This page 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.

Hey Tgeorgescu, I was actually about to ask you if we are good now, but then I saw your comment in the discussion thread. Should we reach out for mediators? I thought I brought in both views. (this is regarding Saul) -- Bertrc ( talk) 16:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, I will list that at WP:RSN. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Send me the link or a ping when it is up. -- Bertrc ( talk) 16:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Did it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

:-D Thanks! Did you actually type that whole thing in manually, or do you have a way of cut-and-pasting from the google book (I only ever see an image of the page)? -- Bertrc ( talk) 16:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@ Bertc: Yes, I just typed it. For longer quotes I save the photo, e.g. with Mozilla Cache View by Nirsoft and OCR it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

*sigh* I should learn to get OCR to run on images at home. I've been involved setting it up at work many times. I guess I just hate bringing more technology into my life.  :-) In any case, are you okay with my latest attempt at compromise? -- Bertrc ( talk) 17:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey there. I noticed you added some text on my talk page and claimed it violated the Neutral point of view policy. I dont think I did, and I'd like to hear where you saw that. There was an assertion on the page. I left that assertion there, and added that recent scholars held a differing view and cited three expamples. That seems pretty neutral to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenhead ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Lorenhead: WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me what you just said means. Lorenhead ( talk) 00:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Lorenhead: If you'll click upon those blue links you will see what it means. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

well, I clicked on them, but there is a lot there and I'm not sure where you think the problem is. Maybe you see this view as a "tiny minority" view that should not be permitted. But that's simply not the case. I cited three recent sources from scholars, and each of those cites others in thier treatment of the topic. It's not a tiny minority position, though it may be a possition you or I disagreee with.

Lorenhead ( talk) 00:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Lorenhead: Wikipedia kowtows to what full professors teach for a fact at Ivy Plus. See WP:CHOPSY. Also, the idea that a minority of scholars disagrees with the academic consensus was already part of the article, I presume. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I cited Richard Bauckham, who is increadably well respected and remains an "senior scholar" at Cambridge. You can check out his wikipedia page if you like ( /info/en/?search=Richard_Bauckham). The view I've added is not given air time on the page currently. Currently there is a simple bald assertion that the gospels are anonymous. This shows a complete lack of understanding of recent scholarship in the field of ancient biography and other New Testament fields. The works I've cited help improve the cite by adding a major viewpoint. Lorenhead ( talk) 00:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, citing a Cambriage scholar's work in his field of expertise passes the WP:CHOPSY test. Lorenhead ( talk) 00:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Lorenhead: You're not adding anything new to the article, it already has Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses;[32] a few conservative scholars defend the traditional authorship, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.[33] Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely something new. Curreetnly, the page baldly states, "all four are anonymous." There is no citation for this claim. What I've done is shown that there are scholary voices that disagree with this. This is an entirely different view than "traditional authorship." I'm making no claims for authorship here. I'm showing that the claim that the gospels were originally anonymous is not a done deal, and there are numerous mainstream scholars publishing today that are challenging that viewpoint. Lorenhead ( talk) 01:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Lorenhead: It's not a done deal, according to WP:FRINGE scholars. The bulk of WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholars, i.e. almost everyone from Ivy Plus to US state universities, including most mainline Protestant and Catholic divinity schools, toe the line that the NT gospels are anonymous. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel your focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Islamic advice literature

This has been posted on your talk page since, one of article review suggested to have more diverse editor participation to have more inclusive, neutral and balanced worldview

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Secular.

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku ( talk) 09:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Bookku: I know nothing about that topic. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I see you do not know the meaning of the word antisemitic. Not being critical or hostile, just noting a fact. Reading through your other comments I also notice you have a very anti-religion world view and you view anything that disagrees with your world view as hostile/argumentative. Super. It's still a somewhat free country. Still not being hostile, I find I must end my affiliation with Wikipedia as well as all monetary support as you are clearly not interested in facts, but only your own world view. DLWyer ( talk) 13:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)DLWyer

WP:GOODBIAS. The part of your messages which can be checked is so fake that I have no reason to believe the part which cannot be checked. If you keep spewing out false allegations, nobody's gonna believe a word of what you say. At least no rational, intelligent and educated person. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)