User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2017/June

God as father of Jesus Christ
Hello. I am sorry I have appeared to be pretty aggressive with my edits on the page. I have just started editing on Wikipedia and didn't know that it's not acceptable to just edit anything and that I need to get permission first. This is one of my first edits. Please go over the spoken and unspoken rules of Wikipedia with me, so that I don't screw up again. Daniel Klimovich 18:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Klimovich (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, I have posted on your talk page "A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure Tgeorgscu will join me in clarifying that while it is important to be civil to other users, no-one needs permission to edit Wikipedia Woscafrench (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The gist is: if you don't edit by Wikipedia rules, you will be blocked by admins. There are certain edits that are wholeheartedly allowed, while other edits are considered nefarious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Daniel
Since Daniel has to do with religious thought, a religious article talking about the possibility that Daniel was a real person applies as stated in policy. You are opposed to anything against your viewpoint, so you want to censor my freedom of speech. You further opened an investigation against me to try to silence me and my freedom of speech. I mean no harm to you or your viewpoints as I didn't change the original post other than to add a differing viewpoint. I believe people should be able to see both sides of the situation and a religious side is applicable since Daniel was a book in the Bible. Are you going to continue to censor free speech or let both viewpoints stand since both have sources that are valid?


 * See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant MINORITY views that have appeared in those sources are covered. (Emphasis Mine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4BA:6830:393E:6800:2F3B:C86B (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Biblical inerrancy is certainly notable so it does deserve a mention, but it should not be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. The consensus or the majority view of mainstream academics is what should be rendered as fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC).

Check back to what I wrote. I said some people believe there is evidence... I never stated it as fact. I stated it as one minority's viewpoint. It deserves a mention so please put back what I wrote. What I wrote did not violate the Wikipedia rules at all. It abided by a number of points as I noted. And to accuse me of sock-puppetry was ridiculous. It made it seem like you wanted to censor me not listen to my concerns about the legitimacy of what I posted.


 * There are times to listen and times to block (I cannot block you, since I'm not an admin). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My viewpoint is a minority viewpoint in the sense of mainstream media, but many Christians still do believe it. The fact that this article mentioned several sources including Josephus who was outside Biblical evidence just shows that there is evidence that he was real. You, yourself stated that my point is worth mentioning. Please restore it and drop the sockpuppetry accusation. I'm not asking to override or change the whole article. I'm just asking to include a source for s minority viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4BA:6830:393E:6800:2F3B:C86B (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "the book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself" &mdash; I would call that acknowledging the minority view. Also, we have high standards for sources: citing a book or peer-reviewed article of a full professor from Dallas Theological Seminary would be a reliable source, citing the website of a preacher with no PhD in theology nor in Bible scholarship isn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, do not maim the article because you disagree with it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You are excluding evidence based on your biased viewpoint. The person I quoted has a masters in theology. It may not be a doctorate but he is well studied and has done plenty of research. I want a source added that provides evidence of the minority view.

Why are you so opposed to a tiny section that talks about the minority viewpoint? Why does one link connected to my thought offend you so much? I provided a source from a college educated man with experience which was well researched. You just don't want to include it because of your own personal bias.


 * The WP:BURDEN is upon the person wanting to perform the edits. Do not edit war and find a reputable Evangelical scholar who claims what you want to claim (also you must state clearly that it is a minority or dissenting view). We are quite snobby: we distinguish between scholars and apologists. Also, I am not convinced that the traditional/inerrantist view needs extra emphasis (in respect to what our article already covers). So if you think that it needs extra emphasis, make the case upon the talk page of the article and get consensus for changing the article. Per WP:PAG, edit warring just isn't the way of making your desired edits stay in the article. Also, per WP:NOT Wikipedia never includes the personal opinions of its editors in its articles, it only listens to WP:SOURCES, solid, reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC

my source is solid and reliable. It is from a Biblical scholar. it is one example of the opposing viewpoint that doesn't even get more than a few word mention. I would like to talk to someone who doesn't claim to be vehemently against Christianity as you are clearly biased in your viewpoint and will do everything you can to exclude something you disagree with.

As stated on your page-- "I don't want to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible." You clearly will do anything you can to eliminate what you disagree with. I would like to talk to someone who will actually consider what I'm saying as it is a balanced and fair link to a differing minority viewpoint. I would like to talk to someone who is less biased and more willing to be reasonable.

Written by an author with a PHd in Theology -http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/34/34.htm?x=x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.7 (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "You're biased" is a truism: everybody is biased for or against some idea. And I did not make up the WP:PAG, I only explained them to you in order that you understand how to edit Wikipedia successfully. By our book, an apologist isn't a Bible scholar (not of the reputable academic sort, anyway). The difference is that apologists usually produce propaganda (playing fast and loose with the truth, according to ), while scholars aim at producing objective knowledge. In order to give you an inkling why supernatural prophecy does not fly with rank and file historians, see what Bart Ehrman wrote on his blog:


 * In the end, my own take does not matter. If I would not have reverted your edits, somebody else would have had. If I am wrong (according to WP:PAG) and if I persist in error, it is me who will get blocked. If you're wrong and you persist in error, it is you who will get blocked. Wikipedia admins will be the judges of that. I am biased, but not unreasonably biased: I have trust in Wikipedia rules and its process. I do not oppose edits merely because they express an idea I disagree with, I oppose only those edits which in my view clearly (definitely) violate WP:PAG. I already told you what to do if you want your edits to remain in the article and, believe me, it isn't bad or malevolent advice. Everybody else having a fine command of Wikipedia rules would have advised you more or less the same. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC).

