Talk:Augustinian theodicy

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Augustinian theodicy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 09:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I am very impressed with this article! You started from scratch and have definitely come a long way. The lead, in particular, is exemplary - everything in the article body is in the lead. I've got a few nitpicks, so I'm placing this review on hold for now, but I'll probably pass the article whether you choose to address these or not. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• You may want to include a "part of a series on" template below Augustine's picture to help readers find related articles. Maybe Template:God? Problem of evil is an example of it being used.
• The first paragraph seems a tad redundant - aren't all theodicies designed to respond to the problem of evil? Maybe change to something like The Augustinian theodicy is a theodicy, a response to the problem of evil. As such, it justifies the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God in the face of evil and suffering in the world.
• Per WP:LEDECITE, you don't really need to use citations in the lead, especially for something basic like Augustine's works.
• can seem to be more than just a lacking of goodness could be changed to is more than just a lack of goodness, for brevity.

Verifiability

• Citation 19 seems to be missing the "author" field in the citation template.
• Citation 18 is a little sketchy. It's good enough for me because it's hosted on a university website and the claims it's being used to back up are not extraordinary, but if you tried to take this to FA it might be a problem, since we don't know who wrote it. Can it be replaced?
• Again, this isn't a problem at the GA level, but what makes philosophyonline a reliable source?

Prose

• Augustine was influenced by Plato and his followers; it was as a result of this that he was able to first consider a non-physical substance. I don't understand this sentence, probably because I don't know about Manichaeism. Perhaps you could explain how this was in contrast with his earlier ideas or give an example of a non-physical substance. (I've added a link to substance theory - is that what you are referring to?)
• Maybe include a phrase saying who Tomas Aquinas is, like you have for Calvin.
• When you say that Aquinas recognizes evil, do you mean that he recognizes it as having an independent existence? That would seem to contradict the part where you say he agreed that evil was a privation, not an independent entity. Could you clarify?
• Did Calvin really say that humans can't control whether they covet or not? In any case, you need to show how the first paragraph on Calvin relates to the topic of the Augustinian theodicy.

Other

• You may want to include at navigation template at the bottom of the article, such as Template:Philosophy of religion or Template:Theology. You can use more than one if you want, like at Problem of evil.
• Try to introduce links to this article in other articles. For example, you could probably link Alvin Plantinga's free will defense and Theodicy to this.

Hi Cerebellum, thanks for your review. I've just gone through the article addressing the concerns you made (as well as other minor improvements. If there is anything I have missed, please let me know. I'm leaving the sources as they are for now because, as you said, they're not being used to support anything controversial. I will, however, try to improve all the sources at a later date. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I am happy to pass this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Augustine and Jesus

The last paragraph of the Augustine section mentions his belief in forgiveness due to Jesus. This is referenced, but unreliably. I've spent the past hour looking for more reliable references, but can find nothing; however, I am reluctant to remove it from the article, as I think it did form part of Augustine's belief. Does anyone know of any references that might help here? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Free will is a punishment?

Article sez:

The free will of humans is generally regarded as the reason for evil, as well as being a just punishment for this evil.

Literally, this appears to say that, when humans do evil, they are punished by giving them free will. I imagine there do exist people who view free will as a curse, but I wouldn't have expected Augustine to be one of them.

My guess is that the intention here is something like "the fact that humans do evil freely, justifies their punishment", but I'm not really sure. Can someone fix this? --Trovatore (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I hadn't noticed that. I've rewritten & clarified what was a horrible sentence of mine. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Repetitiveness on top

After skimming glance I see the intro and the first section, "Outline" heavily overlap. They overlap in content. They overlap formally; since the intro/lede section is a kind of an outline of a wikipedia article, then what is the purpose of "Outline"? IMO the two must be merged and say something as follows:

• The AuTh is a type of Th named after StTh by ..., who first identified it as a special type of Th, along with other type(s) thereof.
• <The essence of the AuTh>
• The early major contrbutors to AuTh are: .....
• It unfluenced the ....
• It was cricitized by...
• (optional) In modern times...
• etc.

