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 No consesus; kept. Dan100 ( Talk) 10:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on July 30, 2005. I closed the VfD on August 7, 2005 with a consensus to delete, and deleted the article. That VfD can be found below. User:M-filecastle brought it to my attention that the article had undergone a significant rewrite and that the existing VfD might not reflect actual consensus. (All delete votes were cast before the rewrite.) I investigated, and found that the article had indeed been revised extensively (from a stub to a decent-sized article). In the interests of fairness, I have agreed to re-submit the article to VfD for a new consensus. I am not voting in this nomination, and I will not close the new result; it will be left to the descretion of a different admin. Essjay · Talk 04:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
How notable does one have to be? Yahoo has over
11,000 hits on his name alone... When entered as woodrow+babylon over
80,000 hits are found! He has sold over 500,000 books.
An addendum can be made to reflect the influence he holds on this subject.
He (Woodrow) refutes the idea that Christianity developed from pagan roots (having recanted of holding the same view) and is duly noted as a well researched 'critic' on the Original Linked Page. Wikipedians should be able to see WHY he is critical of the false allegations Hislop made.
Original criticism(s) of this page were primarily that it was not very well written and disjointed.
The article has since been totally re-written (with the help of others here) and polished so as to better reflect the encyclopedic format.
The 're-written' version of the article is found here:
Ralph Woodrow
--
M-filecastle
06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This is not even about the Woodrow's book: 98% of the article is criticism of Hilsop
"Anything more than that, including minutiae about the shape of manna, ziggurats, and the like, is OR, rant, and crank. The persistent proponent of this article does himself no favors with his idiosyncratic prose and layout style."
The Original Link (found on Hislops Two Babylons Wikipedia page) finds Hislops ideas discussed in minutiae covering these very same topics. So the original article (with false assumption in detail) is appropriate, yet its crticism, by one of its most noted detractors is not? The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the original argument is to lay out the very case that Christianitys roots are pagan. The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the rebuttal is to lay out the very case that Hislop was in error. The Woodrow article IS ABOUT HISLOPs BOOK because the very link that references him (Woodrow) distinguishes him as a critic of it. Woodrows second book is about the VERY SUBJECT of refuting Hislop.
Assuming that the value of the need to view the rebuttal is found worthy of 'Wikipedians' perusal, undoubtedly Woodrows page will ultimately be expanded and 're-written' further so as to give an even more in depth understanding of the errors of Hislop.
Just as the referenced
Venerable Bede finds aspects of his life, works, struggles, and ideas ... so would any 'completed' article on Woodrow. Many Wikipedian articles, within themselves, and through links, show both PRO and CON views of the subject. The article on Woodrow is following in the established Wikipedian style and allows the reader to understand how one set of ideas may have been falsely arrived at. (and WHY)
Is it 'more appropriate' to take these very same Woodrow facts and examples and incorporate them into the body of the Hislop articles, or more reasonable to provide the link to the Woodrow page that discusses them. -- M-filecastle 21:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please make comments above this notice to avoid breaking the discussion with the transcluded prior VfD.
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 No consesus; kept. Dan100 ( Talk) 10:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on July 30, 2005. I closed the VfD on August 7, 2005 with a consensus to delete, and deleted the article. That VfD can be found below. User:M-filecastle brought it to my attention that the article had undergone a significant rewrite and that the existing VfD might not reflect actual consensus. (All delete votes were cast before the rewrite.) I investigated, and found that the article had indeed been revised extensively (from a stub to a decent-sized article). In the interests of fairness, I have agreed to re-submit the article to VfD for a new consensus. I am not voting in this nomination, and I will not close the new result; it will be left to the descretion of a different admin. Essjay · Talk 04:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
How notable does one have to be? Yahoo has over
11,000 hits on his name alone... When entered as woodrow+babylon over
80,000 hits are found! He has sold over 500,000 books.
An addendum can be made to reflect the influence he holds on this subject.
He (Woodrow) refutes the idea that Christianity developed from pagan roots (having recanted of holding the same view) and is duly noted as a well researched 'critic' on the Original Linked Page. Wikipedians should be able to see WHY he is critical of the false allegations Hislop made.
Original criticism(s) of this page were primarily that it was not very well written and disjointed.
The article has since been totally re-written (with the help of others here) and polished so as to better reflect the encyclopedic format.
The 're-written' version of the article is found here:
Ralph Woodrow
--
M-filecastle
06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This is not even about the Woodrow's book: 98% of the article is criticism of Hilsop
"Anything more than that, including minutiae about the shape of manna, ziggurats, and the like, is OR, rant, and crank. The persistent proponent of this article does himself no favors with his idiosyncratic prose and layout style."
The Original Link (found on Hislops Two Babylons Wikipedia page) finds Hislops ideas discussed in minutiae covering these very same topics. So the original article (with false assumption in detail) is appropriate, yet its crticism, by one of its most noted detractors is not? The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the original argument is to lay out the very case that Christianitys roots are pagan. The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the rebuttal is to lay out the very case that Hislop was in error. The Woodrow article IS ABOUT HISLOPs BOOK because the very link that references him (Woodrow) distinguishes him as a critic of it. Woodrows second book is about the VERY SUBJECT of refuting Hislop.
Assuming that the value of the need to view the rebuttal is found worthy of 'Wikipedians' perusal, undoubtedly Woodrows page will ultimately be expanded and 're-written' further so as to give an even more in depth understanding of the errors of Hislop.
Just as the referenced
Venerable Bede finds aspects of his life, works, struggles, and ideas ... so would any 'completed' article on Woodrow. Many Wikipedian articles, within themselves, and through links, show both PRO and CON views of the subject. The article on Woodrow is following in the established Wikipedian style and allows the reader to understand how one set of ideas may have been falsely arrived at. (and WHY)
Is it 'more appropriate' to take these very same Woodrow facts and examples and incorporate them into the body of the Hislop articles, or more reasonable to provide the link to the Woodrow page that discusses them. -- M-filecastle 21:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Please make comments above this notice to avoid breaking the discussion with the transcluded prior VfD.
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
.