User talk:1misc1

Welcome!
Hello, 1misc1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * How to avoid a conflict of interest

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
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 Gospel of Mark 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:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1misc1, please disregard the above warning. Reading the source (available with registration through archive.org) indicates that the citation does not support the claim regarding "most scholars" believing in the anonymity theory. This does not discount the likelihood that other sources may actually verify that most scholars concur that the Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, but it does indicate that you were acting in good faith and did not breach neutrality here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I edited the article because as a scholar myself, it seems the article is NOT in fact neutral and is making a statement that is not supported by ample sources and is not defensible. Thus, "some" is more appropriate wording than "most". What is being stated is very much debated, again, some scholars agreeing and some disagreeing. The use of "some" more accurately portrays the state of opinion among the wide gamut of scholars and is more neutral. 1misc1 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Right now, there is substantial evidence in favor of using "most" (I referenced an Oxford-published commentary to this effect on Gospel of Mark). If you disagree, my recommendation is using the article talk page and listing some sources that identify the debate as something more evenly split. I'm fairly certain that most reliable sources concur that the critical (read: secular) academic community favors the anonymity thesis and Wikipedia will generally favor this kind of scholarship per our policies and consensuses. However, I'm willing to be surprised by new evidence! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I've been using Wikipedia since the early days, though I only created my account a few years ago and have only contributed a few times.
 * I would rather not waste my time trying to have this article adjusted one way or another. With both secular and non-secular scholars having differing thoughts and opinions on this subject, I do find it quite disturbing that you consider "critical" (secular) academics (that can be unbiased or very biased) as the focal point.
 * Thank you for your admission that Wikipedia is clearly biased towards secular sources (whether they themselves are neutral, unbiased, or biased) and, therefore, is not actually attempting to be truly neutral. 1misc1 (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two different academic fields: theology and history. By default, all historians have to be secular, even historians of Christianity. So, yup, the bias you mention is very relevant, just... it is relevant for another academic field than history.
 * "Why can't historians admit that the Holy Spirit enabled the Apostles to speak in tongues, and also gave them a great deal of scholarly learning?" Because that is theology, not history. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Where did this come from:
 * '"Why can't historians admit that the Holy Spirit enabled the Apostles to speak in tongues, and also gave them a great deal of scholarly learning?" Because that is theology, not history.'
 * Is this a rhetorical question that you are asking and answering?
 * You had previously said:
 * "There are two different academic fields: theology and history. By default, all historians have to be secular, even historians of Christianity. So, yup, the bias you mention is very relevant, just... it is relevant for another academic field than history."
 * I don't agree with the idea that "this is theology, not history". As much of history has always been impacted by the various religious beliefs and spiritual elements (whether one is atheist, agnostic, or acknowledges some religious/spiritual beliefs) of those in the world from the earliest records of recorded history, there seems to be far too much of a close connection or blurring of the line between between history and theology always be able to be black and white about "this is theology, not history" or "that is history, not theology".
 * Either way, that thinking is problematic. We can try and isolate fields and the interconnectedness, but there is always some interconnection. This is the same thinking that tries to separate what takes place in the political space, religion, or the spiritual realm, as if the religious beliefs (or even non-interest) or spiritual state of people are not factors in some of the decisions and actions of those in society and politics. One cannot in fact isolate people, beliefs, actions, and so on that cleanly into separate categories. There is always overlap and some cause and effect. A recount of history is clearly an example of where one's biases or paradigm can easily come through in their perception and what they write. This is why if you have different people with divergent belief systems, their version of history can be alarmingly different. It is very difficult (impossible?) for our biases, paradigm, conditioning, etc. to NOT alter our viewpoint.
 * All of that said, we do not need to continue. I am sure we are both plenty busy. Have a great remaining day and week. ;-) 1misc1 (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)