Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Resurrection of the dead

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFC: What is the scope of this article?

[edit]
This RfC asked whether the article is 1) generic to any religious belief of an 'end times' resurrection event or 2) specific to the Christian Bible term "Resurrection of the Dead" (aka "Resurrection of the dead"). Results:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this article about a specific eschatological event, the Resurrection of the Dead (thus a proper name), or a general discussion of various doctrines related to an eschatological resurrection of the dead (thus a common noun phrase)? Jojalozzo 03:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An explicit Straw vote of "Specific" or "Generic" might be simplest.--→gab 24dot grab← 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The key is that in religious contexts, the phrase the Resurrection of the Dead is almost always used by itself, rarely is it necessary for the writer to specify the eschatological resurrection of the dead, which is what the proper noun (the Resurrection of the Dead) refers to. Since wikipedia editors repeatedly have trouble with the issue of capitalization, perhaps this page should be retitled: Eschatological resurrection of the dead to avoid ambiguity and avoid the capitalization issue, at least in the article title. It would thus be a spinout of the article on general resurrection. 75.14.209.103 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Are you the same IP that has been editing here recently or another editor using SBC from the same city? Whether you are the same editor or not, it would make it much easier to carry on a conversation if you created an account. Since SBC often changes your IP address from one login to the next we have no way to tell who we are talking to and whether we are starting a new conversation with a new person or continuing an ongoing discussion. Thanks. Jojalozzo 21:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)][reply]
  • RfC Comment: I would think that this article would probably be about the Judeo-Christian concept of the "resurrection of the dead." Resurrection, more or less by definition, is in some way resurrection of the dead. On that basis, the existing resurrection article, which deals with that subject, is rationally the main article on the subject of resurrection in general. Christianity, perhaps also other Abrahamic groups, I am less certain there, does have a specific concept of the "resurrection of the dead" as a primary eschatological event, and it seems not unreasonable to me that the more focused topic could also be sufficiently notable for its own article.

