User talk:AnonymousLurker5000

Welcome!

Hello, AnonymousLurker5000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Arianism does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I don't see how it's a violation of NPOV to remove material from an atheist scholar whose works exists only to "disprove" the Christian faith? If anything, it's a violation of NPOV to randomly state that the defenders of "proto-orthodoxy" would today be anathematised for their imprecise understandings of theological doctrines. Ehrman himself surely knows that neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church have ever anathematised their fathers, and never will. And even if they for some reason did do that, it would still be inappropriate to mention it whilst discussing the theological doctrine of Arianism. Having said that, if you could explain your thought process on this, that'd be great. Thanks. AnonymousLurker5000 (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR Bart Ehrman. You will have to abide by our WP:RULES in order to edit here.

E.g. Origen was perfectly orthodox in his age, but later declared a heretic and vilified. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attempting to break your rules, I'm asking for clarification. It seems you're being overly confrontational here for what I thought would be a polite conversation. I'm also not asking you to censor Ehrman, I'm simply saying he isn't a "neutral" source like you claim. As for your claim on Origen, as his article specifically notes, it's unclear if he himself is anathematised or only beliefs others claim to have derived from him. Either way though, your claim that he was "perfectly orthodox" is an opinion, and not a "neutral" statement. Also you never responded to my point about it being inappropriate to even mention on that page. AnonymousLurker5000 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS are not required to be neutral, see WP:BIASED and WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you're not presenting a biased source in a neutral way. You're presenting a biased source in a biased way. That's the problem. AnonymousLurker5000 (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrman belongs to WP:BESTSOURCES, since he is a top mainstream scholar of the Bible and Christianity. We do not second-guess such sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So just to confirm, you will blindly believe whatever an atheist scholar says about Christianity, and refuse to present the alternate viewpoint believed by around two billion people across the planet? Does that not seem to be a little ironic to someone who claims to believe that Wikipedia should be "neutral in its point of view"? AnonymousLurker5000 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEM, WP:GEVAL, and WP:CHOPSY. Our house, our rules.

FYI, Ehrman is academically conservative. There are more liberal/radical scholars than him, and they are committed Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you often feel the need to speak to well-meaning people in such a condescending manner? It costs nothing to be polite you know. AnonymousLurker5000 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have moved the argument from objective knowledge to subjective faith. Which is an ad hominem, and a sophism of relevancy. You also performed an ad populum. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've simply stated that you're arrogantly dismissing the viewpoint of the majority in favour of a minoritarian viewpoint that you personally prefer because a so-called scholar said it. But anyway, it's clear you have no interest in arguing in good faith, so I'll be stopping the conversation here. Have a good day. AnonymousLurker5000 (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CHOPSY, Ehrman is not (epistemically seen) in minority. Wikipedia kowtows to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not to the opinions of the commoners. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"According to my redefinition of the word, Ehrman is in the majority". Also "commoners". Do you even hear yourself speak? You yourself are a commoner as much as anyone else. AnonymousLurker5000 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITIZENDIUM: Wikipedia is written by commoners, but the WP:RS we WP:CITE are written by full professors.

Bart, if anything, is academically conservative. Most of his (non-text crit) positions are academic orthodoxy from the 1980s. [...] Virtually all of his positions were mainstream in the 1980s and have a substantial following today.
— BombadilEatsTheRing, Reddit

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professors are commoners. You're not royalty. Get off your high horse. AnonymousLurker5000 (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man: I never claimed I were royalty, nor "not a commoner". But in WP:SCHOLARSHIP there is a pecking order. I'm not a scholar of Christianity, but Ehrman is. See WP:VERECUNDIAM.

Full professors are world's gnoseological elite. So, in respect to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, they are higher than real-life royalty.

Anyway, what I was trying to convey: these are not my decisions/choices. These are the way Wikipedians have to evaluate and read WP:RS. We don't have to agree upon which is the true religion, but we have to agree (in accordance to the WP:RULES) upon which are the WP:BESTSOURCES.

In other words, your demand to reject Ehrman because he is an atheist is totally not compliant with our rules, and totally preposterous. You don't need 2 billion people to show he is wrong: if his knowledge would be objectively flawed, one person would be enough. Objectively meaning regardless of subjective religious faith.

All you have managed to show is that Ehrman is not a Christian. And that's utterly irrelevant upon whether he has objective knowledge about Christianity. And it is utterly irrelevant upon whether he writes WP:RS about Christianity.

Ehrman is not as original as you might think. To a great deal he is simply repeating what he learned at the Princeton Theological Seminary. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]