User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2022/April

MOS:ERA discussion

Hi, I'm posting here just to give you a bit of context about my ping over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. To start with, I entirely agree with your implicit interpretation of MOS:ERA here. However, in the discussion which I started at the MOS talkpage after having a similar revert of mine reverted, it's become clear that there is no consensus for our shared understanding the guideline. I've therefore suggested that either a clarification of the language or an explicit consensus on the talk page regarding how to interpret "established era style" may be necessary. Of course you are free to read the rather lengthy discussion there yourself, but as a courtesy I thought I'd offer this summary. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I'll wait for the closing of the discussion. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't edit my talk page

Please don't edit my talk page, when you clearly are dishonest and a shame for wikipedia. You are one of the people who make wikipedia less reliable and more political. Shame on you.77.18.59.49 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not pander to piety, but it takes a hard-core mainstream Bible scholarship approach to the Bible. See WP:ABIAS. Stated otherwise, Wikipedia caters to views worthy of being taught at the Ivy League. So, if you dislike Ivy League Bible scholarship, you also dislike Wikipedia. In our articles about the Bible and the history of Ancient Israel we don't do as if the Ivy League does not exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

When you make shuch claims, you must document it, before that all articles should have a neutral point of view. That is the big problem on wikipedia. People who have high opinions about themselves, that they are Ivy League and everyone else has "fringe opinions". Truth isn't Ivy Leauge, it is the facts of this world. What we can see and know. 77.18.59.49 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia sides with the Ivy League. Who tells you otherwise is either drunken or does not know anything about Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Translated: Wikipedia doesn't side with truth, only status, money and the powerful. 77.18.59.49 (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You have the legal right to hold opinions. So does the Wikipedia Community. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You're not the wikipedia community. You are a man with high opinions about himself and conflicts his personal views, and cherished beliefs, with the facts of this world. 77.18.59.49 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been an Wikipedian for 19 years and I'm mentioned among top 3000 English Wikipedians at WP:EDITS. If I don't know how Wikipedia works, then nobody does. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is upon you to show why Wikipedia should not kowtow to WP:CHOPSY. I did not say WP:ABIAS would be part of the WP:RULES, however it is a common sense heuristic about the ideals of Wikipedia: you have to fulfill an extraordinarily high standard of evidence in order to posit that Wikipedia should give the lie to CHOPSY. Einstein was able to give the lie to physicists from the Ivy League, but fundamentalist Christianity has no Einstein who could give the lie to the historical method. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

IP, you're partially correct, Wikipedia does not care what you believe to be "true". Another good link for you to click would be Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I suggest you tone down the insults. – ².O.^Boxing 17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit war

Your recent editing history at Apostles in the New Testament shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Apostles in the New Testament, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia has rules, which you are violating.2601:181:4600:A8C0:0:0:0:81EA (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

So? Report me to WP:AN3 and see what happens. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've blocked the IP and their /64 range for 48 hours. Bishonen | tålk 17:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC).

Adam and Eve

It is inherently laughable to see the hypocrisy with many people on this platform, including you, to add things without evidence. Seems like there needs to be an education on adding info. In college, they used to tell me that this site is irrelevant source material because sources are not peer reviewed. Why is this? Probably because how blithely information is added or removed constantly and there is no authoritative way to say what or how things should be written. I strictly stated that one of the paragraphs had no evidence and you have excoriated me. Evolution and Creationism are one in the same, just a different way of getting around to the conclusion. It is ridiculous to call it a myth and lie to people about it. Asims6801 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You have been served with WP:GOODBIAS. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

Hi,

The material your edit removed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shroud_of_Turin&type=revision&diff=1084199934&oldid=1084198629

Appears to have come from a peer-reviewed archaeology publication. Is there a reason a peer-reviewed journal hosted on MDPI is not a reliable source?

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage/editors

I agree that the edit you reverted doesn't appear to be neutrally worded, but I'm not sure why an appropriate edit that includes this new study isn't appropriate.

Thanks,

173.79.55.180 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Reason: WP:REDFLAG. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

In the interests of trying to reach a consensus - here is my proposed addition to the article, which I would add to the "Material Historical Analysis" section

"In 2022, Italian scientists used Wide-angle X-ray scattering to compare the shroud to other materials which date back to the time of Christ. The authors concluded their results "are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition" but cautioned that further study is needed given that these results contradict the carbon dating study conducted in 1988." 173.79.55.180 (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You conflate between shroudies and Christianity. Even the Pope is not a shroudie. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say he was, and neither am I. I do think the casual wikipedia reader ought to know about all developments in the research on this subject. Again, I'd love a substantive reason from you about why what I've written there is so wrong it doesn't belong in the article. But I can't get one, which I can see is kind of a trend with you. I haven't edited Wikipedia in like ten years, I guess things are pretty different now. 173.79.55.180 (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Tgeorgescu/Archives/2022. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 19:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Census of Quirinius

Why did you remove my entire edit? If you took problem with just my addition of "Non-Christian scholars", as your description of your edit suggests, then why not just remove that section? Also, yes, Christians can be critical scholars but most Christian scholars do not believe the Census of Quirinius is a contradiction, it is mainly non-Christian ones. For the rest of my edit I included citations from books and published papers by scholars in the related field so what problem did you take with it? --Samjmv003 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Samjmv003

Awery, just a bit of housekeeping. When you post new comments to this thread, the newest comments need to be put at the bottom of the thread. That's the only way others can easily keep track of how the conversation has flowed. The Harvard Theological Review probably is a prestigious forum. On the other hand, the paper on Daniel that you want us to use was not published by the Harvard Theological Review. It was published by JISCA, an outlet for advocating conservative religious views. This fits with the general trend we've already observed here -- the folks saying that Daniel was written in the sixth century don't publish in mainstream outlets, generally speaking. It's entirely possible that MacGregor has published all sorts of stuff in reliable outlets. JISCA, however, isn't what most editors here would treat as a WP:RS outlet. When a journal is dedicated to a particular religious view, that matters. Just as, for example, Wikipedia does not make use of articles published in Journal of Creation when dealing with the subject of creationism. The question I'd like to see answered is, have any defenses of a sixth-century date been published in mainstream academic outlets. And if they have been, are they the work of a tiny fringe group of scholars, or do they represent a significant number of scholars. So far, it looks as is the 2d-century date for Daniel assuming its present form is the scholarly consensus, although of course there are hold-outs in the religious world, just as there are hold-outs on creationism. Because of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia generally doesn't make much use of those who hold out against academic consensus. I don't want to speak for Tgeorgescu here, but I don't think he's saying that Christian scholars are automatically disqualified due to their personal faith. Indeed, almost all biblical scholars that Wikipedia cites are either Christian or Jewish. There's only a handful of non-Christian, non-Jewish biblical scholars out there. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Samjmv003: tgeorgescu (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)