Talk:Universal resurrection

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge with Resurrection of the dead

Resurrection of the dead and Universal resurrection appear to be on more or less the same topic - the resurrection of everyone who has died and have not already been judged or whatnot, at the end of the world. It's not about individual resurrections or the topic in general. I don't have strong feelings about which title to merge it under, but some pros and cons:

  • "Resurrection of the dead" sounds redundant - only dead people can be resurrected - and is easily confused with resurrection, which is the general topic.
  • "Resurrection of the dead" seems like a term of art, which might be preferred, though it could just be a redirect
  • "Universal resurrection" is clearly distinguished from the general topic of resurrection
  • Is "universal" the right way to describe these doctrines?

Which title do other editors prefer? -- Beland (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and some Christian denominations do not believe that everybody will be resurrected, so I think that "General resurrection" would be better than "universal". Editor2020 (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge, but not the change of title for the other page. Proposing that here informally is just wierd, and wrong. The two issues are separate anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Where would be a better place to propose renaming Universal resurrection than Talk:Universal resurrection? Do you prefer "Universal resurrection" even though not all so-described events are predicted to involve everyone? -- Beland (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess it was confusing because I moved Resurrection of the dead to General resurrection. That was just because it had a longer edit history, and I was going to merge Universal resurrection into it but I got distracted and forgot about it. I did the merge more messily into Universal resurrection and now the question is whether or not we want to move the result to General resurrection, which I would support. -- Beland (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename to Resurrection of the dead - that seems the clearer and more general title. Both options have specific meanings in Christian theology, but this one seems more natural and better for the other religions covered. The merge and rename are somewhat different issues. You tried an undiscussed out of process move at Resurrection of the dead, which I reverted, then just merged it to this title, with a thin consensus for the merge, and none for the underhand rename! Please try to stick with procedures - start a proper WP:RM process. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(:sigh:) I rather resent being called underhanded; I only did the merge because you said you supported it, which makes 100% of the editors who have responded in the past two weeks! Had I been trying to abuse the merge process, I would have put the result at "General resurrection", which given the comments so far would be my preferred title. If you want more opinions, feel free to advertise this discussion wherever you think it should be. I don't want to have my character insulted again just because I was trying to be helpful. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a right and a wrong way to do things. Try using the right one. Just because you didn't do another undiscussed move doesn't put you in the right place. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Undiscussed page merges (and moves) are allowed as normal editing activity, if they are not expected to be controversial. Given the proposed name is one of the names listed in the intro and was less confusing than the old name, I don't see why it would be controversial. 2.) It was not undiscussed. Both Editor2020 and I agreed on the merge target. "Resurrection of the dead" had a tag on it for 12 days before it was moved specifically asking about what the merge target should be, and for a week after Editor2020's discussion. I went out of my way to ask if a third title would be preferred when I could have just done the merge to the second or third title without asking. I thought I was just implementing the consensus from the talk page. I thought I was doing the right thing. Being told that I was sneaking around doing the wrong thing is really demoralizing and frustrating. Currently two editors prefer "general resurrection" and one prefers "resurrection of the dead", which indicates to me the contents should be moved to the former as originally planned. -- Beland (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No move of a page like this was ever likely to be uncontroversial. You still haven't done a properly advertised WP:RM, to attract wider comment. That's why they are the proper procedure. