Talk:Elaine Pagels

message: It seems that the last external reference (christianity and/or elaine pagels) does not really belong in an encyclopedia.  It is someone's personal correspondance, and I was unable to find the source of the correspondance.  Any comments?  Agentcdog 23:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly references?

message: I have read the article about the one-hundred best non-fiction books and it is an article mentioning the fifty worst and fifty best books not the one-hundred best books. Furthermore, her book is in the list of the worst books so if this source is going to be used the whole paragraph should be changed. 
I am asking for approval to do it.
(Faso 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two lists should be linked to in footnotes, to prevent interested "spin". --Wetman (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrongly cited source?

message: The "critics" being cited here should be identified, to demonstrate that these are not straw men set up for counter-argument's sake. Not a single direct quote from Pagels herself yet: all paraphrases. --Wetman (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous critics

message: This section absolutely must have the responses of Pagels to the criticism, as a basic requirement of NPOV. DGG (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done jbolden1517Talk 07:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception section

message: I think the templates:
* 
* 
are unjustified. The article is fairly neutral, although some of her critics are near to rabid for seeing a vastly different viewpoint from their own. That is however quite normal in the world of academics. The criticism section should preferrably be separate, not interspersed in the rest of the text. Otherwise the article risk becoming unpleasant. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thoroughly agree. Tagging the article (or perhaps rather, the subject of the article) as "disputed" is just plain silly. To a vote, I say. Please note the tag has been on the article for se7en (7!) months as of writing. "O!, the silliness." 82.181.94.185 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the tags shouldremain, as the material in the criticism section is unbalanced. DGG (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: She now has several more books -- these need inclusion? Or is this just a platform for angry patriarchal Catholics to diss her (just kidding)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.214.66 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article fairly OK

