User talk:EagleOfTeutons

Welcome!
Hello, EagleOfTeutons, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Census of Quirinius does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Census of Quirinius‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''If you can show that the source says "probably", please do so on the talk page. Otherwise you are misrepresenting the source.''  Doug Weller  talk 16:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It was the prior text that actually said "probably," but I'm unsure as to what constitutes a source for probability. Perhaps one that supports the incomplete preservation of Roman records and the lack of certain Roman records? EagleOfTeutons (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Most modern mainstream historians and Bible scholars who addressed it think that it lacks historicity. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Is that really true, though? I fail to see how historians can be so confident that an insignificant event in an town would be verified by multiple surviving sources. That was over 2000 years ago. EagleOfTeutons (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Skeptics who demand evidence win by default, see organized skepticism. Especially when it is attested in only one gospel, while the other gospel discussing the nativity presents a wholly different story. It is not like Herod would have felt sorry for doing something like that, but Bethlehem was apparently uninhabited in those years. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * To my understanding, there were multiple settlements in different locations that were all called "Bethlehem," as that literally translates from Hebrew as "House of bread," of which there were many candidates to the name. EagleOfTeutons (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Meaning Bethlehem, the town of David. According to Aviram Oshri, it was an uninhabited place when Jesus was born. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * apologies, I got confused. But in any case neither your phrasing nor the statement "probably fictional" is backed by the source. P.170 in Maier is the start of his analysis of the arguments and he comes down in favor of its historicity."Josephus’s myth or Josephus’s record? Matthew’s myth or Matthew’s record? The harder evidence and the weight of probability clearly support the latter—in both cases.56 One of the most doubted episodes in the New Testament has stronger historical credibility than it has thus far been accorded in critical scholarship." User:Tgeorgescu this needs fixing. I was able to read all (and it was too much!) of his arguments. Doug Weller  talk 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maier isn't cited for his own view, but for "I. Current Scholarly Opinion" (page 170). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Census of Quirinius, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Census of Quirinius 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)