I might prefer Eschatological resurrection if the article were to refer to the broader end-of-the-world resurrection, or, maybe, even "end of the world resurrection" or something similar. Also, yes, I have no doubt that the specifically Christian version of the resurrection of the dead, given the sheer volume of material on the subject, is also probably sufficiently notable for a separate article itself. Based on what I have seen in general here, we do have a bit of a muddled area for religion in general, and eschatology in particular, with some articles possibly being somewhat redundant but having a separate title and article because of the frequency of use of the word in the title. In general, I suppose, this might be the title for the general Western rotd, with perhaps spinout articles on "Christian eschatological resurrection" or "Christian resurrection of the dead" being separate. But I do definitely think that, whatever the final decision here, it is probably true that there is sufficient material for the religion-specific versions of these interfaith concepts to exist, and it might make more sense to go ahead and spin them out rather than arguing about how much weight to give them in a broader less specific article on a general subject. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also like Eschatological resurrection since it is more clearly generic and avoids the capitalization issue. I didn't think we were arguing about allocating weight here but agree that some eschological rotd's merit separate articles (though I'm not sure on what basis we'd choose one for the proper name title). Jojalozzo 21:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC comment: As an uninvolved observer it's clear to me that the article is about the general concept of Eschatological resurrection, so that title would describe it well. The IP, however, seems to see the article's scope as pertaining solely (or primarily) to the Judeo-Christian belief; the "resurrection of the dead" (as stated in the article) is part of the Nicene Creed. Consensus seems to favor a broader view for this article. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • GenericGeneral discussion. The term "eschatological" does not presuppose "Christian", so a thusly-renamed article would not be immune from sections discussing Zoroastrianism etc. Even the Christian "end times" eschatological "resurrection of the dead" is not automatically a capitalized proper noun, and I would not support a rename to "Resurrection of the Dead". I also note that the nondenominational template Template:Salvation includes both resurrection and resurrection of the dead as "General concepts" of salvation. I think non-Christian religions should continue to be accommodated here as-is, even if it's not very pretty. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support a name change to "Eschatological resurrection"? Jojalozzo 03:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the terms (in this context) are synonymous and "resurrection of the dead" is overwhelmingly more common (see WP:COMMONNAME and maybe WP:POVTITLE). I understand Christianity more than I do other major religions, so I can see why Christians feel some "ownership" of this topic. Yet, I really and truly think the article's current discussion (including all religions) isn't terrible. Frankly, my off-the-cuff idea is to hit 'Last Judgment', spinout/create a separate 'Judgment Day' or 'Judgment Day (Christianity)' article, and make a significant section there for 'Judgment Day (Christianity)#Resurrection of the dead'. Whatever, I suppose I wouldn't object to a spinout article called 'Resurrection of the dead (Christianity)', but there is also material currently at 'Christian eschatology#Resurrection of the dead'. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generic The scope of this article needs to remain generic, first addressing the resurrection of the dead in general, and then addressing specific differences between the teachings of various faith groups. Both testaments of the Bible speak of more than one resurrection, the resurrection of the just and the unjust in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, the resurrection of life (aka. first resurrection) and the resurrection of damnation.—Telpardec  TALK  19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose renaming to Eschatological resurrection. Eschatology is the study of last things, so that would be the same as calling the article "Final resurrection". There have been a number of resurrections of the dead in the Bible already. Martha did not have to wait until the "last day" (John 11:24) to see her brother Lazarus live again, because a short time later Jesus LOUDLY commanded he that was dead four days, saying, LAZARUS, COME FORTH: and, behold, Lazarus blindly hopped out of the cave! Hip, hop, flop! (What? Did you think he came strolling out like a walk in the park? There was a "napkin" about his face, so he couldn't see. His hands were "bound", so he couldn't remove the napkin or hang onto anything to steady himself. His feet were "bound", so he couldn't walk. (John 11:39–44) How else could he have come forth? Roly poly? :)
—Telpardec  TALK  19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As its hatnote already explicates, "This article concerns itself with the belief in a final resurrection at the end time, commonly found in the Abrahamic religions." Bold added. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as the hatnote already explains, other (non-eschatological) resurrections are covered at Resurrection and Resurrection (disambiguation). This is another reason why this article should be renamed Eschatological resurrection, to avoid these kinds of confusion. Yes, "Resurrection of the Dead" is a common phrase among Christians, but this article is npov per wikipedia policy and covers more than just Christianity. Resurrection of the Dead should redirect to Eschatological resurrection#Christianity. 75.14.217.49 (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in the thread following my own vote, the term "eschatological" does not presuppose "Christian". The suggested rename from "Resurrection of the dead" to "Eschatological resurrection" seems to me like suggesting an article entitled "Frozen desserts" be renamed "Subzero desserts" so it would only discuss ice cream. Yes, the articles 'Dessert' and 'Dessert (disambiguation)' may discuss grattachecca, but grattachecca could still also be discussed at 'Frozen desserts' and/or 'Subzero desserts'. