User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2019/April

The correct Greek for "The God" in John 1:1 is ton theon, not ho theos.

On the contrary, Origen's quote has already been adulterated. The words, "ho theos" do not exist in the original quote. I was trying to fix that. Why don't you actually CHECK the original source before arguing with other about it who are trying to fix it and making yourself look like a fool? Now, what would you like to do to fix this? Do you want to remove "ho theos" from the quote completely? or do you want to change it to match the original Greek text?Rgurr (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

John 1:1 in Greek ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (ton Theon = THE God with the article as described by Origen), καὶ θεὸς (theos = god without the article) ἦν ὁ λόγος.

@Rgurr: Quotes should never be modified. The word "Theon" does not appear in the given source, so I have removed it in order to eliminate the bastardizing of the quote. You are never allowed to modify quotes from WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:It's not necessarily bastardizing the quote when you are using the original language as the translation. In other words, the entire wiki is John 1:1. My original point was that "ho theos" does not exist in the original Greek text, but "ton theon" does. Origen was translating "ton theon" (with the article) as THE God. But, I suppose that can be explained outside the quote. Regardless, some idiot just removed the entire wiki after your edit. Would you like to take care of that? Rgurr (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rgurr: PiCo is not an idiot, he is right most of the time. One section had too much information, which the average reader does not need, and other sections were redundant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:So that is proper justification for removing the entire article? It's now empty. Rgurr (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References

How to say "Thank you."

I hope this is the right venue to say "Thank you." I want to thank you for sending me the Wikipedia Policies page. I hope you can be a mentor to me as I develop into a productive editor. Blessings to you, from Virginia, USA :) -Rubiks6 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rubiks6: You're welcome. I not very great at explaining things, but I'll do my best. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my page

Thanks for fixing my page on wiki! Not sure what happened but I'll take a look, I need to clean it up. Regards --MAureliusAugustus (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of term "Deutero-Isaiah" on page "Isaiah 49"

Hello, you removed my edits (in which I removed instances of the term "Deutero-Isaiah") on the page titled "Isaiah 49," identifying them as "less-than-neutral." Can you please explain why removal of a debated term like "Deutero-Isaiah" would be considered a "less-than-neutral" edit? Isn't it more disingenuous to use this term than to use the one by which the book of Isaiah had (prior to Duhm) been identified for millennia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.190.114 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@167.206.190.114: Wikipedia goes by the academic consensus of WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholars, see e.g. WP:CHOPSY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

About rules & guidelines

Hi, I'm the guy who used the L word during a discussion on a talk page the other day, prompted by unwarranted blanket defamatory comments against all complementary medicine practitioners. [I had better say straight away that my use of the word was simply to make the perpetrators think more carefully about what they are saying, I would not consider taking any action myself. It's possible that for my own reasons I might make some of the relevant professional bodies aware of published articles which appear in internet search results, which I think are a very different case to that which takes place during an informal heated discussion but if the professional bodies are not bothered about potential impacts on their members & clients then I'll happily forget about my personal concerns.] Wikipedia is an amazing collaborative project which I have benefitted from as a reader in many ways, so as much as I can I just watch to see how it works. The usual way I get involved on a talk page is when I go to look something up & either I don't see the information I expected or something just looks wrong. Where there has been no controversy I have performed very minor edits myself & would not do so if it was not thought helpful. I don't log in because looking at the full range of subjects I take an interest in I would feel my privacy compromised. The main point I wanted to put to you since you are a lot about rules is this: I don't set out to break the rules here, I just look to see what's practical & as far as i can join in with the way things are being done. So what I notice is that rules & guidelines are interpreted & enforced very differently in different areas of interest. It's not really too surprising that where a subject is less controversial there is a more relaxed regime. Very often I say "I was looking for this information & it's not in the article" & some very knowledgeable helpful person says "what exactly did you want to know" & tells me all about it in a question & answer session. - a very personal service, makes people feel good about each other, the article doesn't get edited straight away but the conversation is there for people to refer to when they next get around to reviewing & improving the article. I learn a lot but also I contribute to the discussion, the discussion feeds the article. (I'm still not sure what's wrong with that but perhaps if i was a serious editor I'd understand.) So now the difficult bit, I often sense that it's only when people don't like what's being said that they start quoting rules at each other. A rule or guideline can be transgressed when everyone's happy but if there's a disagreement it can look as though the rule is used as a censorship weapon. There's a lot of talk always about non POV but most people have one & there seem to be massive vested interests flying around at times. I'm not convinced the rules are always applied in the spirit that was intended when the rules were made, I'm only human though. Since it's an interest of yours I wondered if you felt like making a comment? I've enjoyed wikipedia but I go on the internet looking for truth, the truth is not always mainstream, humanity progresses when it recognises the mainstream has been wrong. So it's not clear that this is the right place for me to be an editor. If I'm banned I won't fight it. 31.51.220.92 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue to re-litigate scientific consensus. If two hundred years later it appears that today's Wikipedia were wrong, Wikipedia of AD 2219 will correct that, otherwise see WP:BALL. Chaos of warring fringe factions would result if Wikipedia would not have chosen for WP:MAINSTREAM. Other Web 2.0 encyclopedias have other biases: Conservapedia for the conservative evangelical position, Orthodoxwiki for Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Rationalwiki for atheism, and so on. We have a WP:GOODBIAS for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. This is our identity (who we are). But, you're wrong: for us original research is wrong regardless of its POV. Citing WP:PRIMARY medical sources is frowned upon, regardless of their POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It has never been the case that I would've considered WP:PRIMARY for an article, I've used a little of it (anonymised) during TP discussions when it's been the only way for me to illustrate what I'm trying to explain. Much of the apparent conflict here has been that I'm trying to clarify concepts before looking at the specifics of how to change the article. 31.51.220.92 (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)