message: :The most frequent and fundamental criticism of this book comes from some scholars of the New Testament and first century (such as Richard B. Hays and N.T. Wright ) who conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is, in fact, a second century Gnostic text which uses the already extant tradition of the synoptic, canonical Gospels.
But is this criticism notable or relevant?  How exactly does this specific criticism address Pagels or her book?  Coatrack anyone? Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it.  The dates of both gospels are close enough and John has just as many problems, if not more.  This doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion in this article, as we are discussing Pagels and her work.  If, however, an article was created for Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), then similar but more exacting criticisms would be warranted.  In a biography article, this isn't the place for it, nor is the criticism important or relevant enough for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wright is notable.    As for this being a criticism Pagels is the leading proponent of the early Thomas theory and her book on Thomas the most important work on the topic.  I was one who thought the criticism turned into a hatchet job but the debate on the dating of Thomas is definitely one of her key debates.  Moreover, fundamentally choosing an early date is what makes her a leading proponent of the "New school".  And her connection with the New School is a reason for criticism jbolden1517Talk 10:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source has nothing to do with Wright, but with Hays, and it's tacked on to a biography article.  Furthermore, the criticism does not address the book, and if it does, it doesn't belong here.  Lastly, the criticism of the dates isn't significant, because the dates of both Gospels are considered to be very close.  If this is a key debate, then take it to a more appropriate article.  This is a biography of Pagels, not a soapbox for dismissing her work with empty criticism.  Of course, your revert shows you aren't actually interested in the facts, as your mind is already made up.  Carry on... Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked out the material you restored.  It has nothing to do with Pagels.  Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Huh?  You made two reverts and accused me of edit warring?  That takes the cake.  As for Pagels being mentioned in Hays 1996, I cannot access it on GBooks.  It tells me " Pagels - did not match any documents".  So, since you have reverted page 162 back into the article, you need to quote the passage per WP:V.  So, please provide the quote.  I still fail to see what this has to do with a biographical article.  And as I pointed out above, the criticism isn't even accurate. I have provided four reasons why this criticism should not be in the article: 1) It does not appear to reflect the source cited; 2) A biography article is not the place to make tangential, non-notable criticisms of an authors work, especially by admittedly partisan critics who are not considered neutral; 3) The criticism does not appear to address specific claims by Pagels in particular, and 4) The date of both texts is in flux as is the authenticity and "historicity" of both, and as such, the criticism does not have legs. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I looked a bit harder and found that GBooks had a second copy with all the page numbers intact.  And, it's exactly what I expected.  The source used in the article has nothing to do with Pagels or her book. Jbolden1517, I'm a reasonable person, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.  Sometimes people have a bad day and make poor decisions.  I am giving you an opportunity to self-revert yourself before I escalate this to the next level.  Your edit warring here was extremely poor form, because at some point, either myself or somebody else was going to check up on the source.  Why the hell you thought you were going to get away with this is beyond me.  Self-revert or I take this to the next level. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: That seems like a reasonable counter argument to Hays.  Feel free to pull the Hays ref out.  jbolden1517Talk 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I previously requested that you self-revert.  Now I look at the article to see that you have modified it.  It immediately comes to mind that you ignored my request to self-revert and asked me to remove the material in bad faith and in attempt to get me to edit war, as your latest edit does not fix the problem but contributes to it.  As I explained to you above, this is a biographical article about Elaine Pagels.  It is not a critical commentary on her books.  You are free to create an article about her book (and encouraged to do so) and add your critcism there.  For some insight on how we do this, you would do well to read The New York Times article about similar criticism in the Sunday Book Review.  Please note how the criticism is focused around the Gospel of Judas, not Pagels or her books.  Do you understand?  Furthermore, you continue to keep Hays in the article to support your conclusion, when it has been shown that it has nothing to do with Pagels or her book. This is generally referred to as synthesis, and is not acceptable.  So, is there a reason you asked me to pull the Hays ref out, yet you continue to edit with it in the article, and bolster a criticism about Pagels and her book that secondary sources show is not notable for criticizing Pagels or her book, but for criticizing the Gospel of Judas? Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: You say that you have not confirmed my argument regarding Hays.  And yet, I have not once, but twice three times provided a link to the questionable material on Gbooks.  Do you think you could take 10 seconds out of your busy Sunday and "confirm" the argument, or do I need to file a noticeboard incident asking for administrative attention? Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, now you have removed the Hays reference, but you still continue to preserve the content it supports in the article?  This has got to be one of the most disruptive patterns of editing I have ever seen on Wikipedia.  Before I begin the process of escalating this issue, I'm curious what you have to say for yourself.  You appear to be baiting me into edit warring instead of fixing the article.  I initially assumed this was the case, which is why I have not touched the article after your second revert.  The pattern here is clearly disruptive.  What alternative explanation can there be? Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The sources mention Pagels by name repeatedly in those sections.  That is being explicit.  I also think you should possibly reread AGF.  You are the one proposing radical changes to the structure of an article.  Slow down.  Propose changes.  Give other people a chance to comment (not 1 day).  See what they say wait for a consensus.  Stop trying to overhaul the article alone.   Cut out the threatening language "If you don't I'll delete" or "do I need to escalate".  I objected to the removal of the Hays information because I happen to know the criticism was common as I was able to quickly confirm.  I don't OTOH know Hays.  jbolden1517Talk 12:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of what I have written above is not making sense to you?  Please point out specific issues you aren't following.  Again, Hays says nothing about Pagels or her books.  I've provided a direct link to the source three separate times;  So, why have you left the Hays material in but only removed the citation?  Does that make sense to you?  It certainly does not make sense to me.  Now, you say "the sources mention Pagels by name repeatedly".  Please be specific: What sources, and where?  Please provide samples here (per WP:V)  In case you are continuing to ignore my comments, this article is a biographical article about Pagels.  It isn't about non-notable criticisms of her books.  If you want to represent some form of criticism in this article, you need to provide secondary sources that show this criticism exists.  That requirement prevents partisan editors from picking and choosing criticism based on their own likes and dislikes, and is best practice.  As for my edits, I am not trying to overhaul the article; I am trying to rewrite it.  You are welcome to help. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The two sources both discuss Pagels in relation to the New School controversy.  In other words did Christianity emerge from Palestinian Judaism directly or did it pass through several stages, for example Palestinian Judaism -> Alexandrian Judaism -> proto "gnosticism".  What Bauer argued was the later, and Pagels is at this point the most well known proponent of those views.  The Hays line was a criticism that this is the primary point of contention regarding Pagels.  That point true, regardless of whether the Hays reference is correct or not.  I've provided two more references that demonstrate that criticism.  Wright was specifically mention and I included the work where he discusses Pagels.  Bock is just another source.  jbolden1517Talk 13:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, per WP:V, "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference."  Please do so. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable criticism? 

message: I cannot think of a single biographical article that has such links.  I'm therefore moving them to talk.  This BLP is not a platform for soapbox-driven, religious and partisan criticism of her work.  If there is something important here, great, use it as a reference. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to talk 