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd earlier mentioned that a Christian-specific discussion of "Resurrection of the dead" is already at 'Christian eschatology#Resurrection of the dead'. Since 'Resurrection of the dead#Christianity' also exists, I'm unconvinced that an additional, separate article is necessary. --→gab 24dot grab← 21:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generic scope and No need to change. It is a somewhat low quality article, but that content issue aside, it is a generic enough item, and adding eschatological etc. to the title will intimidate some new readers anyway. Energy should focus on improving the content, not repackaging. History2007 (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The titles as they exist now: Resurrection and Resurrection of the dead are ambiguous, they both mean the same thing because only the dead are resurrected. This article is about: "the belief in a final resurrection at the end time" and the title needs to somehow reflect that. Perhaps "Final Resurrection" or "End Time Resurrection". Calling it "Resurrection of the dead" is meaningless. Yes, "Resurrection of the Dead" is a fairly standard proper noun phrase in Christianity, however even in Christianity several phrases are used, such as "The Resurrection of the Body", "The Resurrection", etc. 75.0.9.145 (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title "Resurrection of the dead" might seem ambiguous, but it is the expression for the event which is most-commonly used by English-speakers who are aware of the topic. At WP:Naming conventions (events)#Definitions, it states, "A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing." Anyway, the article's header explicitly states, "This article concerns itself with the belief in a final resurrection at the end time"; that is, a specific event period. --→gab 24dot grab← 15:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a proper noun phrase in the English language, namely "Resurrection of the Dead", however it is not widely known, that is why some editors contest that the proper noun phrase even exists, hence the current title of this article as "Resurrection of the dead" which is not a proper noun phrase (proper noun phrases in English get all their nouns capitalized). And, that is why one editor above even brought up the case of the Resurrection of Lazarus, because that is a "resurrection from the dead", however it is not an End Time resurrection. Wikipedia article titles have to accurately reflect what an article is about and there is no distinction between "Resurrection" and "Resurrection of the dead", so there should not be two seperate articles on wikipedia with those two titles, the titles are ambiguous. Now if you want to change the name to "Resurrection of the Dead", a proper noun phrase, that might help, but most wikipedia editors would miss the subtle distinction, as is obvious in this discusion. Also, "Resurrection of the Dead", the proper noun phrase, is mostly only used in Christianity, and even there not consistently as other phrases such as "Resurrection of the Body" and "End Time Resurrection" are also used. So, yes, the proper noun phrase "Resurrection of the Dead" does indeed exist in the English language, however there are and will continue to be editors who dispute that, so obviously knowledge of that proper noun phrase is not widespread, at least among wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a technical journal, so article titles should represent the article as much as possible to a general audience. In that respect, the phrase "Resurrection of the Dead" and certainly "Resurrection of the dead" don't work, as should be obvious by reading the various editor responses here. A better article title needs to be found for the End Time Resurrection. 75.0.1.234 (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's relevant naming convention states, "A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing." It seems plain that English speakers aware of the eschatological/"end times" resurrection of the dead call it by the same thing: "Resurrection of the dead". I disagree with capitalizing "Dead" but I do not strongly object if others believe it necessary to provide ready disambiguation from plain-old "Resurrection". It should be noted that the fully-capitalized term is only a proper noun for some Christians (not 'all Christians', even not 'all Christian subscribing to the doctrine').
Are editors fixated on focusing this article on Christianity ("specific" v "generic")? It may be better to resolve the current RfC matter first, before wading neck-deep into an RM.
You may recall that I did not support "Eschatological resurrection" because the term "eschatological" does not presuppose Christian. Similarly, I do not support "End time resurrection" because the term "end time" also does not presuppose Christian. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe anyone is claiming this article should be Christian only, that appears to be a straw dog. It would also violate NPOV Policy unless it was titled Resurrection of the Dead in Christianity or some such. Likewise, as far as I know, everyone is aware that Eschatology is not limited to the Christian only viewpoint, instead that article is Christian eschatology, and likewise End time is not limited to the Christian only viewpoint, and as yet there has been no need to spinoff an End time in Christianity or some such. So, not presupposing Christianity is a reason for calling this article Eschatological resurrection or End time resurrection. For example, in Zoroastrianism, this topic is called Frashokereti, not Resurrection of the dead. And in Judaism it's called Olam Haba, not Resurrection of the dead. In Islam it's called Qiyamah, not Resurrection of the dead, and so on. 75.14.221.234 (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like "End time resurrection". Is there a reason why you propose "End Time Resurrection" (title caps rather than sentence caps)? Jojalozzo 04:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I believe this article should not be limited to Christianity. The simplest way to dispose of the "Christian only" proposal is to gather sufficient support/!VOTEs for "Generic"; I'd opine that we're there already but I can't close the RfC.
My support for the currently-existing name ("Resurrection of the dead") was based solidly on relevant naming convention, which no editor should ignore altogether. However, I now believe that adhering to that naming convention in this instance is not in Wikipedia's best interests, and so, per WP:NORULES, I now support an article move to either "Eschatological resurrection" or "End time resurrection" with preference for the latter. I won't open a "Request for Move" until this RfC closes; Jojalozzo? --→gab 24dot grab← 14:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was away for a couple of weeks and not monitoring this closely. I am okay with either "Eschatological resurrection" or "End time resurrection" but also prefer the latter. Please proceed. Jojalozzo 23:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC Comment:There is far too much Christian material here and insufficient examination of other cosmologies and belief systems with regard to the afterlife. The article is generic (and low quality as mentioned earlier) and much of the material on the Nicene Creed could be moved off to more relevant articles. It appears the differing Christian beliefs are the sole purpose of this article. Comment: This should be a generic articles with links to Christian beliefs on this matter in other articles in the Christianity portal.Whiteguru (talk) 01:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the Nicene Creed discussion can be entirely offloaded to that article, and I agree that this article should discuss non-Christian beliefs regarding "end time resurrection". But I disagree that we need to artificially limit the size of the discussion related to the beliefs of the various Christian denominations. Is any one denomination receiving an WP:UNDUE amount of space? If you believe others need to be added or expanded, please, WP:be bold. --→gab 24dot grab← 14:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should be at least some mention of the Nicene Creed here, because that is something professed in common by ALL the mainstream Christian congregations (I don't know of any exceptions) where they explicitly state their firm belief in the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the World to Come. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2012-06-25