Alternatively, the intro may be shortened to 1-2 sentences and "Outline" expanded according to my outline of the outline. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Not to say that the efforts of ItsZippy are commendable, instaed of a single FA I'd rather prefer to see the complete ordering/syncing/systematixation of the whole topic: theodicy, problem of evil, natural evil, privatio boni, privation, etc. I am poking around and see the topic is covered in a rather chaotic way, and a single FA is not enough. On the other hand, it might be an important brick into this building. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Staszek Lem, thanks for your feedback. I included the outline section to give an overview of the ideas and concepts involved in the theodicy before going into its history. Without the outline section, the article would just straight into the developments of the theodicy and start discussing the different versions and ideas of different philosophers without establishing what it is that makes a theodicy Augustinian. Would it be better if I rename the section 'general form' - that seems to better encapsulate what it is for? I wouldn't want to remove the section because it it establishes the definition of an Augustinian theodicy and identifies the key concepts which continued throughout its development. There is some repetition in the lead, but that is because the lead is summarising the rest of the article. The first paragraph of the lead summarises the outline section; I could not remove the outline section and just have it in the lead, because everything in the lead needs to appear in the rest of the article. Is there anything specific you think I could do to avoid repetition? I get the feeling that changing the heading to 'general form' will deal with a lot of your concerns, because it will better focus the section. Does that sound alright? If there's anything else that you think might need improving, let me know.

I do agree with you that the whole topic of theodicy needs improvement; still, I don't think that means that this should not be brought to FA. I do intend to improve any of the articles in this area, but I thought it would be helpful to bring this to FA. Also, bringing this to FA will mean that there is already easily accessible information and sources available in this article that other editors or I could transfer into a related article.

Anyway, does my proposal to change the heading of the outline section seem sufficient to you. As I said, I am not sure that removing or merging it with the lead would be helpful. If you have specific instances of unnecessary repetition that you think I could deal with, I'm certainly willing to improve them - do let me know. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have changed 'outline' to 'general form' as a result of the above discussion (I like it better too). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, colleague, whatever you say to defent the current layout, it does not change the fact that the top part of the artcle is heavy with repetitions and slight variations. It is OK when a preacher repeats "God is Good" every third sentence, but reading the current article as part of encyclopedia is boring and confusing. Because of this repetitiveness you even don't see other stylistic problems, because the eye just skims and the brain says 'yeah, yeah', I've just read this a millisecond ago'. One example. "A number of variations have been proposed throughout history, but they typically assert that God is perfectly good, that he created the worl... Question: a number of variations of what? Please answer, and regardless your answer there be a different problem with the subsequent text. (If you don't see it now, I suspect you just refuse to accept that it exists or it degrades readability and therefore you refuse to re-read the text critically. In this case I am wasting my and your time.) Staszek Lem (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• A different problem: is there such thing as "Calvinist theodicy" or Calvinist one may be described as a form of AugThe or it is not. It is not clearly stated in the text. Again, regardless your answer I will demonstrate a yet another problem with the article. I may continue this nitpicking, and I am more and more convinced that while superficially the article looks good, any deeper reading shows problems which prevent me from concluding that the article is a very good source of wisdom on the subject (ie it is GA, but not FA for me). Staszek Lem (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, it has no "impostance" rating from WP:Religion. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here yet another repetitive piece: "Hick distinguished between the Augustinian theodicy, which is based on free will, and the Irenaean theodicy, which casts God as responsible for evil but justified because of its benefits for human development.[1] The Augustinian theodicy is distinguished from other forms of theodicy (specifically Irenaean) by its attempt to clear God of any responsibility for evil." Anther problem with this piece is the first sentence is of unclear antagonism: "Augustinian theodicy, which is based on free will, and the Irenaean theodicy, which casts God as responsible for evil" That is the opposition here? I.e. why both free will and bad God cannot go together? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Firstly, the lead will repeat what is said later in the article because, according to WP:LEAD, it is supposed to summarise the whole of the article. If the lead was completely different to the rest of the article, it would not even meet Good Article standards, never mind Featured. If there are specific points you can raise with me, I would be more than happy to deal with them, but telling me that it's no good and there's no point trying to improve it it unhelpful and counter-productive.

As for the specific points you do raise, I have dealt with all of those:

• I have specified what the variations are in the lead.
• There is no 'Calvinist theodicy', in the same way that there is an 'Augustinian theodicy'; Calvin's theodicy has been cast as Augustinian, which is why it is in there. I see you removed the main tag, which pointed to Calvinism - that's probably a good idea, thanks. Before coming to FAC, I cut a lot out of the Calvin section - it did have a more detailed description of Calvinism - now it contains only what Calvin said about the problem of evil. If you have any specific suggestions about this section, I am happy to listen.
  • re: cast as Augustinian - Please write so explicitely in the article (it is in section titled "Development" which term is not synymous with "Of Augustinian Type") and provide the reference who says so. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • re: There is no "Calvinist theodicy" -- well, at least there is "Calvin's theodicy" = "Calvin said about the problem of evil" (I assume what he said was theodicy, i.e. elimination of "God vs. evil" contradiction. But I may understand that Calvinism as a whole does not have a clearly delineated, separate "school" of theodicy.Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 2nd re cast as Augustinian - If it is so, then the article has a contradiction: the section "General form" says, in part, that by AugTheo "God did not create evil and is not responsible for its occurrence", whereas the Calvin's section says: "was willing to accept that God is responsible for evil " Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't have an importance; if someone wants to add one that may. Anyway, an importance rating is independent of FAC, and should have no bearing on the outcome, per the criteria.
• I have changed the first sentence there so that the comparison is fairer, and have removed the second which, as you said, was superfluous.

