Talk:Meta-historical fall

Worked on some more references

@Mccapra: thank you for your tags regarding this article needing more references and sources. I've started to build more of these out and think that I've reached an acceptable initial level. I have plans for some more development that will bring in more sources (and be fully referenced), but please let me know if any basic gaps might still remain for now. Jjhake (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

For any editors interested in helping with this article, please note this discussion of it here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. Jjhake (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing cleanup tags

@Bakkster Man: as you added some of the four cleanup tags at the top of this article and as I have made an effort to address all of these problems, can you please let me know what examples of any remaining problems remain in the article or if these cleanup tags can now be removed? Thank you for your help.

@Bon courage: likewise, as you added some of the four cleanup tags at the top of this article and as I have made an effort to address all of these problems, can you also let me know what examples of any remaining problems remain in the article or if these cleanup tags can now be removed? Thank you as well.

Please address any remaining concerns under these four categories tagged:

• This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.
• This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories.
• This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies.
• This article contains too many or overly lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry.

Jjhake (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is in a far better place, but I'm not sure on removing the tags quite yet. Still some work to go. The fringe theory one is probably the closest to being removed, but I wasn't the one to place it so I'll hold off for now.

Regarding tone, I'm seeing a lot of issues described in WP:WTW, which is a good starting place for identifying the types of cleanup. A lot of it comes across as essay writing style. For instance, which Khramov has written about in a 2019 Russian book that offers an alternative to both “theistic evolutionism and creationism.” isn't necessary in the encyclopedic style. Either simply make the statement and cite it to the book, only saying something along the lines of "according to Kharmov" when the statement needs to be attributed as someone's own view rather than a broadly accepted one. Same with a lot of the parentheticals; Paleontologist Alexander V. Khramov (Borissiak Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ph.D. from Moscow University) should simply be Paleontologist Alexander V. Khramov for instance. We're looking for an article that describes "this is the common set of beliefs", rather than a comprehensive academic paper.

For the length, I think we're still significantly longer than the article should be. Between unnecessary detail (outside the history section - which should be briefer - we don't need to focus on who first or last described the concept and when, just describe the belief and briefly attribute as necessary) and duplication of the same content as a result of the rewrite, I think that'll get us most of the way there.

And one final challenge, I think most of the remaining inline quotes can still be rewritten into our own prose. Typically, I'd say the only quotes should be specific unique terminology (ie. "meta-historical", "angelic time") or concepts that you expect can't be written in your own words without being challenged that you've changed the meaning. Per above, most of these fine details ("creaturely creativity entails not only the possibility but even the inevitability of errors, which, in themselves, are not yet evil but prepare a place for evil", "temporal created order is maintained in existence") are unnecessary or undesirable in an encyclopedia. Ideally, I'd suggest finding a way to remove all the quotes but the unique terminology, and maybe the ones relating specifically to whether or not the idea is considered part of a heresy (as most likely to be challenged for their neutrally). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I've done some trimming and cleanup. I added a cleanup tag in the History section that I think may be POV and need attribution to indicate it's not the mainstream interpretation. Could you double check this Jjhake? Bakkster Man (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll look it over this weekend. I'll note two quick things, however.

First, Hart is generally recognized as the top contemporary scholar on this topic, and it looks like you've dropped any mention of him from the history. Perhaps, however, that just belongs elsewhere outside the history section?

Second, with the POV question, please explain a little more how is neutrality disputed with this sentence: "The concept of a meta-historical fall has an origin with early Christian patristic thought as well as Christian and Jewish Gnostic systems." These two citations (one of which seems to have been removed) support this claim, and more could be found as it's widely recognized by Schelling, Boehme, Soloviev, and Bulgakov scholars that they are all drawing on both orthodox and heterodox patristic and gnostic thinkers.

