User talk:HistoryNerd1987

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 24 February 2021 22:14:59 (UTC)

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources
Please read Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 24 February 2021 22:14:59 (UTC)


 * 1. Thank you.  I read through those links quickly and I do feel bad for one person who made historically accurate and relevant points and who was apparently banned.  Hopefully they were not banned simply.for disagreeing with the wrong person bit for a true violation of policy (and that would still be sad.  I hope that no one would act deceitfully even toward people who may be treating them unfairly).


 * 2. I read your page linked to your username after you messaged me to see who you are because you talked to me and i did not know why you talked to me or who you are. From what i saw, you seem strangely proud of certain unscientific dogmatic biases which perplexes me. You also seem to have a minority view of what certain Bible passages, specifically Psalm 82:6 and others, mean, and you may have missed the actual point of those passages.  I say this as someone who has studied the Bible for a long time and who is in an active community of people who study the Bible to understand and even obey it.  Your dogmatic biases and uncommon (minority view) interpretation may have large impact on your ability to fairly judge or maintain Wikipedia entries when coupled with your apparently quite aggressive, super confident, internet demeanor as displayed by your previous posts you shared for me to read.


 * 3. A custom or norm you like is not the definition of a rule.


 * 4. If you have something to say, please be straightforward about it, as this is a website aimed at helping people learn things.


 * 5. By your post are you trying to imply something to me?  Are you implying you will hide information you do not agree with or which some small subset of a certain population you prefer does not agree with, then, even when something is posted to wikipedia or removed from wikipedia based on the testimomy of both ancient and modern sources, in addition to physical archaelogical evidence, literary evidence, and historical academic consensus, and you would then prefer to make an unscientific, self-feeding, echo-chamber cycle of bias based on your bias, instead of allowing intelligent debate on a subject?  Or are you just being nice and welcoming me to wikipedia by showing me some of your favorite posts and pages? HistoryNerd1987 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that I was not as polite as I should have been to you in my reply, but after you messaged me like you did, and I saw your previous posts and your page, I did not fully understand the nature of your messages to me, what your point was.


 * In your post to me, you essentially seemed to be implying that I am "fringe", that I am a "bigot", and that I "lie"d, when you shared those links about "nobigotry" and "nofringe" to me, and talked to me about "giving the lie", after I posted information on the traditionally consensus view on the historicity and nature of an ancient source, with sufficient evidence linked to support the edit's statements of fact, with nothing to suggest "bigotry" or "lie"s "or "fringe" beliefs in anything I wrote.


 * I am sorry if I was impolite. HistoryNerd1987 (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.
 * Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.
 * Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.
 * Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me about that rule about "original synthesis". It sounds like some pages do have big problems with that. To my knowledge, I have not done anything like that, and so it does not seem relevant, but thank you anyway.

What I did was correct a few misleading, bias-charged, statements, with small edits to change them to be factually correct whereas the words used before were verifiable factually incorrect and so were likely giving wikipedia a bad reputation, and replaced those few blatantly incorrect words with ones which were correct, not based on my view but that of multiple independent publically published subject matter experts, which were used as sources, which is FAR more sourcing than many wikipedia articles I have read from other people have had (and i couldn't tell you if all other edits and other posts by other people, supported or unsupported, were made by people from Harvard or not, to the point you made about CHOPSY), and then I added a small paragraph concisely adding relevant information of both the historical academic majority view and the present view of many, not based on my own research, but which was was based on what several reliable independent sources, from publicly published subject matter experts, had published.

If Wikipedia's policy is to systemically demand fact-deficient, bias-charged, misleading, and often outright false statements to be the only ones allowed on certain topics, even when a person who has a genuine interest in learning history throughout their life sees the statement which is incorrect and misleading, and corrects it and adds a small amount of relevant information which was curiously absent from the entry, all edits based on the publications of multiple independent subject matter experts, which they include as sources, then Wikipedia is not as reliable a resource as I, and maybe others, have thought it to be, but rather is making itself into a self-feeding opinion echo-chamber which may eventually be devoid of fact-based articles on certain subjects, paving the way for it to make itself comparable to a supermarket tabloid at best. I really liked wikipedia but, if you treat everyone who posts independently published relevant facts and makes corrects to blatant falsehoods based on independent published documents the way you are treating me for correcting just a few words and adding a small relevant paragraph, then maybe Wikipedia is just too biased and too hostile against fact-based research to be used as a source of research for certain, or maybe any, topics, and now I understand why my (even Democrat leaning) English teacher in High School never allowed using Wikipedia as a source for research papers. If I am misunderstanding your attitude toward the edits made and toward me, then I am sorry. If I have offended you in any way I am sorry. So you know that, despite our argument here, I have love and not dislike toward you personally, I am letting you know that I have prayed for you, and for me, to God, YAHWEH, several times during the course of this conversation, and I honestly hope you do well. HistoryNerd1987 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an echo chamber for Ivy Plus from 2021 AD (not 50-60 years ago). Please see Talk:Book of Isaiah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)