If you have any more specific criticisms that you think needs resolving, please let me know (it is helpful if you are specific though, otherwise I cannot make any improvements). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am as specific as possible given that the text is not crystal clear logically. I see you made some changes, which do address some of my concerns. But I am not done yet, since I have to do it step-by-step, following your clarifications of ambiguities. Please keep in mind I am not a theologist (and not even a militant atheist :-), so my reading of the text is that of an ignoramus willing to understand the issue. In other words, I am a "customer" rather than an "opponent". Therefore your job in the dialog with me is not to prove that I am wrong or stupid, but to make sure that I understand your article correctly; at least according ro your intentions. All said, the next iteration comes. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see you rephrased: A number of variations of the theodicy ... Here, does the definite article "the" means "this theodicy, i.e., AugThe", or does it mean "theodicy as a specific kind of discourse" i.e., "all theodicies in general" ? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that you changed "the" to this, why don't you see a repetition in the lead come glaring? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being specific; I appreciate that you are not a philosopher or theologian, though it is worth noting that I would not expect someone with absolutely no no understanding of philosophy to be reading this - the audience is someone with a basic understanding of philosophy. The sentence refers to this specific theodicy, and I have clarified that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagreed. The only thing I need is good understanding of logic and reasonsing. The rest of philosophy must be "clicable through" -- that's the intent of wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• re: "probability" - disagreed with your interpratation. Most probably you are confusing the terms "probability" and "possibility". The latter term I see used in the article "theodicy", and my edit was towards the "possibility", i.e., absence of contradiction. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Re: "theodicy". Again, disagreed with your revert. My intention was to clearly define the term "theodicy" throughout the whole article. Your version applies this meaning only to the term "Augustinian theodicy". Unless you prove that the term "theodicy is used in other meanings in the article, my edit was correct clarification of terminology. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• re: "Scientifically derived critique" - This expression is impressive, but extremely ambiguuos. Therefore I tried to remove it. Since you reverted it, please explain what this title intended to mean, so that we may look for a better term. (If you fail to see the problem with the term, "scientifically derived" means "derived in a scientific way" and not "derived from the scientific worldview"). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Probability is the correct term. A theodicy is an argument that tries to show that, despite evidence of evil in the world, it is still probable that God exists. It can be compared to a defence, which tries to show that, despite evidence of evil in the world, God's existence remains logically possible. A theodicy is difference from a defence because a theodicy asserts that God's existence is probable. I know the theodicy article does not use the word 'probable', but it should - I am working on the article at the moment (which is a a considerably lower standard that this one) and, when I get to it, will make that distinction. If we remove "probability" and mention "possibility" or "absence of contradiction", we will actively contradict all of the relevant sources - everything that talks about what a theodicy is talks about probability.
  • You have to demonstrate this language with references to sources. If you are saying that "theodicy" article is wrong, I have no comment Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • P.S. I lloked around a bit and it seems to me that the term "probability" is indeed used, but only as an opposition to the term "certainty", with respect to the existence of God (in particular, with all "omni-" qualities. THerefore I am still dubious in this respect. I think, wikipedia must discuss the ramfications of the "certainty"/"probability"/"possibility"/"impossibility" spectrum in theology. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what you were trying to achieve with the theodicy edit. You added "In this article the term "theodicy" is used in its most common meaning of addressing the evidential problem of evil." That is a redundancy - a theodicy, by definition, is an attempt to address the evidential problem of evil, so we don't need to clarify that we are talking about that meaning of theodicy (there is only one meaning of theodicy, and various different theodicies have been proposed). You do not refer to theodicy with the definite article (and the sources do not) - theodicy is a discipline, just like you wouldn't say "the philosophy", "the physics", or "the astronomy". In the article, the term "theodicy" refers to theodicy; when it discussed "this theodicy" or "the theodicy" it will mean the Augustinian theodicy. If there are any specific bits which are very ambiguous, let me know.
  • Once again, I am trying to start ensure the overall consistency of wikipedia. (Lack thereof in this area was my first complaint, if you remember; and making FA of some page when the cornerstone articles in the area are poor is wrong aproach IMO, but of course we are volunteers here and do what we want). And my point was that according to the definition in "theodicy" article, this term may have other meanings, while "God vs. evil" is the most common one. And this is exaclly what I wrote here, namely, the AugThe article uses the term "theodicy" in this most common meaning, so there is no redundancy at all, just elimination of (small) chance of misutnderstanding. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Scientifically derived critique mean critique derived from facts of science. That heading was called scientific criticisms a little while ago (before the first FAC, I think), but someone pointed out that this implies that science is criticising the theory. The criticisms are not made by science, they are made by philosophers who have derived them from facts of science. If you can suggest a better alternative then I'll use that, but scientific criticisms or scientific critique conveys the wrong message. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagreed. "Scientifically derived" means "derived how? - in a scientific way". "Derived from science" may be in a non-scientific way. In fact the latter happens quite often: some kook takes, e.g., quantum physics and derives all kind of nonsense from it. Surely you would not call his exploits "scientifically derived". Therefore a more correct term would be "Criticism based on scientific approach" or "Criticism from the scientific point of view" Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point and, while I believe that the current heading is better than the old one, it could be improved as you say. How about 'Inconsistencies with scientific knowledge' - that suggests that the theodicy doesn't fit with scientific knowledge, but does not suggest that the criticisms are deduced from scientific experiments (as the current one does). Does that sound alright? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, the second paragraph is about reconciliation with sci POV. How about "Critique from scientific positions"? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Further, I have read a bit of scientific criticism, and in many cases it strikes me as naive. It seems that people with moern scientific worldview fail to grasp metaphysical concepts (more precisely, the depth of these concepts), oversimplify or misinterpret them, and as a result their criticism smacks of easily defeatable "naive materialism" (ATTN: red link). A good example is it the article: "that natural disasters and disease existed before humans and hence cannot be the result of human sin". I don't know whose rendering of this phrase, but it has at least two logical blunders: first, nobody says that disasters are because of human sin, only evil is because of sin. Second, it is meaningless to talk about evil without a "victim", hence it is meaningless to bring into discusstion something that existed "before humans". Not to say that for any natural event or thing however beneficial it seems at the first glance, one without much difficulty may envision a situation when it becomes a vehicle of evil. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Changed heading to 'critique from a scientific position'.
• You are right - some of those criticisms are poor (I wouldn't completely disregard them, though). Nevertheless, that is what the sources have presented - I'm not going to change what's written and misrepresent the source just because I don't agree some aspects of it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit to the lead