message: :In a different measure of its influence, the conservative Christian Intercollegiate Studies Institute listed it as one of the 50 Worst Books of the Twentieth Century.
The only problem with this is that it is basically a joke.  The actual "criticism" and reason for inclusion stated by the Institute is not only baseless, it is completely unsupported and without a single verifiable fact.  Essentially, the book is included on the list because they don't like it.  Now, on Wikipedia, we require secondary sources showing notability for such criticism.  This could be something as simple as a newspaper, magazine, or journal.  Unless we have neutral sources covering this criticism, including it in this article doesn't make sense.  Here it is in full:
Bored with the real Gospels and real Christianity, professors of religion were thrilled to find out how important-not to mention feminist and pre-Socratic-these fragments were.
It's an empty and baseless criticism written by a biased, partisan "institute". It might work for MAD Magazine or Saturday Night Live, but not Wikipedia. Per NPOV (undue weight) these types of sources are strongly discouraged.  I've removed it from the article pending the inclusion of a secondary source documenting this list. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you always comment your reasons for changes on the talk page first.  That's helpful.  I strongly disagree.  Looking at the names on that list, those are very much reliable sources.   What this establishes is the importance of her book.  If you look at the first entries:  Coming of Age in Samoa, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Democracy and Education these are enormously influential books written in the 20th century.  For a bunch of highly regarded scholars to list your work among them is a very high honor.  If you want to rephrase the comment then fine.   jbolden1517Talk 12:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reliable secondary source that represents this "notable" criticism.  Did you even bother to read it?  It is pure garbage, and it is written as if it was a joke.  What exactly is your requirement for inclusion?  Do you understand that in order to represent something in this article, you need to be able to show that it exists independently of the primary source?  To rephrase for the second time, I challenge the importance of this material.  Therefore, the editor wishing to include it, merely needs to show a neutral, reliable source that has covered the issue.  This is very easy to do it, if it is notable.  Please do it. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a secondary source.  The primary source is the book itself (Gnostic Gospels). jbolden1517Talk 12:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  A secondary source representing the topic, i.e. The New York Times reporting that the Intercollegiate Studies Institute listed Pagel's book as one of the 50 Worst Books of the Twentieth Century.  Not the Institute reporting on itself.  That is what is required, and can be found for every notable criticism on Wikipedia.  Please find a secondary source. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Akhilleus -- I'm not treating it as serious criticism.  What I am treating it as evidence of her influence: importance and notability.  Look at the list it is a whose who of 20th century liberal writers.  By "worst" all they really mean is influential in a direction they don't like.  If you look at the line in the article that's what it says, it is evidence of her importance.  jbolden1517Talk 13:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But if the ISI list wasn't taken seriously, it's not evidence of her influence. Things like winning a MacArthur and looking at how subsequent scholarship draws on her work are evidence of importance and influence. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: "One of the most influential books of the century" is hyperbolic. We don't need to include it, especially when it's sourced to a marginal group like the ISI. Simply reporting that she won a MacArthur is impressive stuff--they call it the genius grant for a reason. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Intercollegiate Studies Institute 

message: That entire final paragraph reads to me like an attenuated platform for engaging in a criticism of *one* of her works, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003). In my opinion, contextually, as has been hinted at before; wouldn't it be more appropriate in this context to replace the existing paragraph with a brief more generalized overall critique of her body of work as whole? Why has 'Beyond Belief' been singled out of her entire corpus for special treatment? To me, it seems to indicate at least in one sense, some kind of pov pushing, I'm not singling out any particular editor, to tell you the truth I haven't even examined the edit history beyond a glance and only over the past couple of days. Again, as has been touched on before, I'd like to propose an extensive re-write of that paragraph, with reliable referencing along the lines I've indicated above, and the creation of an independent article for Beyond Belief where the 'themes' in the present paragraph can be expanded upon and in turn challenged. Is anyone suggesting that any one of her single books isn't "notable" enough, in my opinion they all are. When it comes down to it, I wouldn't even be adverse to a free standing article dedicated to critiquing her work as whole.   cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph "Academic work" section 

message: This needs to be attributed: "These personal tragedies deepened her spiritual awareness and led Pagels to begin the research leading". If she says that in the introudction to her book, quote her as saying it. Noloop (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: done.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  deaths in the family 

message: Elaine Pagels cannot possibly have been made a Freemason at Harvard. The Harvard Lodge  is the regular Masonic lodge historically linked with Harvard and it is part of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts . Regular Masonic Lodges do not have women in their membership. Unless there is an undeground co-masonic body at Harvard, this paragraph should be modified or excluded. gnosticpilgrim
This para has another serious problem, which is that Pagels' work consists in recovering, describing and critiquing the ideas of both the Gnostics and their opponents. That does not amount to, as the writer says, "propagating" such beliefs. Anyone who has actually read Pagels' works, rather than say, relying on the summaries of other readers, would not for a moment consider that she is "propagating" Gnostic ideas. She is excavating ancient notions that, prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts, were not much regarded or studied. If no one objects, I will revisit this page in a week or so and simply rewrite this paragraph, as it smacks of Masonic conspiracy theory nonsense. Counterknowledge, as Damien Thompson puts it, not real knowledge.Theonemacduff (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism by  and it has now been deleted. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph in 'Early life and Education' 