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Cúchullain t/c 21:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection of the dead → End time resurrection – The article title "Resurrection of the dead" is from the Christian Bible, yet the article discusses the similar belief in any religion. Already, it seem editors have reached consensus for the new title "End time resurrection"; see Talk:Resurrection of the dead#RFC: What is the scope of this article?. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC) →gab 24dot grab← 14:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that User:LtPowers agrees with the need for a new name. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words in my mouth, and please remove the bolding around "agree", as it implies a !vote on my part. Powers T 02:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LtPowers' first point about redundancy may be valid, but as the word "resurrection" is used in the alternate title as well, I'm not sure how much it helps to point it out. This seems to me to maybe be related to the statements of Jehovah's Witnesses and some others regarding those who are alive at the time of the apocalyptic resurrection, and are bodily assumed into heaven alive. But, I think most of the sources consider those individuals' bodily assumption to be a minor point of the hypothetical event, considering the much greater number of dead than living people expected at that time. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per previous RFC consensus. Jojalozzo 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Oppose a move from 2.6million Google Book hits WP:COMMONNAME Jewish/Christian title to a title unworkable, inaccurate and barely found in sources is a much more problematic solution than simply downsizing the ORish Zoroastrian speculation in the article and improving mainstream Jewish/Christian content with more solid content and refs. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Zoroastrian section appears to be well enough sourced (I don't see evidence for OR) and I understood the previous RFC concluded that the scope was not just Jewish/Christian, so I see no consensus for narrowing the scope to Jewish/Christian. However, I don't think that has bearing on your main objection (COMMONNAME) since I assume your google search didn't filter by religion. I am ok with COMMONNAME (in lower case) since many non-J/C sources use the term. My main concern is that we be clear that this is not a J/C article since ambiguity about that has caused confusion in the past. Jojalozzo 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This evidently is always going to be a J/C article due to notability of J & C. The fact that there's an overweight and poorly explained lump of Zoroastrian parallels in it does not change that. Personally I would break it out into Zoroastrian beliefs using a MAIN template, and only hold main sources such as Mary Boyce, Frantz Grenet Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman rule p366 1991 "... making an end of all evil.14 The doctrine of a universal resurrection of the dead was thus essential to Zoroaster's theology, and was linked with the fact that his future expectations were fixed upon this loved and familiar earth."
None of this changes that this is an unworkable move and is unlikely to hold even it gets passed. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC immediately above reached consensus that this article will be generic (all religions), which is what explicitly led to this RM. Are you rejecting that very-recent consensus? --→gab 24dot grab← 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely I disagree with RfC above. And the comment below "until and if a generic (not just Christian) subject.." doesn't make sense. There is no generic term there is simply a possible parallel between possible badly described and badly sourced Zoroastrian belief subsection rebirth, and Christian belief. Rather than doing an RM in advance of sourced content about Zoroastrianism, it remains better to source the Zoroastrian section. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reversed my willingness to go with your proposal of COMMONNAME since it most likely the common name for the Christian version of the article's topic, not a generic name (which does not appear to exist). I think the proposal for End time resurrection is a fine generic topic name that we can use until and if a term for the generic (not just Christian) subject comes into common use. Jojalozzo 14:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a rather serious question regarding how to differentiate between all the various theories about what happens to people after the final apocalypse or end of times. Even the better reference sources, like the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, have been said to have some overlapping and redundant content in multiple articles. Having said that, my own personal opinion is that, maybe, we might try to get together an RfC to address all the related articles to this topic, including Afterlife, Apocalypse, End Times, and whatever and try to get some clear and coherent agreement on what content goes where, including some indications of which individual-religion-specific spinout articles are clearly notable and desirable on which related topics. Personally, despite this existing title being more or less Christian, and acknowledging I am myself a Christian, I think this existing title isn't particularly objectionable for those topics which relate to end times ressurections of the dead in whatever religion. However, certain belief systems, like the Dharmic religions, are less focused on a single individual lifetime, given multiple reincarnations, and they might best be included in separate articles which deal with what some might consider to be similar ideas, but which have significant variation given the differences in fundamental religious tenets. I hope that made some degre of sense. If not, let me know and I can try to revise it into a more coherent statement. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