• Ruth Coates writing for Oxford UP in 2019 says: that Soloviev on this topic was following "Schelling, Boehme, and Gnostic systems both Christian and Jewish" with his ideas that "the finite natural universe" is "the result of the irrational metaphysical fall."
• Christopher Knight writing for Cambridge UP in 2022 says: "The Fall was often seen, in the patristic era, as being a transition not only into our present biological state but also into time as we now experience it. As Philip Sherrard has put it, it was a lapse ‘into a materialized space-time universe’. ...This kind of understanding of the character of our unfallen state has been explored by modern Orthodox scholars like Sergius Bulgakov, who have suggested that the Fall should be seen not as a historical event but as a ‘meta-historical’ one."

Jjhake (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Hart, I don't think this topic is notable enough to name every single scholar, and the reference we had to his works didn't lead to anything but a "Hart says he was influenced by Bulgakov". If he's a notable scholar, I'm sure we'll cite him multiple places, but we don't necessarily address him by name in the prose unless there's good reason. In some cases, it's better for him to be reliable enough not to attribute things to him by name, as attribution is usually reserved for unreliable statements. The more we have to refer to the individual by name, the less reliable and notable the topic comes across as being. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Please disregard my question above about Hart in the history section. It makes sense that he doesn't fit there.

I've started moving a few existing citations around to address the POV question: if a meta-historical fall "has an origin with early Christian patristic thought." I can easily find a strong list of additional and specific sources on this as well. Not a controversial question among any leading scholars from anything that I have read, and the specific scholarship is abundant. There is potential confusion as most people tend to think that patristic thinkers are never heterodox (which is not the case, of course) and also as later theology on the meta-historical fall continues to draw upon both orthodox and explicitly heterodox (especially gnostic) figures from the early history of Christianity. Finally, some church fathers are very literal about a historical Adam and Eve, and only some of them took the metaphysical route. This all gets messy and difficult to write about succinctly and without sounding like a POV issue, but I'll work on some very simple language and citations to help clarify. Jjhake (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my thought on this issue was whether we need to rephrase it as "these thinkers based their view on a related early patristic thought". At the moment it reads as if the early church fathers definitely had the foundations of a meta-historical fall, and that this is relatively undisputed, and I'm unsure if those are both true. But I'm also not a deep enough theology wonk to know for certain, hence my asking the question to see if that's what it's meant to say and if you believe it's accurate. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, helpful. I'm slowly catching on to the encyclopedic method here... Something like this should be good neutral phrasing: "Theologians and philosophers in the modern era drew upon metaphysical categories from related early patristic thought."

From what I read, theologians in the modern era are usually recognized as drawing upon pre-modern metaphysical categories when they speak of any meta-historical fall, and these metaphysical categories were widely available to most patristic authors as well (and many patristic authors made free and even creative use of these metaphysical categories). The big difference between patristic theologians and modern theologians, of course, are the findings of modern science. Jjhake (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that rewording would be great, thanks. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Made that edit and removed the POV question. I see a few more things I can keep working at as I have time along the lines of what you have pointed out... Jjhake (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We’re getting down to some very short bits of quotation. I’ll keep working at it. Is this still the largest issue in relation to the four tags at the top of the article? Jjhake (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I've trimmed a good bit more verbiage and quotations and worked on some verb tense issues (living versus past sources). I'm not seeing much more to improve. Hoping that you might consider if any of the tags at the top are okay to remove at this point. @Bon courage: also hoping that you might help with cleanup tags that you placed as a good bit of work has been done to address the concerns.--Jjhake (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The more that I read the secondary scholarship, the more clear it is that this would not have been a minority position within the opinion of writers in some eastern Christian traditions for long periods of history. It is a minority take among Christian thinkers worldwide now, but I may end up dropping in one sentence some time (cited with a couple quality secondary sources) regarding substantial Christian traditions in which this was the majority understanding of the human fall. Jjhake (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Not hearing back here yet and looking over the article for content or gaps that would help with any of the four cleanup tags, I'm pretty sure that any remaining issues with "contains too many or overly lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry" would fit under the "article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia" tag. There is not even a full sentence left with the quotations, and what little remains would be difficult to state more accurately or succinctly than the source quoted. So I'm removing that tag. Please let me know here if I'm missing anything critical on this.