message: I didn't see anything in the article regarding her own personal religious and/or spiritual beliefs. In general, for most biographies this is a significant component of a person's formative identity. I think it is even more important for a scholar who works on religious topics. If a Priest or a Rebbe writes scholarship pertaining to their own belief system, one always needs to take that into account when they make an assessment of the conclusion. So if Elaine is, say, an Atheist or even Agnostic, then when I read her works I have to separate that thread of thought from her scholarship. Naturally, all scholarship should be "objective," but I think most of us agree that bias is virtually impossible to eradicate on its own, hence, the need for peer review and in this case an understanding of her own religiosity. Thanks for any help!BinaryLust (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it is that relevant. But as she herself makes the comments, and other authors have commented on this, okay. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not criticizing you here, but I truly don't understand why people from time to time make that comment, that is is irrelevant. It is a major component of identity, far more than say LGBT or political party. Anyway, the reason why I was compelled to ask the question is that I read an article about her new book regarding Revelations in the New Yorker and it was very anti-Christian. I then over the following weekend read an article in the Wall Street Journal about this same book and it was more even handed. It made the book sound very intriguing and a good work of scholarship. So I was using Wiki as a tool to help try and see whether or not it was the author of the New Yorker article or the author of the book who was the bigot; or rather whose perspective was being presented in the article. So if Wiki said that she is some type of devout Christian or proud of her Christian heritage, I would be able to make a better determination of which article was more neutral. Or if it said that she was a Cultural Marxist ditto. This is precisely what Wiki is there to help us with. It might sound mundane but if I had all the information that I needed then I would have been able to make the decision to purchase the book. So instead of Wikipedia, I had to read the reviews on Amazon. Ergo, Wiki did not provide all the relevant info I needed. Thanks! BinaryLust (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever consider the possibility that maybe you're the bigot? 173.58.37.123 (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Beliefs? 

message: I think the section Buddhism and Gnosticism is interesting, informative, and well written. I am not sure it belongs in the author's biography. Cgmusselman (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy Discussion of Gnostic thought 

message: There need to be explicit citations of this book to support the claim that she advocates any particular reading of the Pauline Epistles. This book is a summary of Gnostic claims of specific interpretations of certain passages in SOME Pauline epistles, not an advocating for a particular reading of the Bible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.53.113 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on The Gnostic Paul

message: The article misrepresents the views she has expressed in her books. She does not "preach a position" on anything, just describes in detail many of the divergent positions held by very early Christians prior to the declaration that the now-traditional "four gospels" are exclusively canonical. She does not suggest that the Gospel of Thomas reflects Hindu nor Buddhist influencea. She's an academic, not a preacher.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.118.2 (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I've removed the whole section on "Buddhism and Gnosticism"; the statements in this Wiki-article were too far-streched. Thanks Corinne, for your request to have a look here! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading article. 

message: Hello. As a non-religious person reading this section, I encountered repeated usage of "apocryphal" in unclear,ambiguous and potentially misleading ways. As a typical educated layman not involved in theological matters, one's default interpretation of "apocryphal" is as meaning fake, false or illegitimate. All of these are incorrect for the contexts in question.   I propose the word "uncanonical" should be used instead in both cases specified below. If no one argues otherwise, I will implement the change tomorrow. 
First, here is dictionary.com definition of "apocryphal": 
     apocryphal:
adjective
1. of doubtful authorship or authenticity.
2. Ecclesiastical
  2.1  (initial capital letter) of or relating to the Apocrypha.
  2.2  of doubtful sanction; uncanonical.
3. false; spurious
-----
Note that the 3 relevant definitions above (1,2.2,3) are very different in meaning, and in ways significant to what is to be asserted in the sentences involved:
The article text in question follows: 
 ..."On Pagels' interpretation, the Gospel of Thomas claims, along with other apocryphal teachings, that Jesus was not God, but rather, a human teacher who sought to uncover the divine light in all human beings. This apocryphal viewpoint is in contradiction with the four New Testament gospels."
   Using def.3 is obviously mere POV. Using def.1 does not apply to the 2nd case, and isn't what is intended (I think?) in the first instance. The "uncanonical" of Def.2.2 is clearly the most fair and accurate and non-leading and non-presumptuous one for the second case, and likewise for the first case if authenticity is not intended to be questioned.  Def.2.2 is the correct relevant meaning, namely that the "teachings" and the "viewpoint" are not those officially sanctioned by (subsequent)consolidated established-church authority as the imprimatured official-story to be promulgated.  
   I welcome any relevant counter-points to this proposal.--Tommster1 (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious uses of "apocryphal" in paragraph 5 of the "Academic work" section.