This article has always been about a seemingly-future 'end times' resurrection ("resurrection of the dead" per Matthew 22:31). Material unrelated to 'end time resurrection' already doesn't belong at this article, and can be removed now. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - [I have deleted "agree with my own request", sorry we don't do that in RMs, the guideline is somewhere]. As far as the title change I don't have a firm opinion yet other than that replacing a title with 2,460,000x Google Book hits for one with 242x (yes 242x if the tail "end time resurrection [of the dead]" is excluded) isn't an improvement. Is Zoroastrian universal rebirth really resurrection of the dead at an end time? Do Christians even believe in "an end time" I thought there were some Protestant groups which believed in 2 resurrections at either end of a millenium. Or is it just Ben Witherington? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can see in the preceding thread that I also argue against changing the article name for exactly the reasons mentioned by User:In ictu oculi. The problem with the existing name is twofold: 1) the exact term "Resurrection of the Dead" is from the Christian Bible and thus implies a Christian focus in this article; and 2) the pan-religious term "resurrection of the dead" is sufficiently ambiguous that editors continue to add material unrelated to 'end time resurrection' (despite the existence of both Resurrection and Resurrection (disambiguation). As the article details, many Christians do believe in 'end times'. Please discuss details related to Zoroastrianism in a separate thread. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"resurrection of the dead" concept is found in 4Q521, words in Antiquities 18.14; Jewish War 2.163 and the Mishnah: Jacob Neusner World Religions in America: An Introduction 2009 Page 133 "D. He who says, the resurrection of the dead is a teaching which does not derive from the Torah, ... Excluded are those who deny the resurrection of the dead, or deny that the Torah teaches that the dead will live, " it is primarily a Second Temple Jewish concept, not Christian, as is an end time. Personally I think the Zoroastrian section is probably misplaced here but worth a note. And there is no pan-religious term. Likewise some Christians believe in 2 resurrections and 2 ends of a millenium. Plus as I said the proposed title has only 242 to 2.6 million hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The distinct term "resurrection of the dead" is from the Christian Bible (not the Hebrew Bible), and the term "resurrection of the dead" is not found in Judaism's Torah or Talmud. Even when speaking or writing in English, Jews typically transliterate or loanword the Jewish "המתים תחיית" ("techiyat hamasim") rather than translate it, perhaps because they prefer "revival" over "resurrection".
Since Judaism and other non-Christian beliefs will be discussed in this article, editors have suggested changing the article name from one focussed on Christianity to an unambiguous name not focussed on Christianity. Since there is no single pan-religion term for the concept of "end time resurrection", we just use a plain term on which editors agree; a few have already favored "End time resurrection". --→gab 24dot grab← 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on this topic, but to me the phrase "End time" seems just as artificial (and possibly Christian-focused) as the phrase "Resurrection of the dead" – and possibly moreso. I just did a web search for "end time", and the vast majority of the results were Christian ministries. I actually hadn't realized that "Resurrection of the dead" was a key phrase associated with Christianity. However, a web search seems to confirm that it is. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Eschatological" is a generic, technical term that could replace "end time". Most (all?) here agree "end time" is more accessible than the technical term but I'm open to reconsidering Eschatological resurrection as a more precise title. According to the End time article, it's not a Christian-only term. Jojalozzo 18:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested name "Eschatological resurrection" is not unacceptable, but it seems less-reader-accessible and more-broad-topic than "End time resurrection" (see for yourself that "end time" is a subtopic of "eschatology"). User:BarrelProof's point is well-taken in that the term "end time" certainly is associated with Christianity; ...however the term "end time[s]" is also explicitly used in the Hebrew Bible (such as repeatedly in Daniel). Further, the term "end time" is relatively unambiguous (a key flaw of the article name "resurrection of the dead" is its ambiguity and lack of obvious connection with the eschatological period/event). Please let me emphasize again that I am a big believer in WP:COMMONNAME and it took several days for me to come around to the need for an article rename here. --→gab 24dot grab← 18:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for responding to my remark. Please don't let me derail anything here. I freely admit that I really have no expertise here. (To me, "eschatological" seems like too obscure a word for the average reader.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-close