Likewise, as Bakkster Man noted once already, the "fringe theories" issue seems well addressed. The lede notes this as a minority doctrine considered heretical by some, and several critical responses in the secondary literature appear in the body. So I'm removing this as well. Again, please let me know here if I'm missing anything critical on this. I'd be glad to get help improving this further.

With the remaining two tags, I can imagine a more experienced Wikipedia writer and editor than myself (which isn't saying much) making improvements, so I'm leaving them in place with the hope of attracting such additional help. Jjhake (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll be busier than usual this week, but will try and take a look. At first glance, I do feel like it's at the point of 'good enough' that it's clear we're talking maintenance and cleanup, rather than deletion or merging. And I'd agree the two remaining cleanup tags are probably sufficient right now, unless someone else has a strong preference for another. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: As I've been working on other articles, I'm increasingly unclear why the two remaining cleanup tags are warranted on this article. I've listed this article for a peer review and will continue to seek input from others to improve it. However, I would be grateful if you (or any other editors who you think might be helpful), would point out any remaining issues with regard to these two cleanup tags. If the tone is generally encyclopedic and if no undue weight is given to any ideas, then I would like to remove the tags and to simply leave the current peer review request in place as the next step for developing this article. Thanks for any further help here as you are able. Jjhake (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the encyclopedic tone tag, as I believe the article is in a pretty good state overall now. I'd recommend pinging one of the other editors who had the fringe science concerns first, and then if none of them respond to a review request I'll look it over as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man, ජපස, and Bon courage: as Bakkster Man recommends above, I'm checking with each of you, ජපස and Bon courage, regarding the fringe science concerns posted here. Your concerns made sense to me, and many edits have been made seeking to address them. This article now has a peer review invitation in place and one cleanup tag remaining (undue weight). Do you have any further input regarding issues that remain in this article? Jjhake (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Not hearing from either of the others tagged above a few days back, any help with a review by you (or anyone that you might recommend) would be appreciated. If possible, I would like to resolve any remaining undo weight concerns that might remain and to remove this cleanup tag. Thank you for your repeated input. Jjhake (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I did a quick look through, and I think you've definitely addressed the concerns large enough for a tag, and that the related wikiprojects are the right way to continue improving the article longer term. Good work! Bakkster Man (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Christopher West quote

@FatalSubjectivities: Thank you for the Christopher West quote that you added, but please note that a lot of work was done on this article, after a lot of criticism (and questions of notability) in order to keep it very brief (as a minority view) and to eliminate any long block quotes.

While the article by Christopher West summarizing Pope John Paul II seems to bring up a closely related concept with the categories of "original man” giving way to “historical man," it is not entirely clear to me if this is directly about the concept of a meta-historical human fall. I'd likely need to read more, perhaps from John Paul II. Do you know if these "original man” and “historical man" categories come directly from John Paul II?

If this is clearly referring to a meta-historical human fall, it would probably be best to simply note with one simple sentence that John Paul II and Christopher West talk about the change from "original man” to “historical man" in their consideration of human embodiment. Jjhake (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@FatalSubjectivities: Is this piece that you cite from Christopher West an excerpt from a book? There is no publication date or other info. The weakness of this source makes it even more helpful here to determine if this "original man” versus “historical man" language is directly from John Paul II and to cite him directly if possible.

@FatalSubjectivities: It looks like the source that you are citing is from An Introduction to the Theology of the Body, 8-Part Study Starter Pack (ISBN 811661010853). It is likely material from the "Leader’s Guide" or the "Student Workbook" with "Session 1: An Education in Being Human." At any rate, this source needs to be cited properly (not just pointing to a website with no info on where it was actually published), and it almost certainly should simply refer to the original material from Pope John Paul II.--Jjhake (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Keeping "Related concepts" concisely categorized

@FatalSubjectivities: thank you for your contributions of related content from Augustine and Ruth Coates. Additional related materials can very easily start to sprawl in multiple directions, so it will be critical to keep circling back and consolidating them tightly under some clear and concise main headings. Relating any of these concepts to each other will also start to cross the line into original research, so such content will need to remain only what is most clearly relevant to this specific article content and the relationships to the article content will need to be obvious under the "Related concepts" categories that are kept and developed. -- Jjhake (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)