User talk:73.220.101.59

December 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Daniel in the lions&. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

/* December 2019 */

 * Hi there, I am fully aware of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Daniel in the lions& currently does not adhere to it which is why I made the edits that I did. The article presents a scholarly consensus that does not exist. The information in the article is misleading at best. It needs clarification and nuance which is what I added. Don't prevent your own personal preferences from blocking clarification that this article desperately needs.

73.220.101.59 (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Daniel in the lions' den, you may be blocked from editing. In the mainstream academia the historicity of the Book of Daniel is dead in the water. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Daniel in the lions' den 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

/* /* December 2019 */ */

 * I don't see how my edit violated the neutral point of view policy. How does adding nuance and clarification that is cited distort a neutral point of view? On the contrary, the lack of nuance is what distorts a neutral point of view. Please explain and cite a specific example of how I included "personal commentary."


 * Also, you keep reverting my edit. Tell me please how it can be improved so that it can be included in the article. The arguments for the dating of Daniel to the 6th century are strong and should be included. As required by Wikipedia rules, claims of scholarly consensus must have strong background information. As I pointed out, there is no consensus. We can discuss whether or not a majority of scholars accept this view, but that's an Argumentum ad populum fallacy anyway.


 * I didn't remove the opinions of critical scholars who date Daniel to the 2nd century and question the historicity of the figure. Why do you remove arguments from other scholars that strongly suggest otherwise?

73.220.101.59 (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly suggest that you get a Wikipedia account and select a user name for yourself - it makes editing easier.
 * As for Daniel in the lions' den, you've made a few errors wit your edit. I'll put something on the article talk page for you. Achar Sva (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I actually really appreciate what you wrote. That makes complete sense and I understand where you're coming from. I have to admit that I'll need to scroll through Miller to find exact pages with citations. It's just that I read his work very recently and clearly remember him making the points that he does, but do admit that I would need to go back to find the exact pages. However, his arguments are important in my humble opinion, not necessarily for the historicity of Daniel but for the dating of the book. If the book was part of the Septuagint which was created in the 3rd century, a second-century date for really doesn't make sense. And so I think the article needs to reflect that as well. Thank you for reaching out. Your explanation was clear and helpful and I much appreciate it.

73.220.101.59 (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. As you seem to believe that the Septuagint was translated entirely within the 3rd century BC, you might like to look at what it says in the Wikipedia article. There are three cites there for the date, and I think you should read the relevant parts of those three books - in summary, the Septuagint was begun in the 3rd century with the torah, but not finished till the 1st.Achar Sva (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)