Template:Did you know nominations/Peter's vision of a sheet with animals
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Peter's vision of a sheet with animals
[edit]
- ... that Peter's vision of a sheet with animals (pictured) has been called an "often-misunderstood section of the Bible"?
Created/expanded by StAnselm (talk). Self nom at 08:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Date checked. The article (barely) squeezes over the 1,500 character mark - check. I wonder if this needs to be an article separate from, say, Christianity and Judaism or Kashrut, but I'll leave others to weigh in. I am concerned that the article only cites to POVs on the matter, both from within Protestant culture, one (the United Church of God) being quite marginal even in that context. Part of the article, the basis for this hook, relies on a quote from a propaganda pamphlet of the United Church of God, which is not the kind of WP:RSing expected, particularly in DYKs. Dahn (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The article now contains both Catholic and Protestant commentaries. The hook is based on the religious teachings of a minority Christian group, but that's precisely what makes the article balanced. Date and length are OK, hook is supported by online source, no plagiarism. 202.124.72.69 (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)- The issue of the source on which the hook is based still stands: WP:RS, WP:PSTS. And the article as I read it is not in fact based on the views of a(ny) minority group, but on a biblical episode which may be subject to several interpretations or none at all. Three issues remain unaddressed: sourcing, context, (and perhaps) relevancy. Dahn (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- The article, as I see it, is about an episode in the Bible (hence the Bible is the primary source), but it mostly discusses the interpretation of that episode, covering the spectrum of interpretations as per WP:NPOV. Reliable secondary sources in this case are works of religious scholarship and official pronouncements from recognised religious groups; one of those pronouncements (from a minority Christian group, the United Church of God) forms the basis for the hook. The article author could equally well have used a quote from a different group, but I don't see an issue with the one quoted. — 202.124.73.141 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- If need be, the opinion of the United Church of God can be quoted from a reliable source that is not self-published. These sources could only be used in the article on the United Church of God. If the viewpoint is in any way relevant, it should be retrievable in a secondary source, or at least picked from a primary source that is not also self-published. WP:RS covers this issue rather explicitly. Dahn (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." Surely a pamphlet published by the United Church of God is the most reliable source about how the United Church of God interprets Acts 10, just as statements by the Vatican are the most reliable source on the official position of the Catholic church? See also WP:RS#Quotations. -- 202.124.72.210 (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, it seems like the same logic would rule out the Catholic Catechism. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the catechism can be picked from sources other than propaganda leaflets, and its contextual importance is instantly apparent from the number of secondary (and tertiary) sources covering and exploring in detail the scope of Catholic doctrine on x subjects. Here, we are dealing with a self-published leaflet, which is not only used to reference commentary on a biblical event, but is also a rather contentious statement: you see, anybody but the institution behind the leaflet has "misunderstood" the event. If we're fishing for analogies: this would roughly be like telling readers that blood transfusions "have been called ungodly" with an indirect reference to The Watchtower. Incidentally, I am not calling into question the reliability of the source as reflecting United Church of God doctrine (that would be irrelevant to this debate); it is its importance to scholarship, its coverage by secondary sources, its contextual importance in interpreting Peter's vision, and in particular its value as a source for the DYK hook - these all need to show coverage in and from secondary sources, or at least Church literature that has some sort sort of publisher-reviewer, even one from within the Church. Dahn (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- The UCG web site is presumably authoritative on UCG teaching (of course it's self-published, it's an official UCG statement!). The article makes clear that their opinion is a minority one (although notable, in that they give the classical Armstrongite line). And blood transfusion is a perfect analogy: that article says "Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood transfusion primarily on religious grounds—they believe that blood is sacred, although they have also highlighted possible complications associated with transfusion." There is no citation given, but an official Jehovah's Witnesses web site would make a perfect source. And if it were sourced, that would make a good hook too: "Did you know ... that the Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood transfusion because they believe that blood is sacred?" -- 202.124.75.40 (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Again, the point is not about how authoritative it is or isn't for UCG teaching, but about that viewpoint's relevancy to the issue - I propose that, if it cannot be referred to a better quality of a source, it may not belong in the article, and certainly makes a hook based on it questionable. The article may clarify that it is minority opinion, but the hook does not - and minority opinions, btw, should be referred to secondary sources (WP:RS, but also WP:FRINGE). The opinion may be notable, but it needs to be cited as such in some sort of scholarship. Considering that the hook does not attribute the opinion, even if that opinion were automatically notable, my earlier JW analogy was, I believe, better for illustrating the problem here: it similarly took an unattributed minority view and formed a hook around it; your analogy may raise other issue, but at least it attributes the opinion