Star of Bethlehem continuing issues
Hello Rbreen, you deleted our conversation so I am starting a new one. You deleted Beyer's work a second time. The diff is here. I think it would be show good faith to revert yourself. As I explained on the article Talk page (under "Removal of Beyer text"), you are using an argument without scholarly support that is from blogs and wikis. What you deleted, however, is from reputable scholars, and can not be hidden since it is part of the discussion worldwide.
I would rather not jeopardize your ability to continue editing on Wikipedia, and prefer that if you believe 4 BC as the death of Herod is the only allowable position that we talk it out here or on my talk page. Al Leluia81 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm dealing with some serious health issues right now so I can't respond as fully or speedily as I would like. Also, I prefer to deal with this on the talk page to avoid it becoming personal. Also, readers of the article should have a chance to see the discussion,so it belongs onthe article page.
I have to say I find it difficult to take you seriously. First you delete cited text and add a spurious and inappropriate warning about 'advertising'; then you complain about harassment because I criticise you for this; now you hint threateningly that you will 'jeopardise my ability to continue editing on Wikipedia' as if you had some influence around here. I'm not impressed. Such childish tantrums contribute nothing to serious discourse.
Anyone who reads Beyer's text can see that he was completely unaware of serious scholarship in Josephus MSS; he clearly had no knowledge of Arlenius or Niese and his printer's error suggestion is speculative and founded on no evidence. That's plain by simply reading what he wrote. His ideas may have fringe support but have gained no traction in academic scholarship. --Rbreen (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since you are not able to respond as well as you would like at this time, I will put the issue of adding Beyer's work aside for at least one month.
- I deleted opinion on March 16 then added my first warning after you have made many such edits, have changed wording and blanked out opposing views, even when carefully referenced. In response to receiving a level-1 template warning you suggested I am an unconstructive editor who possibly should not be on Wikipedia. That can be considered wikibullying because an editor is not imply another should not be here. My intention in saying I do not want (you) to jeopardize your ability to continue editing on Wikipedia, is because you had suggested Arbitration as a first resort which I do not think would be to your advantage. I do not think I have any special power here, and there was nothing threatening intended, and that is the truth.
- Beyer's work has been supported by Steinmann (whose work you have repeatedly deleted) and is cited widely. I searched to find sources that disagree but could find only the blogs and blog-like wikis I refer to here. You have blocked this information for years, but it can not last forever. Find some good articles that meet Wikipedia's standards and add it. When you are feeling better. And I hope you will be soon.