[edit]

So maybe tomorrow we can close this and move to 'End time resurrection' . Any substantive objections? --→gab 24dot grab← 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Jojalozzo 00:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not remotely fine. As above - you'd be moving to an OR title based on content related to Zoroastrian belief which doesn't exist yet in article or in Zoroastrianism article, and (ii) contradicts the sourced belief in article of some Christians in a second resurrection and the end of a millenium. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Resurrection of the dead" is a well-known phrase. Even granting that its general familiarity is due, I suppose, to its inclusion in the Nicene Creed, no other candidate phrase is at all comparable for immediate recognizability as meaning what is described in the article. Esoglou (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I more or less agree with In ictu oculi here. I tend to lean toward trying to determine first what content can be considered related and relevant to the proposed new title first. Given the importance of the end of the world to multiple religions, I can easily see how the material for various religions whose material might not belong in this article be placed in other articles first. For Zoroastrianism, for instance Zoroastrian cosmology might be a good home for that content. But I don't think that just a quick fix to the naming issue will be enough. This probably needs a bit of time for us all to determine what particular articles should exist, and a quick fix wouldn't really help deal with that. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that five weeks isn't already "a bit of time". Whatever. Take more time. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Around here, five weeks is virtually nothing. And, in all honesty, I indicated specific things to be accomplished which were the reasons for requesting time. Those things have not yet, apparently, taken place. There are serious issues of some years in the developing here. What is probably needed is enough time to deal with those issues, however long that might take. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the Zoroastrian content need be moved anywhere. On what grounds would it be considered not relevant? Zoroastrian eschatology clearly includes end time resurrection. Jojalozzo 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Carter and Esoglou are experienced and competent editors in these subject areas - there are probably another 10 very active contributors to Christianity/Judaism pages whose views I would want to hear before making a change to a high profile Judaism/Christianity page - this RM should really have been notified on Project Judaism/Catholicism/Christianity talk pages. As for Zoroastrian end times there is already an article Frashokereti. Unless it is being proposed that Frashokereti be merged in here all that is justified by the present poorly sourced section on Zoroastrian end times is a pointer to the main article. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been significant discussion here on this question. You appear to be asking us to wait while you canvass for more support for your position. I don't think it is supposed to work that way nor is the page owned by Christianity/Judaism editors. Jojalozzo 21:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't characterize the discussion above as "significant discussion" - if the RfC had been posted at the Christianity/Judaism boards or if User:JohnChrysostom and User:Editor2020 having contributed to the article had it on their watchlists then maybe there would have been. It isn't an issue of "owned by" - the content and sources speak for themselves as this being Christian/Jewish - but I can say that this certainly isn't "owned by" WikiProject Zoroastrianism either, which seems to be dormant. A badly sourced paragraph in this article on Frashokereti, reflected in a badly sourced article at Frashokereti itself, is not justification for a move to an uncommon, almost invented name. Rather than wasting time on renaming the article. Why not source up Frashokereti with something reliable/tangible, if there is any parallel/traffic between Frashokereti and resurrection of the dead. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I would also very strongly urge Jojalozzo to perhaps read WP:CANVASS and other guidelines. The allegation that notifying the WikiProjects which are directly relevant to an article is canvassing is something that has never been considered supportable. Indeed, it is in general recommended to notify all clearly related WikiProjects. It would certainly be possible to re-open the Rfc in the hope of achieving greater discussion as well. Regarding the removal of the content regarding Zoroastrianism, in all honesty, I would want to check the sources first. There are some differences between the two ideas, but I'm not sure how major they are. The most highly regarded reference works on the topic of "religion" which doesn't fairly clearly take the position of any particular "school" of study of religion is the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion. It also has around 2000-3000 articles. The full list can be found at User:John Carter/Religion articles. I think maybe one useful way to determine what belongs where is to check to see what that reference book says on this subject, and where they place material regarding the Zoroastrian eschatology material. I probably won't be able to do that until Monday or maybe Sunday. That book does have a separate article on the Frashokereti, by the way, so there is no reason to believe that they will necessarily refrain from mentioning in other articles if the editors and authors consider it relevant. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think my caution about canvassing is so easily dismissed. A careful read should show that it is not aimed at project level notifications. In ictu oculi didn't offer to post a notice at any of the related projects (Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Muslim, Zoroastrian) but said our decision should be delayed until we heard from some 10 specific editors active in Christian/Judaic articles. That said, I'd caution that even selective notification at some projects (Christianity, Catholism, Judaism, as In ictu oculi suggests) and not others could be seen as canvassing if the resulting selective responses might introduce a bias, especially in light of In ictu oculi's opinion that this should be a Christian/Judaic article. Jojalozzo 21:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW, speaking as someone who is, to some degree, "involved" with about half the WikiProjects and groups out there, and I think all the religion/philosophy ones I know of anyway, I can see some reasonable basis for not notifying all the relevant projects. Honestly, half of them are dead or moribund. On that basis, I have real trouble seeing any good reason to basically waste an edit or two on the possibility that maybe someone is actually looking at that page. I know I personally have all of them on my watchlist, but I might be one of the few, if not maybe the only, active editor who has watchlisted some of those pages. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We probably should keep the Zoroastrian material. Quoting the article on Frashokereti in the Jones Encyclopedia of Religion by Gherardo Gnoli, trans. by Roger De Garis, written in 1987 on page 3189 regarding the Frashokereti: "The concept is eschatological and soteriological and.... is at the basis of Zoroastrian doctrine. With this concept Zarathustra (Zoroaster) abolished the archaic ideology of the cosmic cycle and of the eternal return modeled on atemporal archetypes, proclaiming the expectation of, and hope for, an eschaton. He thus introduced a linear conception of cosmic time, an innovation in religious thought that had an enormous influence on humanity's subsequent spiritual history." So, basically, Zoroastrians introduced the idea of linear time, which is required for any sort of end-of-the-world resurrection, and deserves mention on that basis. The fact that the EoR uses "eschaton" and related words to me indicated that "eschatological" might be the best descriptive word over "end times," as well. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          Eschatological resurrection does have an advantage in its precision and lack of sectarian baggage. This is especially so, in light of End time resurrection's failure to obtain any support from sources, as In ictu oculi has pointed out. Jojalozzo 21:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back to this today. I didn't list on WP:Judaism per the objection above, simply because I got a page error, someone should.

