User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2019/December

Latest edit
Hi Tgeorgescu,

In regards to my last change you felt was biased, could you elaborate? As far as I can recall I simply removed a repetitive statement from the article as it had been covered twice at the beginning of the article and felt unnecessary. Or have I got the wrong edit in mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.189.233 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup, see WP:ASSERT, WP:YESPOV and WP:RS/AC. You were trying to water down scholarly consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Water down? I think you mean keep everyone honest. Those who put this article together did not have neutrality in mind when choosing their wording. Furthermore, after reading the citations I made corrections that better reflected the content of said citations.


 * It has become increasingly clear that those who spend the most time editing wikipedia are themselves biased. Often they grossly misrepresent what they cite and even go so far at times as to link citations that can't be checked for accuracy, for example, a citation that linked to a google books, of which the cited page number was not even available. Not to mention wording and section headings designed to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. Perhaps these have all been coincidental mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.189.233 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Replied with WP:GOODBIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * For some reason my last reply disappeared. WP:ASSERTWP:RS/AC is exactly my point. Someone posted a citation to an author asserting a supposed consensus which said author also made a citation to. That citation couldn't be checked or verified as the reference page was unavailable. If the author's own citation turned out to be from a proper source, fine but that couldn't be verified.


 * She either wrote that or she didn't. You cannot have it both ways. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, she wrote that almost all scholars agree with her. I'd like to verify her claim. She cited something, but we can't check it. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "according to Ann Killebrew, almost all scholars agree..."? At least until her source for such a consensus can be checked and then added to the article? more citations is better is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.189.233 (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope, WP:RS/AC is part of our WP:RULES and this ends your pursuit (read it so that you know: we never take polls of scholars). Further insistence will be considered disruptive. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking anyone to take polls of scholars. What I'm saying is, her citation (15) is most likely to some kind of academic journal or something of the like. Her source for that assertion should be cited on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.189.233 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Not needed. Already told you you're being disruptive. WP:RULES have been obeyed, there is nothing wrong with citing Killebrew for the academic consensus. This is the end of this matter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Then thank you for proving my point. You can call it whatever you like. I call it holding everyone to the same standard. You and your ilk can pretend you do the same if you like. This discussion is over because I'm done talking to you. I made my point and I was correct. You disagree and try to threaten me to shut me up. That's fine. Threaten away. Prove me correct some more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.189.233 (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Old Testament
Recently my edit to the Book of Leviticus article has been reverted (by you) for violating NPOV. My edit, which simply demonstrated that the documentary hypothesis has not been proven true, does not violate NPOV. As a matter of fact, it does the complete opposite, increasing the neutrality of the article. My edit to the Book of Ruth, noting that "However, Ruth 4:22, the last verse of the book, mentions David, his father Jesse, and grandfather Obed, but none of David's descendants, indicating that the book was written before any of David's children were born or well-known, which points to a late 11th or early 10th century BC date for the text being written." was reverted approximately two minutes later (also by you) for being "original research." Like the previous case, my edit does the opposite of violating the policy that it was reverted for violating. My edit to the book of Ruth was the opposite of original research, as my edit itself cites its own source and the edit summary of my edit said "Added in clues from the text itself to show when it was written." I know how Wikipedia defines "Neutral point of view" and "no original research", and my edits violate neither. I don't want to accuse Wikipedia and its admins of hating the Bible, but I find it self-evident that my edits are doing the exact opposite of what they were reverted for doing. Sincerely, Primal Groudon (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY religious source and your own analysis of the Bible is prohibited by WP:OR. In the other article you have violated WP:DUE and perhaps WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, no, I haven't. I'm not analyzing the last verse of Ruth, I'm letting it analyze itself. By doing so, I am doing the opposite of original research. Citing the source and letting it read itself is the opposite of original research. Again, with Leviticus, I am increasing the amount of neutrality, not bringing any point of view into the article. In fact, my edit to Leviticus removed point of view. So once again, the justification for reverting my edits are that they were doing the opposite of what they were actually doing. This concludes the discussion. Conclusion: My edits have done the opposite of what they were reverted for doing. Sincerely, Primal Groudon (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not WP:SCHOLARSHIP, you're not WP:RS, the Bible isn't WP:RS, you're not allowed to analyze the Bible yourself or by itself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm doing the opposite of analyzing it. I'm letting it do the analyzing. What I was doing is the equivalent of letting an inventor explain the purpose of his/her invention, which is the opposite of explaining it for the inventor. Discussion concluded. Primal Groudon (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you take a look ...
DRP discussion on the Heidegger article here. I think it is worth one last attempt to get a mediated process on this and this could be it -Snowded TALK 07:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)