Talk:Gospel of Mark

"Mark, Gospel of" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mark, Gospel of has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § Mark, Gospel of until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Overcite

Hi, Pbritti. Please select two or three references from my edit and cite those. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I selected one very good reference published by OUP, as the quote provided with the citation is perfectly suited to provide reference and demonstrates that this is a crucial detail to mention in the lead summary. I would caution you to consider avoiding similar CITEBOMBs, lest your actions be interpreted as POINTY. Posting them to the talk page and selecting two yourself would have been a better start. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Some people find all those references (plus some other references) not enough, e.g. Jenhawk777 at Talk:Historical reliability of the Gospels#Arbitrary break. She says that Ehrman does not count because he is too controversial, Holman bibles do not count because they are too conservative (unscholarly), Witherington because although he is on her side, he actually gives her the lie, etc. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

See, @Tgeorgescu: comments like that are fairly good indications of pointy behavior. No reason to ping someone just because they disagreed with you elsewhere. Returning to that above comment repeatedly to further criticize the view of another editor uninvolved in this article is, in my view, uncivil. I'd encourage you to strike the above and to not view the project as a contest of ideas. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Stricken. But for you the citation from Ehrman was enough, in the other article multiple WP:RS/AC claims do not get accepted and she summons me to delete the same claim you have accepted here.

My point: if the claim is bad, it has to be deleted from all Wikipedia articles, not just from only one.

I mean: if it is a bad WP:RS/AC claim, then it is a bad WP:RS/AC claim. I can accept that. But then it is a bad WP:RS/AC claim everywhere (in every article). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: If you are going to run me down all over Wikipedia for daring to question one sentence in one article, then at least do so honestly. My dispute was and is with the quality of the source used to claim "scholarly consensus", a claim that is not made in this article. You are once again focused on the "truth" of authorship, and keep trying to make the discussion about what you want to prove. My focus is, and has been from the beginning, much smaller. I just want a decent source that actually says what is claimed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I had mentioned WP:RS/AC four times, just above your reply. So, I don't understand the charge.

And, generally speaking, Wikipedia does not deal in "true" or "false", but in supported by WP:SCHOLARSHIP and unsupported by scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

concerning recent revisions

I recently edited the titles for all four of the gospels of the New Testament, seeing as I thought it fit to input one of the four gospels of the New Testament as not so much longer, as the maximum character limit is 90 characters, but as to improve readability and to improve the description so as to give a more ample overview of what the article was, as these are seen as teasers of the article Ai777 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ai777: See WP:SD40. With a topic so prominent as a canonical gospel, a very brief description like "Book in the New Testament" is enough to alert readers that they are on the right article. Additionally, specifying "One of the four", while normative, could be seen as not in keeping with NPOV: there are those who hold/held other gospels as also canonical. In this case, shorter=better. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

indeed Ai777 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Academic consensus

@Dr Christopher Bryan: You have to obey WP:RS/AC, just like everybody else. If you have been published at OUP, you certainly have read WP:SOURCES such as those listed at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. These sources tell a different story than your WP:POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

@Pbritti: Rejecting WP:RS/AC on the ground that there are too many sources is WP:TE. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Struck since you agree with me. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The bullet point is my comment preceding you striking your comment, but I think it's important to include it.

• @Tgeorgescu: No, I agree with you! What you did was drop a REFBOMB that featured such highlights as a note that reads [bolding original] Hint: it only concerns the Gospel of John and at least two references only about Matthew. That is disruptive. I am about to restore a couple sources that appropriately reference the "most scholars" claim.

I will use a couple of the sources you added, probably the The New Oxford Annotated Bible and one of the redundant Holman sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As I replied at my talk page, my understanding is that REFBOMB is against many references (footnotes), not against many sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect. See your talk. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, the source you have WP:CITED is highly prestigious, but... not a WP:RS/AC kind of source. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say that? I selected it because you cited it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3: not everything therein is WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you're not a reliable source. Also, perhaps linking to your copypasta is imprudent. This is not a big deal. You've already struck your aspersion and allowed your REFBOMB to be replaced by a highly reliable source that does appropriately aggregate other sources. We're done here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)