This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ Achar Sva: I'm trying to understand the exact reason for your revert. You just said "Better sources and English in original", but I don't think I removed any sources. UpdateNerd ( talk) 13:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
References
I've just read through the source at [1] and p.170 does not say probably fictional or unsourced. Reading through to p.189 I found "Josephus’s myth or Josephus’s record? Matthew’s myth or Matthew’s record? The harder evidence and the weight of probability clearly support the latter—in both cases.56 One of the most doubted episodes in the New Testament has stronger historical credibility than it has thus far been accorded in critical scholarship." Maier is also used as a source at Massacre of the Innocents for "A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend, or folklore." He does say "probably a majority of current biblical scholars," but goes on to say "Except for Brown, however, such conclusions are not well supported by the authors who drew them." So except for a slight omission in the quote, it's correct, but said by someone who disagrees with them. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I have just added a viewcounter because it is useful to know how wide the readership is. As a rule of thumb, I tend to think that articles getting more than 20 views per day deserve extra work to make them useful. This one is getting around 200. Interesting to see how that spiked to over 3000 at Christmas! -- Doric Loon ( talk) 10:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Ploversegg: Gérard Gertoux has been salted for a reason. Fideism (religious dogma) makes him inept to be a mainstream historian.
Gertoux plagiarises Wikipedia for his articles, he's not reliable. As for the argument itself, try to find it stated by a mainstream source. PiCo ( talk) 21:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no doubt whatsoever that he plagiarises Wikipedia - I wrote the passages he stole. PiCo ( talk) 01:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I looked thru the discussion for deleting the authors wiki article. I would say that it was was hardly a tsunami of support for deletion. And does that automatically imply a mandate to delete all his refs? If we are getting rid of fideists are we salting Pascal and James too? Anyway, its too small a point for me to argue over but sometimes seeing stuff that happens under the hood on Wikipedia is like watching sausage being made. Ploversegg ( talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Copy/paste from Talk:Chronology of the ancient Near East. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ Achar Sva: I'm trying to understand the exact reason for your revert. You just said "Better sources and English in original", but I don't think I removed any sources. UpdateNerd ( talk) 13:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
References
I've just read through the source at [1] and p.170 does not say probably fictional or unsourced. Reading through to p.189 I found "Josephus’s myth or Josephus’s record? Matthew’s myth or Matthew’s record? The harder evidence and the weight of probability clearly support the latter—in both cases.56 One of the most doubted episodes in the New Testament has stronger historical credibility than it has thus far been accorded in critical scholarship." Maier is also used as a source at Massacre of the Innocents for "A majority of Herod biographers, and "probably a majority of biblical scholars," hold the event to be myth, legend, or folklore." He does say "probably a majority of current biblical scholars," but goes on to say "Except for Brown, however, such conclusions are not well supported by the authors who drew them." So except for a slight omission in the quote, it's correct, but said by someone who disagrees with them. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I have just added a viewcounter because it is useful to know how wide the readership is. As a rule of thumb, I tend to think that articles getting more than 20 views per day deserve extra work to make them useful. This one is getting around 200. Interesting to see how that spiked to over 3000 at Christmas! -- Doric Loon ( talk) 10:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Ploversegg: Gérard Gertoux has been salted for a reason. Fideism (religious dogma) makes him inept to be a mainstream historian.
Gertoux plagiarises Wikipedia for his articles, he's not reliable. As for the argument itself, try to find it stated by a mainstream source. PiCo ( talk) 21:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no doubt whatsoever that he plagiarises Wikipedia - I wrote the passages he stole. PiCo ( talk) 01:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Quoted by tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I looked thru the discussion for deleting the authors wiki article. I would say that it was was hardly a tsunami of support for deletion. And does that automatically imply a mandate to delete all his refs? If we are getting rid of fideists are we salting Pascal and James too? Anyway, its too small a point for me to argue over but sometimes seeing stuff that happens under the hood on Wikipedia is like watching sausage being made. Ploversegg ( talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Copy/paste from Talk:Chronology of the ancient Near East. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)