to an institution. In JW's case, it is possible to [also] source the opinion from relevant secondary sources (such as Arthur S. Berger, When Life Ends, Greenwood, 1995; or Christopher D. Hillyer, Beth H. Shaz etc., Transfusion Medicine and Hemostasis, Elsevier, 2009), meaning that we do not need to actually invoke any JW literature or primary sources ourselves - not that we shouldn't, just that we needn't. Dahn (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- In my view, you are misunderstanding WP:RS. Arthur S. Berger is less reliable as a source on what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe about some Biblical passage than official Jehovah's Witnesses literature is, and similarly here a UCG pamphlet is the most reliable source for their interpretation of Acts 10. I think it's a great hook, but obviously it's time for someone else to take a look, so I'll bow out now. -- 202.124.73.15 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Again, the point is not about how authoritative it is or isn't for UCG teaching, but about that viewpoint's relevancy to the issue - I propose that, if it cannot be referred to a better quality of a source, it may not belong in the article, and certainly makes a hook based on it questionable. The article may clarify that it is minority opinion, but the hook does not - and minority opinions, btw, should be referred to secondary sources (WP:RS, but also WP:FRINGE). The opinion may be notable, but it needs to be cited as such in some sort of scholarship. Considering that the hook does not attribute the opinion, even if that opinion were automatically notable, my earlier JW analogy was, I believe, better for illustrating the problem here: it similarly took an unattributed minority view and formed a hook around it; your analogy may raise other issue, but at least it attributes the opinion to an institution. In JW's case, it is possible to [also] source the opinion from relevant secondary sources (such as Arthur S. Berger, When Life Ends, Greenwood, 1995; or Christopher D. Hillyer, Beth H. Shaz etc., Transfusion Medicine and Hemostasis, Elsevier, 2009), meaning that we do not need to actually invoke any JW literature or primary sources ourselves - not that we shouldn't, just that we needn't. Dahn (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- The UCG web site is presumably authoritative on UCG teaching (of course it's self-published, it's an official UCG statement!). The article makes clear that their opinion is a minority one (although notable, in that they give the classical Armstrongite line). And blood transfusion is a perfect analogy: that article says "Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood transfusion primarily on religious grounds—they believe that blood is sacred, although they have also highlighted possible complications associated with transfusion." There is no citation given, but an official Jehovah's Witnesses web site would make a perfect source. And if it were sourced, that would make a good hook too: "Did you know ... that the Jehovah's Witnesses object to blood transfusion because they believe that blood is sacred?" -- 202.124.75.40 (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the catechism can be picked from sources other than propaganda leaflets, and its contextual importance is instantly apparent from the number of secondary (and tertiary) sources covering and exploring in detail the scope of Catholic doctrine on x subjects. Here, we are dealing with a self-published leaflet, which is not only used to reference commentary on a biblical event, but is also a rather contentious statement: you see, anybody but the institution behind the leaflet has "misunderstood" the event. If we're fishing for analogies: this would roughly be like telling readers that blood transfusions "have been called ungodly" with an indirect reference to The Watchtower. Incidentally, I am not calling into question the reliability of the source as reflecting United Church of God doctrine (that would be irrelevant to this debate); it is its importance to scholarship, its coverage by secondary sources, its contextual importance in interpreting Peter's vision, and in particular its value as a source for the DYK hook - these all need to show coverage in and from secondary sources, or at least Church literature that has some sort sort of publisher-reviewer, even one from within the Church. Dahn (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- If need be, the opinion of the United Church of God can be quoted from a reliable source that is not self-published. These sources could only be used in the article on the United Church of God. If the viewpoint is in any way relevant, it should be retrievable in a secondary source, or at least picked from a primary source that is not also self-published. WP:RS covers this issue rather explicitly. Dahn (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- The article, as I see it, is about an episode in the Bible (hence the Bible is the primary source), but it mostly discusses the interpretation of that episode, covering the spectrum of interpretations as per WP:NPOV. Reliable secondary sources in this case are works of religious scholarship and official pronouncements from recognised religious groups; one of those pronouncements (from a minority Christian group, the United Church of God) forms the basis for the hook. The article author could equally well have used a quote from a different group, but I don't see an issue with the one quoted. — 202.124.73.141 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Please hammer this out together until you have reached an agreement. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agreement seems unlikely. A fresh pair of eyes is needed. -- 202.124.73.56 (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Alternative hook (and hopefully a way out of the impasse):
- ... that in Peter's vision of a sheet with animals (pictured), Peter's triple refusal to eat is thought to echo his triple denial of Jesus?
- There shouldn't be any problems with the source (Ben Witherington III) on this one. StAnselm (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Another possible hook, not quite as catchy:
- ... that Peter's vision of a sheet with animals (pictured) is depicted on an altarpiece in Seville Cathedral?
- -- 202.124.75.2 (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)