Epinoia

Byzantine iconclasm

In the article Proto-Protestantism, I would like for it to be included in "other early reformers", because the held the same anti-icon views, as many Protestants do, though they were in the Eastern church, its still a foreshadowing of a Protestant view. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@ValtteriLahti12: - this should be discussed on the article Talk page - the Reformation was a European phenomenon - a citation to a reliable source is needed to confirm that Byzantine iconoclasm anticipated the Reformation - the article History of the Byzantine Empire says that "Iconoclasm played its part in the further alienation of East from West", so the two churches were split apart, I don't know how aware the Europeans were about what was happening in the Byzantine church - iconoclasm is the only thing shared with Protestant churches, there is no rejection of the sacraments, protests against corrupt clergy, etc., so the line of influence is weak at best and probably non-existent - but other editors may have other views - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don’t believe there was any influence from them, but they atleast shared a view with Protestants, even if not by influence. As I think, the part of the article ’other early reformers’ doesn’t include only groups that influenced Protestantism? Like Paulicians likely didn’t directly influence Protestantism, but had a very few similar ideas (though still very different). ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@ValtteriLahti12: - I think the inclusion of groups like the Paulicians shows that there were anti-Catholic movements in Europe - the same kinds of ideas keep cropping up in different groups, so there is a thematic thread of denying the sacraments and returning to a purer form of Christianity - these themes do not occur in Byzantine iconoclasm - the Paulicians are linked to the Bogomils who are linked to the Cathars, so there is some documented continuity of ideas in Europe - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It included Tondrakians despite protesting against the Eastern church, and not the Catholic church. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@ValtteriLahti12:- the Trondakians were a "continuation of the Paulician movement under different conditions, when Armenia was independent" - so there is a continuity of ideas there - the Trondakians protested against the independent Armenian Church - this was before the Great Schism, so the Armenian Church was technically still part of the Roman Catholic Church - if you want to remove the Trondakians as off-topic, you are free to do so - as I mentioned before, you can discuss this on the article Talk page - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Brothers of Jesus

Can you point out the interpretation that I added please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: - phrases such as "the sons of a different woman named Mary" is an interpretation of the text, the text only says, "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph", it doesn't mention anything about a "different" Mary, which makes differentiating the Marys an interpretation - no secondary sources were provided - mention is made of "Supporters of this view" without citations to those supporters per WP:ATT and WP:VERIFY - combining a number of primary sources to support a position is WP:SYNTHESIS, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

- the addition relies solely on primary sources and Wikipedia has clear guidelines on the use of primary sources:

• WP:PRIMARYCARE – “primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that…are directly supported by the source.”
• WP:SCHOLARSHIP – “Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves” – “Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible”
• WP:NOR – “This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.”
• WP:PRIMARY – “Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.” - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hoodoo Spirituality

Hi,

Just wanted to know if NBC News is a reliable source, because I deleted a whole section on cultural appropriation and hoodoo after reading the talk section. I will find reliable sources on the content that was removed if NBC News is not a reliable source. I'm still learning about writing in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodoowoman (talk • contribs)

@Hoodoowoman: - according to WP:RSPSOURCES, "There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news."

- WP:HISTRS says,

1. Historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible.
2. Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used.

- but comes with the caveat that Historical scholarship is generally not:

• Journalism
• Opinion pieces by non-scholars

- WP:NEWSORG says that factual reports from reliable news sources are acceptable, but comes with the caveat that "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."

- So I would interpret all this to mean that, in the absence of a scholarly work, a reliable news source is acceptable, but referring to the sources the news story is based on is preferable to citing the news story itself - hope this helps - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes this helps thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodoowoman (talk • contribs)

Hi, the Hoodoo article is 282,884 bytes, don't know if that's too long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodoowoman (talk • contribs)

@Hoodoowoman: - according to WP:SIZERULE an article over 100kb should be divided per WP:SPLITTING and WP:CONTENTFORK - personally, I don't have a problem with the article size of Hoodoo (spirituality) as all the sections are pertinent to the topic - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Note, from there "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters. Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize.". Yes, it probably is too long, and can be trimmed. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bodhidharma on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Proto-Protestantism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proto-Protestantism, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Protestantism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Would like to talk about your recent revert to: Historicity of Jesus

Specifically this stanza: >the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the "Jesus of history" who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine with an otherworldy "Christ of faith".

This is part of the Christ myth theory, not accepted fact.

-69.121.9.199 (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

- better to discuss on the article Talk page - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, but in any case we should both not add our on subjective opinions in the article, only leave out objective fact. My initial edit was a revision to the claim that not all scholars universally accept all events in the Gospels. -69.121.9.199 (talk)

- the removed content:

but that the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the "Jesus of history" who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine with an otherworldy "Christ of faith".

has citations to Ehrman, Stanton, Vermes, Dunn and Reed, so it more than just an opinion.

WP:NPOVHOW says, “As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.”

