Hello, I'm
Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Book of Daniel seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. See
WP:GEVAL.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 14:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Book of Daniel. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Surely, this is a joke. I didn't add any commentary or point of view, or add my own analysis. It seems you are trying to escalate a conflict unnecessarily. I wrote, "Ostensibly written in the 6th century, modern academic scholarship usually places its final redaction shortly after the Maccabean Revolt, the main phase of which lasted from 167–160 BC." That is, FYI, accurate. And that is, FYI, the second century date typically held by mainstream academia. It also is, FYI, a formal and neutral tone expected in an encyclopedia. For instance, Encyclopedia Britannica: "Because its religious ideas do not belong to the 6th century BC, numerous scholars date Daniel in the first half of the 2nd century BC and relate the visions to the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164/163 BC)." How is my tone different? And what POV did I push? Proveallthings ( talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't "neutral" between
history and
pseudohistory.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- What pseudohistory are you talking about? I'm genuinely curious. Please recite what part of my edit had anything regarding such a thing?
- My edit wholly consisted of the words "The Book of Daniel is a biblical apocalypse with a 6th century BC Babylonian motif...Ostensibly written in the 6th century, modern academic scholarship usually places its final redaction shortly after the Maccabean Revolt, the main phase of which lasted from 167–160 BC."
- After you review this, I'll wait for you to address just what POV I'm pushing, and what "pseudohistory" I'm pushing. Proveallthings ( talk) 16:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't "neutral" between
history and
pseudohistory.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're watering down the article, that's POV-pushing.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're just weasel wording your way out of it. The article was not watered down in any way by my edit, and nothing was lost materially. The statement in the original form (which you have reverted to) was stronger than the evidence allows, and it is stronger than you find in a contemporaneous article in a well-respected Encyclopedia, which was essentially the same approach I used that you said was not a formal tone we'd find in an encyclopedia. So you were wrong. State things accurately and they won't be edited out.
- WP:PRESERVE specifically involves rephrasing contributions that do not conform to Wikipedia's standards. Which is what I did.
- I'm still waiting to hear about what pseudohistory I'm pushing, and specifically what POV? Proveallthings ( talk) 16:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're watering down the article, that's POV-pushing.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
a well-respected Encyclopedia
? Isn't Laroussea well-respected Encyclopedia
? Read what it says. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- I'm still waiting for you to back up your accusations. What Pseudohistory, and what POV pushing?
- The information itself was completely preserved. You're literally nitpicking over "sometime shortly after 160-167 BC" vs. "2nd century BC," and wanting to state as a fact something that isn't even true. Mainstream academia, which you are appealing to, holds that the Aramaic portions of Daniel are older than the 2nd century. It's not "pseudohistory." That's *literally* the consensus, which I was accurately follow. You can't accurately lump the whole book together as a 2nd century work when 50% existed prior to the 3rd century. It's common sense. It seems you don't really care, however.
- Larousse... Are we reading French now? Proveallthings ( talk) 17:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at
Talk:Book of Daniel, is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't delete or edit anything on the talk page, and if I had it wasn't intentional. I only responded. You've edited your own comments, which forced me to copy my responses, reload the page, and paste them back into the box.
- Just what are you trying to do here? Proveallthings ( talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 17:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- LOL! Stating a mainstream opinion as being the consensus of mainstream scholars is apparently fringe now...I'm not sure just what fringe theory I'm promoting though... Proveallthings ( talk) 17:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a
neutral point of view. Your recent edit to
Book of Daniel seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. See
WP:GEVAL.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 14:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Book of Daniel. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Surely, this is a joke. I didn't add any commentary or point of view, or add my own analysis. It seems you are trying to escalate a conflict unnecessarily. I wrote, "Ostensibly written in the 6th century, modern academic scholarship usually places its final redaction shortly after the Maccabean Revolt, the main phase of which lasted from 167–160 BC." That is, FYI, accurate. And that is, FYI, the second century date typically held by mainstream academia. It also is, FYI, a formal and neutral tone expected in an encyclopedia. For instance, Encyclopedia Britannica: "Because its religious ideas do not belong to the 6th century BC, numerous scholars date Daniel in the first half of the 2nd century BC and relate the visions to the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164/163 BC)." How is my tone different? And what POV did I push? Proveallthings ( talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't "neutral" between
history and
pseudohistory.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- What pseudohistory are you talking about? I'm genuinely curious. Please recite what part of my edit had anything regarding such a thing?
- My edit wholly consisted of the words "The Book of Daniel is a biblical apocalypse with a 6th century BC Babylonian motif...Ostensibly written in the 6th century, modern academic scholarship usually places its final redaction shortly after the Maccabean Revolt, the main phase of which lasted from 167–160 BC."
- After you review this, I'll wait for you to address just what POV I'm pushing, and what "pseudohistory" I'm pushing. Proveallthings ( talk) 16:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't "neutral" between
history and
pseudohistory.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're watering down the article, that's POV-pushing.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're just weasel wording your way out of it. The article was not watered down in any way by my edit, and nothing was lost materially. The statement in the original form (which you have reverted to) was stronger than the evidence allows, and it is stronger than you find in a contemporaneous article in a well-respected Encyclopedia, which was essentially the same approach I used that you said was not a formal tone we'd find in an encyclopedia. So you were wrong. State things accurately and they won't be edited out.
- WP:PRESERVE specifically involves rephrasing contributions that do not conform to Wikipedia's standards. Which is what I did.
- I'm still waiting to hear about what pseudohistory I'm pushing, and specifically what POV? Proveallthings ( talk) 16:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're watering down the article, that's POV-pushing.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
a well-respected Encyclopedia
? Isn't Laroussea well-respected Encyclopedia
? Read what it says. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- I'm still waiting for you to back up your accusations. What Pseudohistory, and what POV pushing?
- The information itself was completely preserved. You're literally nitpicking over "sometime shortly after 160-167 BC" vs. "2nd century BC," and wanting to state as a fact something that isn't even true. Mainstream academia, which you are appealing to, holds that the Aramaic portions of Daniel are older than the 2nd century. It's not "pseudohistory." That's *literally* the consensus, which I was accurately follow. You can't accurately lump the whole book together as a 2nd century work when 50% existed prior to the 3rd century. It's common sense. It seems you don't really care, however.
- Larousse... Are we reading French now? Proveallthings ( talk) 17:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at
Talk:Book of Daniel, is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 16:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't delete or edit anything on the talk page, and if I had it wasn't intentional. I only responded. You've edited your own comments, which forced me to copy my responses, reload the page, and paste them back into the box.
- Just what are you trying to do here? Proveallthings ( talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
tgeorgescu (
talk) 17:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- LOL! Stating a mainstream opinion as being the consensus of mainstream scholars is apparently fringe now...I'm not sure just what fringe theory I'm promoting though... Proveallthings ( talk) 17:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)