We have seen how at crucial stages in the world's history saviour figures will be born to once more preach the good religion and instil the Ahuric qualities in men and women. The role of the third and final saoshyant, however, will be somewhat different. Born fifty-seven years before the frashokereti, his task is to begin the resurrection of the dead in preparation for judgement and, for those who require it, cleansing. Those still living at this time will also be required to undergo a judgement. - Peter Clark Zoroastrianism: an introduction to an ancient faith Sussex Academic Press 1998

Remind me why the article should be moved again? This is a respected text on Zoroastrianism and it uses the phrase "resurrection of the dead". So what was the problem with following the giant majority of sources and all-but inventing a new term? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what objection you are referring to; please explain. And please tell us where you have listed this. Cheers. Jojalozzo 14:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's up there somewhere, scroll up. I don't think I have managed to notify any of the religion projects - I am getting a drop out on WT:Christianity and WT:Judaism.
Anyway, today the disparity seems even bigger: "resurrection of the dead" 6.1 million hits to "end time resurrection." 40 hits
And the objection to "resurrection of the dead" that it is too narrowly Jewish/Christian/Muslim and doesn't include Zoroastrianism, see Peter Clark Zoroastrianism: an introduction to an ancient faith Sussex Academic Press 1998 above. What is the rationale for this move now? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a major problem with the current title is that it invites an assumption that it's solely about Christian eschatology because the term is used most often in a Christian context. A more generic title is not so much required to include all resurrection eschatologies but to clarify that the topic is inclusive. Jojalozzo 14:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