I edited the last two paragraphs of the lead to better match them to, and enable them to summarize, the contents of the main body of the article. I did not notice the article was featured at the time, so, if I cocked it up, I apologize. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 10:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality change to first sentence

Several times now I have removed a new addition from the first sentence, removing the phrase shown below in red:

• The Augustinian theodicy is a type of Christian theodicy, designed to respond to the evidential problem of evil, as first identified by John Hick in 1966.

The main problem with the lengthened version is that it gives the impression that John Hick was the first to identify the evidential problem of evil, which is not the case. More than that, it introduces John Hick without any context. Hick is already present in the lead section and he is properly introduced.

There was a tangential (and fleeting) consensus about the phrase "as first identified by John Hick in 1966", but the consensus was reached at the talk page for Irenaean theodicy, not here, and little effort was made at that time to integrate the proposed text in a way that would retain this article's high quality of prose. Consensus can change, though, and it has already. The proposed text is awkward and clumsy, and I don't think it should be fixed or integrated. Rather, I think this phrase should be deleted entirely. It is not necessary: Hick did not invent the concept, he just coined a term to describe it. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, I think Binksternet's version of the lead sentence is clearer. John Hick is covered in plenty of detail later on in the lead; I don't think we need to specifically mention him in the first sentence. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that the FA version reads as follows:

• The Augustinian theodicy is a type of Christian theodicy designed to respond to the evidential problem of evil.

