User talk:ReformedArsenal: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
::* Messages are usually left at the end of the "talk page" of other users, no their "user page". |
::* Messages are usually left at the end of the "talk page" of other users, no their "user page". |
||
::* And in general if you use 4 ~ characters, your signature will show. |
::* And in general if you use 4 ~ characters, your signature will show. |
||
::* And if you respond below here, the discussion will be more central. |
|||
::Now back to primary sources, yes, you can use the NT with care, provided there are secondary sources that accompany it. But in a case such as the resurrection accounts Wright, Ehrman and Fredriksen would all disagree. So while almost all scholars agree that the crucifixion took place, they do not agree on the resurrection or the ascension. That is why the NT or the Quran by themselves are not usable, even with a secondary source, for many parts are subject to different interpretations. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 05:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
::Now back to primary sources, yes, you can use the NT with care, provided there are secondary sources that accompany it. But in a case such as the resurrection accounts Wright, Ehrman and Fredriksen would all disagree. So while almost all scholars agree that the crucifixion took place, they do not agree on the resurrection or the ascension. That is why the NT or the Quran by themselves are not usable, even with a secondary source, for many parts are subject to different interpretations. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 05:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:15, 19 March 2012
Ichthus: January 2012
 |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
- From the Editor
- What are You doing For Lent?
- Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
- Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
Primary sources, etc.
Hi, I hope you are not getting the impression that I am trying to give you a hard time on the issues regarding WP:Primary, etc. In fact, far from it. Having seen your comments, it is clear that you have read the sources you refer to and are well versed in the topic - more than one coud say for many editors. So I would like to be sure that my comments will not discourage you from continuing to edit Wikipedia.
The fact is that Wikipedia policies always win in the end. We must accept that, and respect them, for they apply across the board: they are fair in their approach to all subjects - although items such as WP:BLP are exceptions. yet they apply the same way to all BLPs. Wikipedia policies are mostly straightforward - one just needs to gain experience on how they are applied. The key issue is to accept that there all all kinds of editors on Wikipedia with really diverse backgrounds, and one should try to thread the middle ground for best results.
There is a serious shortage of editors who have more than a cursory knowledge of topics, and I would like to encourage you to participate further, watch the Christanity noticeboard and provide comments. Your participation will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here's my question: The New Testament is a source that is "close to an event," "written by people who are directly involved," and "offers an insider's view of an event, period of history..." According to policy, I should be able to use it with care, provided I also use a reliable secondary source (NT Wright or Bart Ehrman seems to be pretty reliable in terms of NT Research.) So if I have that criteria in place, why is the NT not a valid primary source to use for a historical (properly qualified) source?
- Hi, a few minor issues first:
- Messages are usually left at the end of the "talk page" of other users, no their "user page".
- And in general if you use 4 ~ characters, your signature will show.
- And if you respond below here, the discussion will be more central.
- Now back to primary sources, yes, you can use the NT with care, provided there are secondary sources that accompany it. But in a case such as the resurrection accounts Wright, Ehrman and Fredriksen would all disagree. So while almost all scholars agree that the crucifixion took place, they do not agree on the resurrection or the ascension. That is why the NT or the Quran by themselves are not usable, even with a secondary source, for many parts are subject to different interpretations. History2007 (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
