Talk:Hemis Monastery

Controversial scholar

Ehrman is controversial for his debates with fundamentalists. He isn't controversial among scholars, pretty much the same way the theory of evolution is controversial for the public, but not for scientists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If you've read Ehrman's own Wiki page, I would disagree entirely. He is controversial in the eyes of many, for how he overstates the weight of the evidence supporting his theories, and disregards actual scholarly consensus when it disagrees with him, and then claims his theory has the consensus. You might not agree with those who dispute his methods, but it's entirely accurate to call him controversial. CleverTitania (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The manuals he wrote are widely used in the mainstream academia. Definitely not the mark of WP:FRINGE. You should read this: https://robertcargill.com/2011/02/18/i-stand-with-bart-ehrman/ . The fundies attack Ehrman because being an atheist he is an easy target. We give the lie to Ivy Plus and to every US state university sounds contrived. He is used as a proxy for the mainstream academia. Ehrman has zilch, nothing, nada to do with the historicity of the monastery. You are pushing a WP:PROFRINGE POV. That's the trick of the fundies: if they educate their audience to knee-jerk reject Ehrman, they will knee-jerk reject mainstream Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Works by Richard Dawkins are used in universities across the world, on many disciplines. But there are plenty of topics on which it would be entirely accurate to call him and his positions highly controversial - which would be noteworthy if there are reliable sources mentioning that. For that matter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a controversial figure and would've been labeled such in many circumstances, without it suggesting her views are unpopular or ill-informed.

Controversial is not a synonym for fringe or unreliable, it simply means that their views generate a lot of controversy. It is not a positive or negative adjective, as you are either implying or inferring - can't tell which and don't wanna assume. As for your assumptions about me, I'm not pushing any pov at all. I have zero personal opinion on how valid Ehrman's views are or how valid the opinions of his critics are. I am commenting on encyclopedic details and what is documented by reliable sources. Those are the thresholds relevant to how his information is provided in this article, not whether you or I agree or disagree with those who find controversy in what he says. CleverTitania (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 04:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)