The only difference is that the FA version has no comma, and no recent addition. I think the no-comma version is optimal. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep - the comma is unnecessary as it's all part of the same clause. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with ItsZippy here. Binksternet's version is best. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The only problem I can see is that, unlike Irenaean theodicy, the lead of this article does not fully establish Hick's role in defining this kind of theodicy as Augustinian. Because Hick was not a supporter of the Augustinian theodicy, and thus made no positive contribution to it, he is not included in the development section. However, his role in classifying this kind of theodicy as Augustinian was important. The lead currently follows the structure of the main article (one paragraph per section); the main discussion of Hick's role in classifying the theodicy occurs in the first section. As the lead does not establish Hick's role in classification, there may be a minor hole in its summary of the article; however, the way it was appended to the end of the first sentence wasn't great. Perhaps after the third sentence (which mentions that numerous variations exist) we could add a brief sentence which notes Hick's role in classifying them as Augustinian, and in contrast with Irenaean theodicy? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I support your interest in making the lead section show more plainly that Hick classified the topic. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done that here - feel free to make changes, or let me know what you think. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation is posted for protection of publisher. Copyright was renerwed in 2010 by Macmillan Palgrave for protection of material in the book. Url is given http://www.amazon.com/Evil-God-Love-John-Hick/dp/0230252796/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380551005&sr=1-1&keywords=john+hick+evil

Similar protection is sought for the title of this wikipage which should read "John H. Hick's 'Augustinian Theodicy'". 209.3.238.61 (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The use of the two words "Augustinian theodicy" is not a copyright violation. Is there specific text that you believe violates the copyright of the text in that book? If not, then there is no issue. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The unauthorized use of two words, or other short phrases, does constitute copyright violation when they are used repeatedly and when they are taken from a book which is copyrighted to protect the originality of the author in using the two words in an original and innovative form. The standard for reference is colloborated by David Griffin in his essay provided in this link. http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffincritiquehicktheodicy.htm

The present article is a violation of the 2010 copyright renewed by Macmillan Palgrave for this book authored by Hick. The material is not properly acknowledged in both the title and in the first sentence of this article for fair use. The standard for copyright is that the first use of an original term must be acknowledged by citation of its source, which has a renewed 2010 copyrighted by the publisher Macmillan Palgrave. This wiki article does not acknowledge this. This is clearly a wiki article about "John H. Hick's 'Augustinian Theodicy'" and should acknowledge it in the title as well. The quotation form with footnote accomplishes this, and the title should be in conformity with the responsible David Griffin example which does not violate copyright. 209.3.238.61 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no exception granted for copyright violation of even two words if they are not credited to the publisher and holder of the copyright. They are reused throughout this wikipage and are endemic to its content. Where is ItsZippy? He is the principal author of this text and currently an active Admin Editor at wiki. His opinion must be essential to the determination of his view on proper accrediting of this wikipage to John H. Hick. ItsZippy and myself are the only two persons who have apparently studied this book by JHick and his opinion is essential here as the principal author of this wikipage. (Preview: http://www.amazon.com/Evil-God-Love-John-Hick/dp/0230252796/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380551005&sr=1-1&keywords=john+hick+evil). Where is ItsZippy. He should provide his explanation and this copyright notice should not be removed by anyone but him or until he responds to this issue. The full accreditation of the copyright held by Macmillan Palgrave (2010) is being requested to protect this wiki page against copyright violation. Where is ItsZippy? 209.3.238.61 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read our article on the concept of the "threshhold of originality". A two-word phrase is simply too small to attract individual copyright protection, because it's below the threshhold of originality. Meanwhile, an article that concentrates on a specific piece of nonfree copyrighted content may include that content under the "fair use doctrine"; see The Falling Man, for example, which includes a nonfree copyrighted image. Even if the phrase were copyrighted, we could talk about the phrase and its meaning because of the protection granted by the fair use doctrine. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2020

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: Not moved consensus against the proposed move (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Augustinian theodicy → Augustine theodicy – "Augustinian" supposedly only refers to the religious order, "Augustine theodicy" is the preferred Wikipedia convention. Elizium23 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose in reliable sources this is called "Augustinian theodicy" or "Augustine's theodicy" (less common). The name is not ambiguous because it only refers to one thing. buidhe 02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Augustinian" does indeed refer to an order, but it is also the standard adjectival form of Augustine's name, as given in Merriam–Webster, American Heritage, Oxford, and Collins. Oppose for the same reason Shakespearean tragedy is not called "Shakespeare tragedy", the Victorian era is not called the "Victoria era", and Davidic line is not called "David line". Compare Irenaean theodicy, which is not called Irenaeus theodicy. What is your basis for saying "and 'Augustine' is the preferred Wikipedia term"? — the Man in Question (in question) 03:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per those above. I have never heard the phrase "Augustine theodicy", and it doesn't appear on the first few pages (at least) of Google Scholar. "Augustinian theodicy" is the usual name in English. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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.