User talk:Sanctæ

Welcome!
Hello, Sanctæ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 26 August 2020 09:54:29 (UTC)


 * For what purpose was this summarization inserted into the “User Talk” page? The presumed (Xerxes I) article’s alteration was provided justification (in favour of neutrality), and in no capacity whatsoever concerned the matters detailed within the relevant summary.


 * Thank you. Sanctæ (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * For us what they teach at Ivy Plus is the neutral POV. Not half-way between mainstream academia and religious fanatics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That is not an answer and supposes an incorrect intent in modifying the article. The historicity of the Book of Esther is entirely irrelevant to an article detailing Xerxes I, especially in the introduction. As indicated in the ‘reason for editing’, a section relating to the Book of Esther’s historicity already exists within the selfsame article. You have considered naught but half of the spectrum: anti-religious fanaticism, which would involve the unnecessary and illogical inclusion of commentary on a book irrelevant to Xerxes I, is equally contaminated with undue partiality, causing a divergence from the desired neutrality. Mentioning that which need not be mentioned is more apropos to ‘fanaticism’ than the desired neutrality and ‘mainstream academia’.


 * Thank you. Sanctæ (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:RS/AC gets the lion's share, here at Wikipedia. Get used to it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A most vulgar response, though in accordance with profile presentation. The content guideline you conveyed concerns proper substantiation for claims of ‘academic consensus’, not a justification for including that inconsequential. You have not provided a justification for including that which is irrelevant to the content (that the Book of Esther is considered an ahistorical narrative) of an article relating to Xerxes I. Or, to summarize: for what reason is an article concerned with Xerxes I affiliated with a statement in the introduction that the Book of Esther is considered ahistorical? What component or quality does this comment conceivably enhance beyond increasing the word count? It is seemingly superfluous. Sanctæ (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want to edit here, you have to obey WP:RULES. As manifest from the history of the article, I am not the first to revert such edit. POV-pushers have tried before to remove that information from Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not behold the aspect of the alteration which would contradict the rules as presented; a reference to generality is not justification in itself. Yes, I have observed the article history, and it is unfortunate that unsubstantiated revisions have been recurrent. The justification I provided for its removal (the historicity of the Book of Esther is not pertinent to Xerxes I) appears quite discrete from those antedating. I do not suppose that it is unreasonable to immediately assume affiliation due to the preceding controversy, but the essence of my edit is the irrelevance of the commentary, it being so inconsequential to the article itself that one may not be in error to assume a question of neutrality (a pillar of Wikipedia, as you are certainly cognizant) due to its existence. As you have assumed responsibility by reversion, would it be possible to provide a justification as to the necessity, value, and objective of including a sentence entirely unrelated to the article?


 * Thank you. Sanctæ (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Our choice is simple: either we don't mention the Book of Esther at all (which is odd and contrived), or we mention it saying that it lacks historicity in big shinny letters. There's no in-between solution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I evidently do not disagree with the inclusion of reference to the Book of Esther, as exhibited from the revision proposed. The article relating to the Book of Esther already possesses a section dedicated to historicity. My disagreement, to clarify, is the supposition that an article concerning Xerxes I must be employed to discuss a matter entirely tangential, id est, commentary on the Book of Esther. One may, lest they fall into the error of supposing historicity of the Book of Esther from the absence of statement to that effect, simply select the hyperlink provided with the Book of Esther and peruse that available concerning historicity. The historicity of the Book of Esther cannot be demonstrated to be relevant to a mere association betwixt Xerxes I and a figure in the aforementioned book. An example: an article making one reference to the Pauline Epistles need not, and does not, concern itself with the authenticity of each categorization of epistolae (pastoral, unequivocally authentic, et cetera), for such is provided within the article embedded. To summarize: that a connection exists between a figure in the Book of Esther and Xerxes I is appropriate to mention; further details concerning the Book of Esther ought to be positioned within the article concerning that topic.


 * Thank you. Sanctæ (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You can't eat your cake and still have it. All the information about the Book of Esther is either wholly in or wholly out. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

For what reason, beyond dogmatism, is such the situation? It is evident that the comprehensive totality of the Book of Esther need to not included in any article which refers to it. I would speculate the overwhelming majority of references to the Book of Esther on Wikipedia do not possess a nonsensical reference to that which is contained tangentially relevant within the article. It appears to serve no function beyond satiating an arbitrary inclination, which is quite inconsistent with suppositions of neutrality. I shall render the inquiry again, for it has been missed or ignored: what purpose does the sentence concerning questions of historicity serve in an article related to Xerxes I? This information would be ascertained almost immediately upon investigating the article which is referenced.

Thank you. Sanctæ (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ad nauseam won't get you very far. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Such nausea would assuredly subside if you could provide an answer to the foundational inquest; the attempted retorts thus far have been naught but noise. If you are incapable of providing a justification beyond nonsensical comparisons and irrelevant references, it would be most desirable for this matter to be attended to by a more responsible senior editor.


 * Thank you. Sanctæ (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:RULES dictate thereupon: go to the talk page of that article and gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. This applies to every Wikipedian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)