User talk:Sparthorse: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Bunofsteel - "→October 2011: " |
Bunofsteel (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (fact from Matthew). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (Interpretation as it is truer to say that Matthew tells the same story where the publican is Matthew son of Alphaeus), which has led some (who) to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (sounds like original reserach). However, there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers, even when they appear side by side in the synoptic list of the Twelve Apostles, next to the fraternal pairs of Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee (true but the biblical references should be here). |
Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (fact from Matthew). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (Interpretation as it is truer to say that Matthew tells the same story where the publican is Matthew son of Alphaeus), which has led some (who) to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (sounds like original reserach). However, there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers, even when they appear side by side in the synoptic list of the Twelve Apostles, next to the fraternal pairs of Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee (true but the biblical references should be here). |
||
If I am making an arguement I would like to know what exactly my argument is. I know what I would like to argue but I haven't done it. I have highlighted the facts that have led me to my conclusions however, given that I am referencing Mark at every step and not taking Mark out of context. I don't see how I am producing original research. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bunofsteel|Bunofsteel]] ([[User talk:Bunofsteel|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bunofsteel|contribs]]) 10:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
If I am making an arguement I would like to know what exactly my argument is. I know what I would like to argue but I haven't done it. I have highlighted the facts that have led me to my conclusions however, given that I am referencing Mark at every step and not taking Mark out of context. I don't see how I am producing original research. Bunofsteel. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bunofsteel|Bunofsteel]] ([[User talk:Bunofsteel|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bunofsteel|contribs]]) 10:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
==Talkback== |
==Talkback== |
||
Revision as of 10:39, 18 October 2011
all the info i changed was true, i am a friend of alistair slowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameshawkins123 (talk • contribs)
October 2011
Hello Sparthorse. You tagged "Adsasdsasada" for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you.Template:Z19 — Abhishek Talk 08:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure sure if I am writing this in the right spot and I think you are the person who wants to delete the article James, son of alphaeus biblical criticism. I'm happy for it to be deleted. I'm a bit of a noob at wikipedia but I'm starting to get a few things. I have rewritten my article making sure that every statement has a biblical quote. Because the nature of the piece has changed I have placed the article back in James son of Alphaeus. If this still doesn't meet the requirments of wikipedia then I will require some extra specific assistence.
Bunofsteel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunofsteel (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok I am confused. Your criticism is that I am making an argument rather than stating a series of facts and therefore constituting original research. I have trouble understanding why this isn't original research.
Possible brother of Matthew
Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (fact from Matthew). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (Interpretation as it is truer to say that Matthew tells the same story where the publican is Matthew son of Alphaeus), which has led some (who) to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (sounds like original reserach). However, there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers, even when they appear side by side in the synoptic list of the Twelve Apostles, next to the fraternal pairs of Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee (true but the biblical references should be here).
If I am making an arguement I would like to know what exactly my argument is. I know what I would like to argue but I haven't done it. I have highlighted the facts that have led me to my conclusions however, given that I am referencing Mark at every step and not taking Mark out of context. I don't see how I am producing original research. Bunofsteel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunofsteel (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Abhishek Talk 08:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Kofi Annan, I do not see any personal analysis. It is a series of facts, so please let me know what are you talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.47.121 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)