If there are contrary scholarly views, then both points of view should be represented per WP:NPOV, “the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.” - Epinoia (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joy of Satan Ministries on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Unsupportable claim

Leaving behind the question of whether it is fringe or not, the claim that the "virtually all scholars" support the historicity of Jesus is completely unsupportable. Most scholars don't have anything to do with Biblical characters ... they study topics such as mathematics, physics, chemistry. It's true that most Christians that study Biblical history believe that he existed, but that represents a very small subset of "scholars". —Kww(talk) 02:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

- see the Christ myth theory article: "The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory that is rejected by virtually all scholars and supported only by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines." (with citations). I think it is clear that "virtually all scholars" means biblical scholars as the article is about a biblical figure. See notes 1 & 2 and other citations of the lead of the Historicity of Jesus article for references that confirm this. - Epinoia (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention the top of that talkpage, which contains some usefull links. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither of you is understanding my point. "Most Biblical historians", maybe, but "virtually all scholars" includes physicists and chemists. It's an extremely sweeping piece of hyperbole.—Kww(talk) 13:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't be too sure we don't understand you; I think we do. But do you understand us? You changed diff

While the Christ myth theory proposes that Jesus never existed, virtually all scholars reject the Christ myth theory and accept that a human Jesus existed

into

While the Christ myth theory proposes that Jesus never existed, some scholars reject the Christ myth theory and accept that a human Jesus existed

The topic here is the histricity of Jesus; the first line states that this historicity is the topic of research in the "quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus." It's quite obvious here that we're not talking about "physicists and chemists," but about scholars of religion, Biblical scholars, et cetera. Writing then that "some scholars reject the Christ myth theory" suggests that most of these schlars accept the CMT, which is absolutely not the case. But it's a point often brought in by CMT-supporting editors, that is, fringe theory supporters. So, you give the impression that you're such a supporter, and that your argument is dishonest. Or you really take the sentence very literal, but in that case - well... And, in case you missed it, following your logic and way of reading, your statement implies that virtually all scholars, incuding physicists and chemists, accept the CMT. Talking about "an extremely sweeping piece of hyperbole."

Anyway, instead of changing "virtually all" into "some," you could have added something like "all scholars of Biblical history" etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Epinoa's last change is acceptable: it's at least supported by the sources. As for me supporting the Christ Myth theory ... I used to work on this article, but gave up long ago. It's very difficult to deal with this topic within Wikipedia policy, because WP policy assumes that the majority of scholars in any field objectively evaluate the evidence, and that's a very difficult thing to do when the field of study overlaps with the scholar's religion. I don't subscribe to it, but it's hard for me to label it "fringe" until I see a large number of Buddhist, atheist, and Hindu scholars weigh in on the topic.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"removed "famous" per WP:PUFF & MOS:PUFFERY"

Please stop this drive-by crusade against the word "famous". To replace "Troy is famous as the site of the Trojan War" with "Troy is known as the site of the Trojan War" is misleadingly bathetic. Some things just are very famous, and the reader can expect to be told this. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

- if you have difficulty understanding the guidelines regarding words such as "famous" at Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, you can seek help at Wikipedia:Teahouse - words such as "famous" should be "used with caution because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint." - "In a Wikipedia article, there should not be praise-filled (nor criticism-filled) adjectives appended to the subject's name. A more neutral tone and the provision of factual information, cited to a reliable source, on the other hand, is the appropriate style. Don't tell readers that the subject is great; tell them neutrally what the individual or band did or achieved, and let them make their own decision." - Epinoia (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The difficulty seems to be yours: "used with caution" does not = "removed wherever they occur", on a drive-by basis. Some things are famous, & it can be unencyclopaedic not to say so. I have been editing a good deal longer than you, and indeed much more often and perhaps a good deal more productively. There's no need to refer me to the Teahouse, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

- it seems rather immature to me to come here and try to put me down by puffing yourself up and bragging about your superior editing abilities. - Epinoia (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm all too mature. But you should be careful who you point to the Teahouse if you don't want a response. I see you are still doing the drive-by edits. You might read the policies you cite again, asking yourself why Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch isn't called Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to remove. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

- and you may want to consider what you are labeling as famous - for example, the Wyndham Lewis portrait of Ezra Pound - is that really famous? - it doesn't turn up in searches of famous portraits, unlike Picasso's portrait of Gertrude Stein, which is ubiquitous - you would be hard pressed to find a member of the general public who even knows who Wyndham Lewis was - so this can hardly be called a famous painting - Epinoia (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not labelling anything much as famous, I'm just reverting you removing it. "Famous" has some implicit context, it doesn't mean known to everyone on the street everywhere. Personally I think the the Wyndham Lewis portrait of Ezra Pound is much more famous than Picasso's portrait of Gertrude Stein, partly because it is a more significant painting. I can't visualize the latter at all, though no doubt I've seen it. And members of the general public who have heard of Gertrude Stein are surely dwindling fast outside American academia - those who have actually read any must be nearly extinct. I dread to think what "searches of famous portraits" turns up - no RS I'm sure. If you want a word to target, can I suggest "renowned". This can normally be removed, or changed to something less Time-Life journalese (like "famous" for example). Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Steven Beseau on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

Hi Epinoia! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over six months.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in six months.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|Epinoia|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)