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't do so either, despite the invitation to. -- Beland (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I see both points – those more familiar with the subject emphasize that Resurrection of the dead is the proper term of art and invoke WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT (not without substance), while opponents point out that the term is way too confusing for an average reader, citing WP:PRECISE (again, not without substance). None of the alternatives proposed gained sufficient traction, so let's agree to disagree and revisit this some time later. No such user (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal resurrection → Resurrection of the dead – WP:COMMONNAME. Note that there is a pre-merger page history at the destination. Srnec (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support the current title is misleading and fails WP:CRITERIA neither most Jews nor many (most?) Christians believe in a "universal" resurrection of the dead. Universal has a technical use in some theological texts but is misleading to the general reader. And certainly this move is to the WP:COMMONNANE In ictu oculi (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone unfamiliar with the subject, I find the proposed title a bit confusing. After all, Resurrection is also about the resurrection of the dead (who else are you going to resurrect?). Adding to the confusion, Miracles of Jesus § Resurrection of the dead uses this phrase in a non-eschatological context. (But I think WP:CRITERIA should be evaluated with respect to an article's target audience, so my impression shouldn't count for much.) Colin M (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this specific move. I don't think the name is sufficiently WP:PRECISE as I don't understand how it differentiates from Resurrection in general. I suggest considering Resurrection in eschatology if the term "universal resurrection" is considered misleading. Since it seems like the term "resurrection of the dead" appears to be derived from Koine Greek it's not clear whether it includes the non-Christian traditions also discussed in the article (t · c) buidhe 13:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Resurrection of the dead" is definitely appropriate for Judaism. It is sometimes used for Arabic qiyama ([1]) and for Zoroastrianism ([2]). It is a term of art and I think must be understood not as "resurrection of dead people" but as "resurrection of The Dead (all of them)".
Also taking this opportunity to ping @Beland and Johnbod: you debated the title in the previous section. Srnec (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Resurrection of the dead" sounds like the same thing as "Resurrection", so they are easily confused, even though the former is a term of art. I'd prefer a generic title of some kind, like "General resurrection" or "Resurrection and eschatology" or "Resurrection and the end of the world". Though a hatnote on "resurrection of the dead" would help readers who end up in the wrong place, a better title would help readers know to click on the link because it would be clear it's a different topic than Resurrection, which they might have already read or not find as interesting. -- Beland (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have never heard of the term "universal resurrection". The doctrine is properly titled "The resurrection of the dead". 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Buidhe. Call it something else if you like, but it can't be called "Resurrection of the dead". That term clearly refers as a primary topic to the general article Resurrection and it should be a redirect there, or at the very least a disambiguation page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you assert that "Resurrection of the dead" ... clearly refers as a primary topic to the general article Resurrection? This smacks of WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT. Srnec (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2021 (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.

