User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2020/September

Requesting article expansion support
Hi,

Greetings ,

Requesting you to have a look at


 * Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

and also


 * Draft:Ex-Muslims and also Draft Talk:Ex-Muslims

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about Islam and Muslim societies. Sorry. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Fajkfnjsak sock
It's probably better just not to interact with him (although your replies have given me a lot more material for the SPI case I filed). Plus, if you give him an inch on anything he'll just go back to wanting to add myth every other word, as his latest post shows. There's a reason he was blocked before he started socking.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Difficult
I find it increasingly difficult to care about Wikieffingpedia. The world is wide; allons-y!Achar Sva (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)



"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade And he carries the reminders Of every glove that laid him down or cut him 'Til he cried out in his anger and his shame "I am leaving, I am leaving", but the fighter still remains"


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Too sadly true :) Achar Sva (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Question
If not hard. Do you know something about the book "Undressing the American Male: Men with Sexual Problems and What You Can Do to Help Them" and it's author Eva Margolies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.239.103 (talk • contribs)


 * No, and all I could quickly find about her is respected sex therapist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks.


 * respected sex therapist It is written in her book by herself. I tried to find anything serious, but nothing. As for me that her book, recommended by some not clever people, contradicts anything that can be found in researches. Thought maybe something is heard about her in science community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.239.103 (talk • contribs)


 * On many subjects I have simply no view, no opinion. That applies to her book: I did not read it and I don't have an opinion about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Gospel of John?
What is the meaning of the example you posted with the Gospel of John? That sources older than 100 years are unreliable? I have used primary sources for those quotes, as opposed to secondary sources, and listed them accordingly. The sources are the books written by the respective people who made those statements. Moreover, they are not meant to represent a hard fact, as their locaiton in "origin of the theories" section next to the list of medieval humanist historians who support the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory clearly denotes, they are represented as examples of the medieval historians that the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory is based on. According to WP:Source, primary sources can be used in certain conditions that are met by those quotes. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:PRIMARY WP:RS were never highly regarded inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why aren't they highly regarded? Is there a general set of rules for Wikipedia or mostly a convention between and by the users with effectively no rules? I assumed every policy is valid at least in principle, otherwise why would that policty be there and why would people mention them. As in, why not just delete the page? If that is the case, what policies are in function inside Wikipedia and how can I tell the differnece between good and obsolete ones? WP:SOURCE and WP:HISTRS support the policy from WP:PRIMARY in question. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pardon my interrupting a private conversation, but what are you both talking about? What example, and regarding what?, as Wikipedia is a third-level source (an encyclopedia), we rely on second-level sources (interpretations) rather than first-level (primary sources). We try to tell readers where the body of scholarly opinion lies, we don't try to form and put forward our own opinions, which is what would happen if we relied on primary sources. This is what Tg means by primary sources not being highly regarded inside Wikipedia. BUt where have you ever commented on the Gospel of John article? Achar Sva (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There was a WP:RSN discussion about primary sources in the Gospel of John. He meant that discussion. But his edits concern the history of the Romanians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't comment on the Gospel of John article, which is why I asked him what he meant with that. I understand the principle behind using second-level sources (interpretations) rather than first-level (primary sources), however, my edits concerning the history of the Romanians are not a religious topic, and there are second-level sources in the article supporting the view that the quotes are expressing, so there's no case of an isolated opinion. It's common sense how the use of primary sources in religious topics is problematic, just as problematic as making a generalization out of that. There are certain policies of Wikipedia that allows the use of primary sources when certain conditions are met. WP:SOURCE allows the use of primary sources in certain conditions that are met here. WP:HISTRS allows the use of primary sources when used in accord with the WP:PRIMARY, and the policy from WP:PRIMARY states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". The quotes I added pass both of these concerns: they are not personal interpretations and don't need specialized knowledge to understand them. The conditions in my edit were met. According to WP:RULES "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow", so any policy should be normally followed and are by definition highly regarded among editors, which is the reason why they are policies in the first place. As opposed to what Tgeorgescu said. To better understand this, I asked him what is Wikipedia's relation with its own policies in the 3rd reply, his reply to you while skipping replying to me was my answer. What am I to understand from this other that he doesn't want to reply? Imagine going to court saying "this law, this law, and this law says that I'm innocent" and then someone replies "yes, but that law is a bit outdated". Why do you even have laws then? Or how can we tell which laws are good or obsolete? I'm starting to believe that either there is a policy but some user feel like they can do whatever they want, or there's no policy and everyone does what they want. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I think what Tgeorgescu was getting at, with the Gospel of John thing, is that Wikipedia prefers modern sources. In that thread about the gospel, a user was wanting to have the opinions of a 3rd century writer given equal weight with those of modern scholars, when the 3rd century view has in fact been pretty universally dismissed. There is some relevance to your edit on Origin of Romanians, in that you were adding the views of two writers from, I think, about the 16th century. So the question you have to ask is, how relevant are those views today? Do modern historians accept them? And most importantly, are you really adding something important to the article? Ok, I shall now bow out, as a good achar should :) Achar Sva (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike the Gospel of John thing, the sources I added do not contradict those of modern scholars. They are relevant today as well as accepted by modern historians, it was already stated in the article that the views of modern historians are based on humanists historians, two of the listed humanists historians are those whose quotes I listed, so the answer of the questions you are asking are already established by the article itself. LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)