This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 00:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Some sort of screed/rant/POV nonsense. And I used my 700th mainspace edit for this? humble fool ® 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This topic should not be deleted.
The subject matter is religion.
Is Humblefool? an editor of this type of topic?
There are a series of articles that suggest that
Christianity comes from pagan origins.
- Such articles are all over the internet and on Wikipedia as well.
The debates on this topic are widespread and involve both Christians
(interdenominationally) as well as 'non'believers
Mr. Woodrow originally wrote a book - AGREEING that there are pagan roots to Christianity. It was very popular.
It (his book) took many of its assumptions from earlier works by Alexander Hislop (Wikipedia) as well as his theories regarding The Two Babylons (Wikipedia)
The Wikipedia articles on the above -2- subjects LIST Mr. Woodrow as someone who has argued AGAINST these points of view.
THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION GIVES MR WOODROWS point of view as to why he found his own earlier work, as well as the work of Alexander Hislop, to be fraudulent and in error.
Any reader of this particular subject would have great interest in understanding that Christianity, while it is accused of being from pagan origions, is NOT in fact .... and that the historical facts do not support such a claim. Mr. Woodrow, and his book REFUTE these claims.
ONE OF ITS VERY PROPONENTS (Woodrow) is now one of its critics.
What is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform the reader
to give them insight into each side of a subject and a broader understanding of the topic.
Wikipedia already LISTS a LINK to RALPH WOODROWS nameas being a critic of the Hislop - Two Babylons theory .
The LEAST Wikipedia could offer its readers is what Mr Ralph Woodrows actual thoughts on the matter are!
Micheal@filecastle.com
(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle) drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Much of what is in the original articles by Alexander Hislop
(Two Babylons) are unsubstantiated and are no more than his opinion.
Apparently Alexander Hislops saving grace (here) is that he is long dead.
Mr Woodrow is a known critic (and one-time exponent)
of those very same 'opinions'.
His POV or 'opinion' is RELEVANT for that very reason.
And although some may quible with his syntax or 'phrase-ology' ...
I would argue that the very VALUE of his words are because of JUST THAT
because they ARE his words ...
When other peoples thoughts and ideas are recorded here -
is it incumbent upon the gallery to edit their thoughts ?
Were there an article on Princess Dianna's criticism of the press (here)
- would we correct her statements for grammer or use of analogy?
In an article on the Pope, (here) would we edit his remarks
so as to reflect the Protestant view?
The views expressed are those of Mr Woodrow -
any reader of such a text link would understand FROM HIS WORDS
that what they were reading WAS HIS VIEW ...
Isn't that the point ?
Michael@filecastle.com
(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 00:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Some sort of screed/rant/POV nonsense. And I used my 700th mainspace edit for this? humble fool ® 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
This topic should not be deleted.
The subject matter is religion.
Is Humblefool? an editor of this type of topic?
There are a series of articles that suggest that
Christianity comes from pagan origins.
- Such articles are all over the internet and on Wikipedia as well.
The debates on this topic are widespread and involve both Christians
(interdenominationally) as well as 'non'believers
Mr. Woodrow originally wrote a book - AGREEING that there are pagan roots to Christianity. It was very popular.
It (his book) took many of its assumptions from earlier works by Alexander Hislop (Wikipedia) as well as his theories regarding The Two Babylons (Wikipedia)
The Wikipedia articles on the above -2- subjects LIST Mr. Woodrow as someone who has argued AGAINST these points of view.
THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION GIVES MR WOODROWS point of view as to why he found his own earlier work, as well as the work of Alexander Hislop, to be fraudulent and in error.
Any reader of this particular subject would have great interest in understanding that Christianity, while it is accused of being from pagan origions, is NOT in fact .... and that the historical facts do not support such a claim. Mr. Woodrow, and his book REFUTE these claims.
ONE OF ITS VERY PROPONENTS (Woodrow) is now one of its critics.
What is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform the reader
to give them insight into each side of a subject and a broader understanding of the topic.
Wikipedia already LISTS a LINK to RALPH WOODROWS nameas being a critic of the Hislop - Two Babylons theory .
The LEAST Wikipedia could offer its readers is what Mr Ralph Woodrows actual thoughts on the matter are!
Micheal@filecastle.com
(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle) drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
Much of what is in the original articles by Alexander Hislop
(Two Babylons) are unsubstantiated and are no more than his opinion.
Apparently Alexander Hislops saving grace (here) is that he is long dead.
Mr Woodrow is a known critic (and one-time exponent)
of those very same 'opinions'.
His POV or 'opinion' is RELEVANT for that very reason.
And although some may quible with his syntax or 'phrase-ology' ...
I would argue that the very VALUE of his words are because of JUST THAT
because they ARE his words ...
When other peoples thoughts and ideas are recorded here -
is it incumbent upon the gallery to edit their thoughts ?
Were there an article on Princess Dianna's criticism of the press (here)
- would we correct her statements for grammer or use of analogy?
In an article on the Pope, (here) would we edit his remarks
so as to reflect the Protestant view?
The views expressed are those of Mr Woodrow -
any reader of such a text link would understand FROM HIS WORDS
that what they were reading WAS HIS VIEW ...
Isn't that the point ?
Michael@filecastle.com
(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply
.