User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2017/May

Luke the Evangelist

Hey there, thanks for taking the time to look at my edit. The sentences in question are stated very definitely without reasonable citation, so seemed non-neutral to me, as well as out of keeping with the style of the rest of the article. Since you're not happy with me removing them, I've added superscript templates where I think there's an issue. Please do get back to me with your thoughts Pastryfrancaise (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Source was given at the end of para. That's an acceptable way of verifying claims. See also WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"Less than neutral"?

You deleted my recent edit in Gospel as you said it was "less than neutral". I would be interested to know what it was about my edit that was "less than neutral". I read all of page 17 of the reference and there wasn't a single word justifying the assertion that the believers expected Jesus to return within their lifetime. Could you please quote me the exact words from Mr Reddish's book which you feel back up his assertion? Or may Wikipedia articles be based on any wild assertion made in any book, even if the assertions are not backed up by a single word of explanation? Grand Dizzy (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if the book of Reddish claims it, anyway since Albert Schweitzer it became a vanilla claim of Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I know: you're mistaken, see [1]. It's right there on Google Books. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so if you can provide a better reference to justify the claim that the followers expected Jesus to return within their lifetime - then you should improve the reference so that the claim is properly backed up. Rather than calling my edit "less than neutral" which I think is unfair. I was simply following the reference and looking at page 17 logically, like any intelligent person would, and it didn't seem to back up the claim. That's not a failure to be neutral.

I am well aware that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia (in practice it is hideously biased towards religious superstition, but there's nothing can be done about that) and therefore I wouldn't even try to bring personal opinion into the pages.

Also note that in the interest of neutrality I have changed where the article says "aftermath of Jesus' death" to "aftermath of Jesus' life on earth". It would be extremely biased for a Wikipedia article to state as fact that Jesus did not rise from the dead and continue His ministry after his death, and thus stating as fact that the Biblical record, and all other records, were falsified. Grand Dizzy (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have read page 17 once again and still see not one reason given to back up the claim that the believers expected Jesus to return within their lifetime. Could you please point out the exact words you think are given as justification for this view? Grand Dizzy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Reddish claims what our article claims, perhaps not verbatim, but he does verify the claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you guys transfer this to the article talk page. Grand Dizzy, I can give you the references.PiCo (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)