Talk:Epistles of Clement

message: Shouldn't this be referred to as the "Epistles of Clement" vice "1 Clement"?  With no information on 2 Clement at present, it is probably best to wrap the pair up together for the moment. Mitsukai 19:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Compare the Pastoral epistles I recently collected together. Context counts! --Wetman 19:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page, and reaimed all the links to 1 Clement and 2 Clement here.  Hope no one minds my being bold. Jwrosenzweig 16:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that two separate articles seems appropriate.  I'll try to expanding the text substantially and create two the two articles. --Alecmconroy 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your stubs are prepared. We don't usually cannibalize existing articles to make new ones. --Wetman 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Silvanus42. German, Italian and Spanish Wikipedia have separated articles.--Egaida 12:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Defenders of POV routinely delete information that they don't like. In this case, I've restored it. If there are issues with the material, let's discuss it on the talk page. Leadwind (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go through the article and add "citation needed" tags for the parts that need it. I'm also going to make some changes to the structure of the lead section being careful to not remove any text. Dgf32 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just as some use 1 Clement to argue against Roman Primacy, many use 1 Clement as an example of the early Roman Church asserting it's primacy. The text above offers one interpretation of the epistle, which while held by some scholars, is also objected to by many scholars. If you want to include a discussion of interpretation in the article, then the full arguements from both sides must be presented in neutral tone, citing sources on both sides, and avoiding individual interpretation and original research. If you're willing to put in the time to doing it correctly, it could stay in the article. Dgf32 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've gone through several different English translations of the epistle, and none of them use terminology "sister church" or other terminology which might have a similar meaning. Since that section of the text is both factually incorrect and not verifiable, I'm going to remove just that one particular part now. Hopefully in the next few days you can work out a more neutral version of the text I included above.  Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I still didn't get a response on this issue. The paragraph starting with "No where in the epistle itself..." has very strong POV. Unless we can balance that interpretation of the epistle out with other interpretations and good, solid citations, I think that entire paragraph can be deleted without affecting the quality of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If people want religious interpretations of the epistle, either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, they wouldn't be looking in an encyclopedia. If we can't improve this section soon and present a more balanced arguement, I think it needs to be removed from the article. Dgf32 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There still were no citations provided, nor was there any attempt to provide a NPOV. Instead of trying to advance both Roman and Orthodox interpreations of the document, I think it's better to leave the article as it was before the uncited information was added. If you can provide citations and reformulate the text with NPOV, please do edit the article accordingly. Dgf32 (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dgf32, thanks for deleting that uncited material, and thanks for having the patience to see if the other editor would provide the citations. Leadwind (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted information restored 

message: Over on Clement of Rome, the author of this webpage, http://www.mortalresurrection.com/2008/12/25/63/#more-63, added it to the ELs. I removed it as COI, but I do think it is a good site. Footnoted and everything. I'm suggesting it be added to this page, as it is about 1 Clement, not Clement himself. For a short discussion on the issue, you can refer to the bottom of my talk page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested EL

message: As mentioned at the top, this Article refers to two separate entities, and should thus be split into two.
Please voice your objections before I go ahead. -- Schewek (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article that enfolds both is Pope Clement I. Up-to-date summaries of both articles should be available there.--Wetman (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will try to split this, trying to follow directions in WP:SPLIT. I will first try to move this to First Epistle of Clement, and then split out the 2 Clement part. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, that does not work, because there is prior history there. Someone merged these two articles in October 2007. That was unfortunate. I propose to resurrect those two articles first, and to butcher this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting into Two Articles 

message: Article seems to slur together 2 different senses:
#when was it written?
#who wrote it?
As far as I know, scholarly opinion is that the answers are
#c 96
#anon
Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity