Talk:Elcesaites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyvio

I placed a Possible Copyright Violation tag on the Elcesaites article since it was simply mirroring the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the subject. --Loremaster 04:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain. 75.15.201.121 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I would then argue that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a POV source. --Loremaster 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Every Scholar is a POV source, you argue against sources that do not support yours.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#The_neutral_point_of_view: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. 75.15.198.37 02:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the fact that every scholar is a POV source. However, a good article is based on multiple sources rather than just one that is extremely biased. How objective would you consider an article on Catholicism written by a Lutheran? --Loremaster 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. So, let's add sources. I already toned down some of the Catholic Encyclopedia language that is not neutral. 75.15.198.37 03:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Off-topic: You should really create a user account. Beyond being extremely useful, it contributes to a culture of accountability. --Loremaster 03:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the phrase "a syncretism of Gnosticism and Jewish Christianity" is questionable because this is both vague and likely inaccurate; people often say an ideology is syncretic or a mixture of two other ideologies when they don't know at all what its origin and are speculating as to its origin without telling us they are just guessing. Early heresiologists of the Church like Epiphanius are unreliable in that some things they say could be true but others are scurrilous exaggerations; we don't always know where truth ends and Epiphanius's imagination begins. Hippolytus, of course, had his axe to grind against Callixtus. --Milesnfowler 10 February 2007

It is better to change the title of this article to "Elkesaites".

It is better to change the title of this article to "Elkesaites", because the letter "c" before an "e" has the sound of "s", what makes the word to sound very different from its original pronunciation. Joaopaulopontes (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The proper spelling is the way it already is.--Ofnamespaced (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say this? Joaopaulopontes (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)