User talk:GenoV84/2021/July

"How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?"
You seem to have a keen interest in inserting references from this book into many Christianity articles. Is there is particular reason for this? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Because it was written by an academic of New Testament studies and historian of early Christianity, therefore it's a reference. GenoV84 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Since there is no reason to remove this source, which is a reliable, academic reference written by Larry Hurtado, an academic and historian who was Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature, and Theology at the University of Edinburgh and Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, I suggest you to revert your latest edit on Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire and reinsert the aforementioned source. GenoV84 (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Very many academics have written on Christianity. Not every one of them needs to added as a source or referenced if they add nothing new that others have not already contributed. Does this favoured author have some new angle on the topic not previously aired? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, since the cited chapter from this book provides useful informations about the social and political conditions on the lives of early Christians in the Roman Empire due to their adherence to the Christian faith and rejection of the Imperial cult. I was thinking about inserting the source in one of the sections of the article, instead of leaving it among the listed sources. GenoV84 (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But what is the author's added value? Does he have something to say that nobody else has said or does he say old stuff better? Otherwise, why include him? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Basically, the main point of this chapter is to show why and how early Christians have continued to adhere to Christianity despite the political exclusion, social pressure, difficulties, and persecution they had to endure in the Roman society. It's definitely "old stuff", since Hurtado is not the first historian to have explored this particular topic in the history of early Christianity, but it's still a valuable source of informations. GenoV84 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the conclusion seems to be that Hurtado is only covering old ground that is well covered by previous sources and citations, and appears not to offer better wording of same, then I'm afraid that I see little utility in retaining him. It would only clutter the article without improving it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Not vandalism
Hi GenoV84. I think you might want to revisit WP:NOTV and remind yourself of what vandalism is and isn't; at least twice you have reverted IP edits at Prosperity theology calling them vandalism and they clearly don't fall into that category. In each case the IP was clearly editing to improve the encyclopaedia and, indeed, gave relatively detailed explanations of why they removed the material they did; you may disagree, but it definitely warrants a better response from an established editor. Happy days, LindsayHello 09:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi LindsayH, I reverted the anonymous IP's edits because they appear to be unconstructive and POV, since the IP claimed that the editorial from Harper's Magazine cited in the Criticism section of the article attempts to change or misrepresent the LDS Church's official position on the subject of Prosperity theology, while it clearly doesn't since it's just an opinion piece on the modus operandi of the LDS Church and its financial links to the Republican Party. Moreover, the anonymous IP could have simply opened a new section on the article's Talk page and discuss about the cited source instead of deliberately removing sourced content and references, as most vandals do; that's why I reverted his/her edits and warned him/her twice. GenoV84 (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I removed the Vandalism warning and suggested him/her to open a new section on the article's Talk page, and also to refrain from disrupting Wikipedia in order to illustrate his/her opinions. GenoV84 (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you; i fully understood why you reverted, though i don't necessarily agree with the reversion; it was the  how ~ the labelling of the IP's edits as vandalism i found troubling.  Opening a section on the talk page would have been my next suggestion, so i'm glad you suggested it.  Happy days, LindsayHello 10:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I just wanted to say that i appreciate your words on the IP's talk page; a generous apology, though i hope it isn't buried among all the other stuff there.  Working together in a community, acknowledging our mistakes or missteps is, i reckon, one of the best things we can do.  Hope to see you around. Happy days, LindsayHello 16:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)