User talk:Paranovafiles

Welcome!

Hello, Paranovafiles. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm Suneye1, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do cite reliable sources   Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't add original research   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, SUN EYE 1 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

June 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Yahweh, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 24 June 2021 08:48:43 (UTC)

Ironically, you came to my page and insulted me, which sounds a bit like what a troll would do. WP:DEADHORSE.Paranovafiles (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

References

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 24 June 2021 08:48:43 (UTC)

So, to be clear, this is not an encyclopedia, it IS a center of opinion. If the Britannica won't even say biased statements the YAHWEH page says, then you've got a problem. If it is a wide consensus, state WHO the consensus came from. But the page fails to do so. Their citiations are not sources from accredited encyclopedias, but specific scholars, many of which will disagree and contradict the other. If it is not an official article or statement from those Universities, and simply one source from a specific minority of scholars, then it is NOT consensus. It does not state who says what, it just impresses it like fact. None of my own research was added. It was sources and statements that I CITED, and when I did not cite, the citation was already given, and I qualified where the source came from.Paranovafiles (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? "Academia" is a broad spectrum, so are you standing behind making biased statements, like "it is widely believed" and "scholars". I have put no opinions down. I have only defined what ARE opinions and where the opinion came from.Paranovafiles (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Friend, this very website has been wholly sold out to mainstream Bible scholarship ("liberal scholars" as you would like to put it). If you want to change that, see WP:DEADHORSE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

What? Mainstream Bible scholarship? I wouldn't call Cambridge and Yale part of "mainstream" Bible scholarship. Scholarship of the Bible is held by theologians, not historians. So you didn't like that I stated the origin of the sources, qualified the statements, or gave an origin to the source. So, in other words, it wouldn't pass a grade as a high school report. Britannica says nothing like this, my favorite example. Why don't you read what Britannica says? Ah, it is kinda EXACTLY what I put down, which supported no side whatsoever.Paranovafiles (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, don't call me "friend", then insult me. We are not friends. Paranovafiles (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Many, if not most of academically educated theologians are "liberal". And the majority of Christians are liberal Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Really? Show me that percentage please. Let's look at this one: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/ Paranovafiles (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

For Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Sola Scriptura is heresy. They account for the vast majority of Christians. Add to them mainline Protestants, and you will see that conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are in minority. Liberal Christianity does not mean adepts of political liberalism or leftists. Besides, that article is not an article in theology, it is an article in Ancient religions. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are far from liberal. They compare the Bible and tradition as equal. They are still strict that YAHWEH is the only God, the same God as Adam and Abraham, and also that the Bible is holy is inerrant. Thus, Catholicism and Orthodoxy would be avidly against this page. I know their theology. My point is that theology is "mainstream Bible scholarship", so you added about three claims that you did not feel you had to cite. This is the very problem with the page. It makes assumptions and does not qualify statements. Therefore, it receives a failing grade if it was a high school report.Paranovafiles (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Catachism of the Catholic Church: The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures” (CCC 107, quoting the Vatican II document Dei Verbum 11).Paranovafiles (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

So, as it comes out, you lied: you do think it is okay to express your opinion. You have not cited any Yale or Cambridge sources, for sure, and it's absolutely okay for you to generalize where it contradicts actual sources.Paranovafiles (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat it: biblical literalism is heresy for Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The Pope supports the theory of evolution. Why? Because Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. Ditto for Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)