"Resurrection from the dead" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Resurrection from the dead and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Resurrection from the dead until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Resurrection of the dead" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Resurrection of the dead and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Resurrection of the dead until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Resurrection of the Dead" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Resurrection of the Dead and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Resurrection of the Dead until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Resurrection of the body" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Resurrection of the body and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Resurrection of the body until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bodily resurrection" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bodily resurrection and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Bodily resurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Resurrection of the flesh" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Resurrection of the flesh and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Resurrection of the flesh until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bodily Resurrection" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bodily Resurrection and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Bodily Resurrection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ressurection from the Dead" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ressurection from the Dead and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Ressurection from the Dead until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move to the proposed title. However, I think it is clear there is no consensus about an alternative move, such as resurrection of the dead. It's already been over six weeks since the move was first proposed, so please feel free to file a new request to that title whenever you feel it appropriate. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal resurrection → General resurrection – User:Editor2020 pointed out that Judaisism and some Christian denominations believe that the resurrection will not apply to everyone, and suggested "General resurrection" as a more appropriate term. I supported that, but User:Johnbod opposed this move and requested a formal process. -- Beland (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I opposed was any move without a formal RM process; the subject is complicated & many may have views. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Resurrection of the dead. --Thesmp (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Thesmp. Move to Resurrection of the dead. —Srnec (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Resurrection of the dead" is not the proposed title. That was formally proposed in May and it was decided at that time there was no consensus to move to that title. That why I'm formally asking if it can't be that, which of the two other titles is better, since we had 2:1 support for "General resurrection" over "Universal resurrection". -- Beland (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close then said "None of the alternatives proposed gained sufficient traction, so let's agree to disagree and revisit this some time later." There is no need for this discussion to be restricted to your nomination proposals, though the more options there are, the less likely any one of them is to achieve consensus . Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's why I was only asking for folks to choose between the two, since it makes no sense to keep the current title if a majority prefer the proposed over the current, even if it's not the first choice of a substantial majority. If people aren't going to do that, and since this isn't a vote anyway, I'd follow BilledMammal's Google ngram evidence showing a clear preference for "general resurrection" over "universal resurrection", assuming the referents are the same in the texts surveyed.
If we're taking it as a possible outcome of the current discussion, I would oppose "Resurrection of the dead" because as Buidhe pointed out and Amakuru agreed, it violates WP:PRECISE and in common language simply reads as a redundant phrase meaning Resurrection in general. Though editors who are expert in the subject recognize it as a commonly used term of art (no doubt it's mostly in-universe Christian texts that are showing up in Google ngrams), most readers don't, so if we try to move there we'll just restart the litany of complaints that the title is confusing and people attempting to move it somewhere else. -- Beland (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence in favour of my !vote above. These are the first six hits when I Google Scholar search "resurrection of the dead" post-2000, excluding false positives (e.g., plays on words):
  • Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?: The Witness of the New Testament
  • C. Setzer, "Resurrection of the Dead as Symbol and Strategy", Journal of the American Academy of Religion – about Judaism
  • Peter Van Inwagen, "I Look for the Resurrection of the Dead and the Life of the World to Come", The Blackwell Companion to Substance Dualism
  • C. R. Moss, "Heavenly healing: Eschatological cleansing and the resurrection of the dead in the early church", Journal of the American Academy of Religion
  • A. Lehnardt, "Massekhet Kutim and the Resurrection of the Dead", Samartians: Past and Present. Current Studies – about Samaritanism
  • J. P. Meier, "The Debate on the Resurrection of the Dead: an Incident from the Ministry of the Historical Jesus?", Journal for the Study of the New Testament
I was going to do the first 10 hits, but it's too monotonous. It's all the same. The resurrection of the dead is an eschatological event in several religions. It usually gets the definite article, which you can see if you check ngrams. Where is the ambiguity? Srnec (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mu - "Resurrection of the dead" in contrast to "Resurrection from the dead" does appear to overwhelmingly refer to Universal resurrection, and appears to be a more common term for it than the the current title, but it would be less messy to open this discussion after the RfD is completed, as it complicates closure of both discussions unnecessarily. I do wonder, however, whether this trend holds for usage in peer-reviewed RS that are not affiliated with a specific religious denomination, and would appreciate that as a data point for further consideration if anybody can think of a way to query for it. signed, Rosguill talk 03:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any page move until the RfD is finished. In any case, I oppose the page move to "Resurrection of the dead" for the latter does not seem to be a primary topic to designate the universal resurrection and is too vague. Veverve (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose resurrection of the dead, for the reasons I gave last time and per Buidhe above. Other than that, I'm not sure if general resurrection is a better title than universal resurrection, but I suspect not. The latter sounds more precise to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as an alternative, we could move the page to something like Resurrection of the dead (Christianity) or Resurrection of the dead in Christianity. That would be a separate inquiry from the ongoing RFD. BD2412 T 18:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The same concept exists in Judaism, Samaritanism and Islam. We cover the last at Day of Resurrection, although it is covered at Islamic eschatology under the title "Resurrection of the dead". The Jewish belief—Maimonides' 13th point—is covered also at Jewish principles of faith, where "resurrection of the dead" is used twice, although Maimonides is translated "revival of the dead". For the resurrection of the dead in Zoroastrianism, see here. Srnec (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has sections covering a total of 6 religions, so no, we can't! Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 4#Resurrection from the dead. Some of the redirects have been disambiguated, while others (notably Resurrection of the dead) continue to point to this article. The outcomes can be amended if there is substantial discussion and clear consensus here. – Uanfala (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to Resurrection of the dead (Abrahamic religions) per WP:COMMONNAME and to reflect article content which clearly documents that most Christian denominations do not consider the resurrection of the dead to be universal. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Universal_resurrection"