First, it appears to be nothing more than an excuse to quote the "text of terror," verse 27—and rather poorly in the original translation provided. Second, there are virtually no references for its various claims. Third, what few references there are are old and improper. Up-to-date, scholarly sources are needed. Fourth, and lastly, it doesn't really say very much of anything that's not immediately and glaringly obvious. Where's the scholarly interpretation and contextualization? This is a mess. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Btw, verse 27 isn't exactly a verse one can quote without extensive commentary. There is no scholarly consensus that the verse is self-explanatory. Very much ink has been spilled, with no end in sight. If nothing is done to remedy or discuss the matter, I would be inclined to replace the verse with a passage better expressing the point of the chapter. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would also question the validity of having Wikipedia articles on individual chapters of books of the Bible. Chapters are often not coherent units of argument. Articles should be on individual books of the Bible, and we already have Epistle to the Romans. This is unhelpful and pointless at best. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not edit without proper references

Wikipedia is open to edit with proper references. One cannot delete a part without proper references. Instead of deleting, it is better to add different opinions. The references used for this part are highly reputable in the field. Do not use own research or personal opinions to edit. JohnThorne (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As I happen to hold a degree in biblical studies, among other disciplines, you'll have to excuse me if I remain unimpressed by your assessment of what a proper source is. In short, you're mistaken. Nineteenth-century and sectarian, non-neutral sources are inappropriate. Plagiarism (WP:PLAG) and copyright infringement (WP:C) are also inappropriate. I also find your claim that one must have sources to delete material patently absurd, if not outright unintelligible. If you wish your material to remain, you will have to address (finally!) the points I made in the previous section. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Also be advised that I plan at some point to start a discussion on an appropriate administrative forum regarding the deletion of all articles on individual chapters and even verses of books of the Bible. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone with a degree in biblical studies, you ought to present arguments with proper references, what is regarded as "sectarian", "non-neutral sources", and not just your personal opinions. Deleting without presenting referenced arguments is not appropriate. Those sources are in public domain. The editing of the articles does not depend on any user's judgment, without valid references, nor does it depend on addressing someone's own opinions (without references). Personal opinion is not a reference (WP:CAI; WP:NOR). Please stop using credentials to exert authority. It's not working in Wikipedia. JohnThorne (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your notion of sources in support of deletion is utterly unintelligible to me, as I find it theoretically impossible. It is material actually present that requires proper sourcing. You are plagiarizing many of your sources (see WP:PLAG). As nineteenth-century sources cannot be said to be up-to-date, they are inappropriate. The websites from which you copy-and-paste your sources are copyrighted, hence the copyright infringement. One or more of your sources frequently adopt moralizing tones when speaking in their own voice(s), or are written from a pastoral perspective, hence problems with bias and neutral point of view. These are therefore inappropriate and sectarian sources. We need up-to-date, scholarly sources only. You must justify your sources, and your use of them. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add more texts and sources to improve the article. JohnThorne (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

In accord with the parallel and fuller discussion at Talk:1 Timothy 1, and per WP:ONUS, I am removing material from disputed, plagiarized, and inappropriate sources. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Following up on the conversation at Talk:1 Timothy 1, please understand that Wikipedia is written collaboratively and there is no "you" and "me" in editing articles. If you can improve the sources, feel free to do so. Do not focus on "deleting" but put more efforts on "improving". When you have better sources, place them there, but if you don't have, don't need to hide the parts. We can always update the sources, as long as the information is factual. For example, the information on verse 17 about variations in LXX is factual (anybody reads versions LXX can verify), and has a solid source. Therefore, this part can be included.

You complains about "One or more of your sources frequently adopt moralizing tones when speaking in their own voice(s), or are written from a pastoral perspective, hence problems with bias and neutral point of view." However, we can selectively use the bonafide sections. After all, we don't use all parts of Isaac Newton's writings as sources, but only some that are significant (even if it was written in 17th/18th century). Hope this helps. JohnThorne (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No. I object to these improper sources per se, and Wikipedia is voluntary. I also see no point in contributing new material to articles I foresee might be deleted. We've been over this. My views haven't changed. You still have not achieved consensus. So, per WP:ONUS, I will remove the reinserted disputed material. Please refrain from edit warring by reinserting it. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinions and views are equally respected as those of any Wikipedia users, but no single view is above all. Materials can be added anytime to improve the articles. Please read again the Five pillars, especially "Ignore all rules" part. In the future, kindly refrain from using any threats to fellow users. After all, we are in this together. JohnThorne (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Verse 17 and Martin Luther

I am dubious about the material on Luther. That's going way too far back into the history of scholarship for this article. Luther cannot properly be called a biblical scholar. Singling out this one religious figure from one religious tradition raises serious problems regarding NPOV and bias. And, needless to say, adding the views of other religious figures from other traditions would be well beyond the scope of this article. The material is better suited for some article on Luther or some appropriate thematic and, perhaps, theological article. I am inclined to remove this material. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

For many in reformed church tradition, this verse was one of the significant revelations to Martin Luther, that triggered the Protestant movement. A link to Luther's theology is already included. This part can be justified to stay based on historical and ecclesiastical value. JohnThorne (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You just very persuasively argued my point. This article is not "in reformed church tradition," nor does it exist to further "revelations" "that triggered the Protestant movement." Consequently, this material belongs elsewhere. Do you even hear yourself? Antinoos69 (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The arguments are not directed to you personally. It is for all users to read and justify. No single opinion is above all, especially if it is a personal sentiment. Any edits can be reverted anytime, so feel free to edit with proper references. JohnThorne (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You didn't address the argument. You're also not building any consensus, per WP:ONUS. Please engage, rather than going off on every conceivable tangent. It would be helpful. And WP:IAR is not a means of avoiding consensus. See the rule's talk page. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)