An apologist can be a Bible scholar. If a person has a doctorate in theology and disagree with you or other's opinions, it doesn't mean they are wrong. To censor someone because they are an apologist even though they have a doctorate and are well researched shows a liberal biased. A truly neutral source (as Wikipedia claims to be) would be willing to accept the work of any scholar on the topic. The topic of Daniel is by its nature a topic that someone with a doctorate in theology would understand and study. For this reason, we see a liberal slant as you in your own words are willing to discredit an apologist with a doctorate simply because of his religious viewpoint. It's clear to anyone reading that Wikipedia will censor anyone who disagrees with them rather than presenting a neutral view by citing both sides.


 * As I said: find a full professor from the Dallas Theological Seminary who claims what you claim in a book or peer-reviewed article, use the talk page for making the case that the article needs change, get consensus for the change, that's the way to do it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why just Dallas Theological Seminary? Here is a link to a person with a Doctorate in theology who agrees with my view.

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/teachers/charles_ray/bio.htm?x=x

He should be just as valid as he has the same degree. May I use the article I linked before as the one I add. Or are we being exclusive to one location for a reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.41 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are other reputable fundamentalist or conservative evangelical divinity schools, take your pick. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * To make my point clear: "apologist" has come to mean somebody who will say preposterous things in order to make one believe that Jesus is the Lord and that the Bible is infallible. Arguing something objectively needs education and intellectual self-discipline, which most apologists do not show. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There you go again with religious bias. You are saying if someone gives evidence to support a theory they have but believe in God, you discredit them as an apologist and disregard their opinion despite their degree or knowledge of the topic. For this reason, you rule out things like Jesus may really be God and the Bible may be infallible, because if someone says it- you automatically discredit this. That's a closed minded and extremely biased viewpoint. Unlike you, I am willing to consider anything if the source is reliable even if it goes against my viewpoints. I believe people who have studied and found facts should be heard whether I disagree with them or not. Instead of doing this, you'd prefer to call them a name and discredit their viewpoint before even hearing the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.41 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As others told you, we have rules like WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. To give you an inkling why inerrancy is considered fringe:

"If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to "Biblical inerrancy" (to my knowledge) on the show."

- Robin Ngo


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong! Here are several people with doctorates in theology who have a whole website dedicated to research on contradictions in the Bible.

http://defendinginerrancy.com/who-we-are/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.41 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I knew that there were such people, yet they are WP:FRINGE by our book, see e.g., , and . You don't have to agree with their points, they only help you understand what's the majority view in the academia. Basically, what Cargill stated in the quote given above is taught as fact in the Ivy League and all US state universities. So, obviously, Wikipedia considers it a fact. These being said, Wikipedia is not an open debates forum, all that we do here has to serve writing articles based upon WP:SOURCES. I have explained you the rules at User talk:107.77.216.41, you are expected to abide by the rules. According to WP:Advocacy, you are not allowed to write here in order to raise converts. This isn't a church nor a PR outlet. All religious positions are handled here according to WP:SOURCES (with WP:DUE in mind). A fringe source may still be a reliable source for the opinion of that specific fringe position. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * E.g., we describe what conservatism, liberalism and socialism are, according to mainstream academics, we don't recruit adepts for these ideologies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The basic credo of inerrantists (The Ehrman Project and similar outlets) is "Away with critical thinking skills (in respect to the Bible, or even full-fledged)! Away with independent academic learning (in respect to the Bible, or even full-fledged)!" Wikipedia of course does not buy such credo. At first away with independent academic learning about the Bible, then away with independent academic learning in biology, then away with independent academic learning in geology, then away with independent academic learning in astronomy, then away with independent academic learning in quantum mechanics, since all these stand in the way of biblical literalism. You might believe in liberal democracy, but the Bible doesn't. If we were to apply the Bible to our political institutions, we would not have liberal democracy, we would have theocracy. See its scathing remarks about democracy when speaking about Korah, Dathan and Abiram. So what does the Bible say there? Freedom of speech? God forbid! May laws be changed democratically? Blasphemy! Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't trying to convert you. I was simply answering your challenge that no one academic supports the inerrancy of the Bible. It's really interesting how you twist what I say for your own benefit. Secondly, if the topic has to do with the Bible, I definitely believe a viewpoint from those who believe the Bible should be included. We are talking about the Book of Daniel which is found in the Bible. I don't mind a presentation of both views - but excluding the actually viewpoint of those who read the Bible and study it and have found evidence it is true is allowing for bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.217 (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI thread
I was actually almost to the point of opening one too. There seems to be more than only a content dispute. I was an IP address who warned this editor before in 2016 (I still refused to create an account), then also more recently. A disruptive editing and soapboxing case may be possible with a collection of close-enough diffs in time... If the editor persists, of course; it seems that it was finally possible to get the editor to post on the article talk page. We'll see... — Paleo Neonate  - 08:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)