Talk:The Gospel of the Holy Twelve

self-published source

I have deleted, and am again deleting, a couple of external sources which are simply self-published and in no way meet the standard of verifiability for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this particular work is obscure and has attracted very little comment from reliable sources, but the citations in the text are adequate and there is no need for poor quality external sources.--Rbreen (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

2019

John M. Gilheany, author of the book cited, claims to be the original creator of this article. Uncle G (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

Hello everybody involved in the recent controversy: the editor involved (RevRoderickCDavis) does not talk back, unfortunately. He/she has been criticized several times for overwriting the entry with new material that has absolutely no grounding in any body of literature. Moreover, its tenor is to suppress the controversy about when and where the Gospel has been created (in biblical times or more recently, related to the discussion about vegetarianism). So it seems the editor involved has no leg to stand on I am afraid. Seen in that light I propose to revert the article to its original state (before said RevRoderickCDavis started to interfere). If no one objects within say 24 hours I will act accordingly (in order to avoid any more edit warring). Note that the page has just been protected (only autoconfirmed may edit). Thanks, Super48paul (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Reverted and mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Not quite clear

I cannot quite read out from the article about when it is believed to have been authored, perhaps it's written in the article, perhaps not. It purports to be from the early Christian era, but are there indications whether it is an antique apocryphon which is not genuine, or is it a modern era scripture? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It could be stated more explicitly, but the sentence "The work remains unrecognised by academic Biblical scholars" means that it isn't ancient... AnonMoos (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Unsure about why the historians of the rights movement are even concerned with this being a book

Well as the title of my topic suggests, why in the hell do the historians of the animals write the movement, even have a say on this thing's legitimacy or not, can someone enlighten me on that reason? Also I know wiki anything has become a leftist revisionist historical garbage rag...so if someone who also realizes that could answer me on that, without the woke version answer,I would thank you for the elaboration. 174.247.253.252 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)