User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2018/July

Primary Sources vs Secondary Sources vs Tertiary Sources

With respect, primary sources are original sources of information. I was taught that primary source is considered a source created at or near the time under study. Writers such as Irenaeus, Eusebius, Victorinus, Clement are not primary but secondary sources, as they are commenting on and analyzing information related from primary sources between 50 and 250 years after the fact. Nor are they primary sources because they are the first extant writers with any such claim. Those who in turn comment on them are considered tertiary sources, which are considered the most unreliable and most subject to distortion. Wikipedia asks for primary and tertiary sources to be used less than secondary.

The article on the Gospel of John as you have reverted it to is composed primarily of tertiary sources, and many of the sources cited make claims that are either unsourced, unfalsifiable, or directly contradictory to extant evidence. Some of the tertiary sources directly misrepresent the secondary sources they are citing. As a practice, I always verify references for accuracy.

As I understand it, there is no Wikipedia policy against utilizing secondary sources, and in effect every article written contains some element of personal research and synthesis of secondary sources. The personal research in the Wikipedia policy is restricted for novel interpretation of primary sources, not citing of secondary sources. In my opinion, an article that generalizes historic evidence in a sentence only to dismiss it with a paragraph or more on every mention sounds very biased. Respectfully. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdub2018 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bdub2018: Wikipedia pretty much does not care about Ancient scholarship: according to our WP:RULES they're all WP:PRIMARY. All we care is about present-day WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, published less than 100 years ago, preferably less than 50 years ago. WP:PRIMARY means the historical sources which modern Bible scholars use for their research. WP:SECONDARY means the works of Bible scholars. If you fail to understand this, you may consider yourself de facto banned, see WP:CIR. And, I told you what Wikipedia is heavily biased for the academia, haven't I? Wikipedia is not the venue for publishing your musings about Ancient sources and about how biased modern mainstream scholars are. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I didn't say modern scholars were biased. I said the article was biased. I said that the article is composed of speculative and tertiary sources with an almost uniform disregard for historic testimony, so that the article is unbalanced. The Lindars statement in the beginning of anonymity, for instance, is unsubstantiated in the actual work. The same is true of every other writer cited where I had access to the source. In the 19th century, the claim of anonymity was based upon John's name not being found in the main body of the work. Every speculation by modern scholars regarding authorship began from that point. Simply repeating it over and over while appealing to authority does not make it true. Modern research, however, for which multiple sources can be cited, has shown that authors of that time normally did NOT identify themselves in the body of the work, but their name and the title of the work were written on a leather tag called a titulus (or syllibos) glued to the document (or they were written in an inscription), and also written at the end of the work in a subscription that would be preserved at the center of the roll in case the titulus was lost. It is a similar practice we follow today; books are not "anonymous" just because authors typically do not identify themselves in the main body of the work. So then the modern claim of anonymity is an assumption, and one contradicted by ancient literary practices; when you begin research with an assumption, as is done in this article, what follows is circular. If there is a chain of evidence, that must first be followed. Opinions can follow after that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdub2018 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia sides with modern scholars, not with Ancient authors. Taking Ancient authors only at face value is not part of the job of modern scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal Research

I confess I am a little confused. The article you reverted directly references and interprets secondary sources that you call "primary" sources, which you said in my case amounts to personal research. Please explain. The current revision directly cites Eusebius (multiple times), Jerome (multiple times), Sophronius of Jerusalem, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and interprets them (misrepresenting them on multiple occasions) without the interpretation of what you consider "secondary" sources. These are all cited and treated, as they should be, as secondary sources. Additionally, passages of scripture such as John 21:24 are not only cited but interpreted (at variance with the actual text of 21:20-24), without sourcing why it is "based on" the written testimony of the beloved disciple, when the author directly claims to be the beloved disciple. My understanding was the purpose of open editing is that corrections were sought to misstatements, and that misstatements should not be perpetuated. I cannot help but feel that the rules are being selectively applied and in some cases that the goalposts are being raised (sources must be 50-100 years old. Ancient secondary sources are considered primary sources; the rules cited do not indicate these). An explanation would be helpful. I also am under the understanding from the rules you cited that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it," which I interpret as meaning that the sometimes keeping the spirit of the rule necessitates the breaking of the letter of the rule, and the letter of the rule should not be so rigidly followed that it breaks the spirit of the rule. I was also under the understanding that if there are two significant viewpoints, even if one is in the minority, both should be addressed. I kept the opposing viewpoint, eliminating some redundancy. By reversion, you have eliminated the historic viewpoint almost altogether. Respectfully.

I take exception to the accusation of making a "blatant lie" about what Ehrman said; I had to go back to even see what you were referring to. I see only one place where there was a change in that matter; English does not require a comma there in that sentence, but it was placed there to distinguish the clause that follows. In the same way, the previous comma closed out a set of sources which weren't also intended to belong to the reference at the end of the sentence. Perhaps it could have been better stated, rather than being accused publicly for something that clearly was not intended. I would have at least appreciated the benefit of the doubt, as I was trying to be careful to not attribute something to Ehrman he did not say, rather than being accused publicly for something that clearly was not intended. I learned that when citations relate to a portion of a sentence they should take the form of a citation clause, set off by commas. That is the practice I was following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdub2018 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bdub2018: I did not state that you have lied about what Ehrman stated. I just stated that I have reverted a blatant lie (just not yours). Here we do arguments from authority big time. If we remove the appeal to authority, Wikipedia will crumble like a house of cards. Didactic explanation: [1]. You should mind that WP:RULES use the terms WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY another way than you have learned in school. As I have stated: if you fail to understand this, you may consider yourself de facto banned, see WP:CIR. We're an encyclopedia, we are not an outlet for publishing original research. We follow modern WP:RS/AC, not our own analysis of Ancient sources. This applies to all editors, you have not been singled out for special treatment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)