User talk:Jonronn

Introduction to contentious topics

 * Thanks for confirming my thesis! Jonronn (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Ai (Canaan). An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * OK, so since my edit was one sentence plus footnote, I assume I did not violate the "undue weight" part, so I assume you are calling it "fringe." So are you saying that the section of the scholarly book I referenced, published by Eisenbrauns, cannot be mentioned because it is "fringe"? Another question: Are you happy with the "balance" of an article which says nothing about the fact that the consensus choice for identifying Joshua's Ai with et-Tell, has a major problem, namely that et-Tell is huge, while Joshua's Ai is small - smaller than Gibeon (Joshua 10:2), which in turn is about half the size of et-Tell? Jonronn (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a problem for biblical literalism, not for mainstream archaeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Circular reasoning? "We don't have to pay attention to the details of the biblical narrative when evaluating the accuracy of the biblical narrative. We say et-Tell has to be the biblical Ai and if the facts don't fit that's because the Bible is mistaken (it couldn't be us, of course)." Jonronn (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You do not make the call. I do not make the call, either. The consensus of mainstream archaeologists makes the call. If you want to change it, you will have to convince the scientific community. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, Wikipedia NEVER discusses minority views, even when there are multiple problems with the majority view (except the very page you are censoring me on already does) Jonronn (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE views do not belong in mainstream articles, see WP:ONEWAY. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You just deleted a sentence whose reference was another Wikipedia article . . . Jonronn (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I already told you, citing another Wikipedia article as reference is not allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, and citing the same reference as another Wikipedia article uses is also not OK; the cited reference is (1) OK, scholarly, etc. in that one, (2) not OK in this one, because that would be "fringe" in this one, but not "fringe" in that one. And mentioning that there are alternatives sites for the Ai of Joshua 7-8 is also OK, but recommending or even referring to one of them is not OK. Your rules are really confusing. Jonronn (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Curious if Wikipedia is a fringe source? Can I cite a Wikipedia article with the same information that you are censoring here? Jonronn (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * See WP:CIRCULAR. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)