question about "increasing emphasis"

[edit]

Ignatius56, in this edit you added text that says "In the gospels however, the resurrection, as exemplified by the resurrection Jesus, is presented with an increasing emphasis on the resurrection of the flesh, from the empty tomb in Mark (Mark 16:2–7), the women embracing the feet of the resurrected Jesus in Matthew (Matthew 28:9), the insistence of the resurrected Jesus in Luke that he is of "flesh and blood" and not just a Pauline spirit or pneuma (Luke 24:37–39), to the resurrected Jesus’ encouraging the disciples to touch his wounds in John (John 20:27)." My sense is that the "increasing emphasis" bit, is based on an assumption about the historical order in which the gospels were written. Is that true? If so, I suggest adding a bit to make that clear. thx. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "increasing" and tweaked the wording nearby, since that part was unclear and there were no references except to the canonical gospels as primary sources. -- Beland (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Resurrection of the dead' refers to Reincarnation

[edit]

I added this... Most Jews, many Christians, Sufi Muslims, all Hindus, Buddhists, and Neo-Pagans believe (the resurrection of the dead) refers to reincarnation between the three realms: Life, Death, and Transformation. 73.85.205.37 (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not exactly right, but I have cross-referenced reincarnation and resurrection to explain the difference. -- Beland (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And added a "See also" link from this article. -- Beland (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Soul" or "spirit"

[edit]

@Rafaelosornio: The lengthy quote from the Catechism of 1993 which you just added does not reflect the best in scriptural scholarship. The notion of soul existing apart from the body is inhuman, and comes from Greek philosophy not from the New Testament. I suggest that where the word "animus" occurs in the Latin text of the Catechism it should have been translated more generally as "spirit" rather than "soul" which has Greek-philosophical overtones. We should reflect the most up-to-date Catholic theology in Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Universal resurrection which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resurrection_of_the_dead&oldid=1186870402"