User talk:Roddy76

September 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:The Lost Tomb of Jesus are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your welcome, Mr Weller. I understand Wikipedia’s policies. However, it seems to me that these policies and guidelines are not only too restrictive but also not conducive to a good discussion. They seem to be ineffective too, for the article itself has not improved much since 2007. I say this with respect, for I love Wikipedia. But I fail to see how my interventions in the talk page are just mere general discussion or based only on my thoughts and feelings. Maybe I have put a bit of my heart in those, but I commented on the topics being discussed: in one of the topics, for example, I comment on an article by Ingermanson that was recommended by another person. Last but not least, the talk page is filled with personal thoughts or feelings. Why some are okay and others aren’t? If an article is biased as this one is, by definition you can’t improve it without touching on its substantial contents and the controversy it arises. I respectfully submit that these policies and guidelines should be revised. One thing is to demand references if you want to edit an article, but on a “talk page’, this is too much. The removal of a comment from the article made by Charlie Pellegrino was, for me, pure and simple censorship. The guy mentioned that he participated in a seminar where other participants had the same opinion as his. Why is it unverifiable? One simply has to go to the annals of the seminar to check whether what he was saying was true or not, interview the other scholars. And he was not simply a reader of Wikipedia, he was one who participated in the documentary and the book! Sorry, but Wikipedia is wrong. You should revise those guidelines, otherwise Wikipedia will start to appear as a proponent of its own hidden agenda. Thanks! Roddy76 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

P.s: very disappointed that you removed my contributions to the talk page - a talk page! Wikipedia may not have lost a reader in me, but has certainly lost a donor. Roddy76 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:VERIFY. Material used in articles must be reliably published, no matter how much expertise the editor has who wants to add it. That's core policy and there is no chance in hell that it will be changed. And as the note I left says, talk pages aren't general forums for the discussion of the subject of an article. That's not going to change either. Doug Weller  talk 17:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

“no chance in hell” ... thanks for making my point. Roddy76 (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)