Jetstream423

Jan 16, 2021: Epinoia: Apparently you had some problems with adjustments that I made to the Book of Daniel article on Jan 12. I think this was chiefly about citing sources. (1) I cited a quotation from the Bible, which is certainly a legitimate source. (2) In another case, I provided a link to a related article, which includes several sources. I suppose I could copy some of those sources into the Book of Daniel article, but this seems superfluous since people can simply follow the link if they want to know the sources. (3) Elsewhere, I tweaked the wording a little in order to improve its accuracy. I am very familiar with the details of the Baha'i Faith, and could add a citation here as suggested.

As you may be aware, a modern interpretation of the prophecies in the Book of Daniel has a huge impact on the Adventist Church and similar modern Protestant religious groups. It cannot simply be ignored in the Book of Daniel article. All of that is based on the Day-Year Principle, which asserts that Daniel's references to 2300 "days" actually means 2300 years. (The same principle applies to several other prophecies which use "days" to describe a time period). This brings the predicted time of fulfillment up to 1844 AD. You can also refer to articles on Adventism and William Miller if you would like to become familiar with this aspect of the influence of the Book of Daniel.

Please address respond by either addressing issues 1 & 2 above, or reverting them to my Jan 12 version. I will address item 3 by adding a reference.Jetstream423 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Jan 21, 2021: Not having received a response or explanation, nor seen the reversion, I am re-instating them. In the case of item #2, I am moving it to the section "Influences" as it seems to fit more appropriately there, with respect to the overall flow of the article.Jetstream423 (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

intro

I have added some details to the Baha'i section of the Day-Year Principle article and added a Baha'i section to the Daniel 8 article. I have read most of the literature on the Baha'i understanding of Biblical prophecies, and feel that I have a good understanding of this perspective. (I am new to Wikipedia editing, though, and welcome suggestions on how to improve the technical details of my edits.)Jetstream423 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Be careful - read up on WP:PRIMARY. Try to rely more on scholarly published materials. --Smkolins (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jetstream423, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Smkolins (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...

Hello Smkolins! Thanks for the welcome comments. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, but not a frequent contributor. I don't have any plans to start any new pages, but if I come across some existing ones that seem insufficient, and I know of sources that would help create a more complete picture, I will add them. I have read the guidelines and try to stay within them. As to relying on "scholarly" published material, of course we want to rely on reputable published material, but I don't see anything that restricts us to "scholarly" material in the guidelines. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that most of the articles are fairly easily readable. Jetstream423 (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

---

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22 January 2021 03:42:27 (UTC)

References

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22 January 2021 03:42:27 (UTC)

---

Tgeorgescu: Let me assure you that I don't go on Wikipedia to promote any of the things you suggested above. As noted in an earlier post, based on legitimate scholarly sources that I've read, when I see some gaps, I may fill in those gaps with a brief explanation and reference the sources. In the case of the Book of Daniel, there are so many understandings of it over the ages that including them all would turn the article into a book. So, I don't want to touch that. However, when it comes to the commentary on the influence of the Book of Daniel, I think it is perfectly reasonable to add a brief note, in the chronologically correct spot, that the book influenced Jesus to the extent that he cited it in response to a question concerning the time of his return. This is a critical link in the understanding of many Christian denominations today (some numbering in the tens of millions of followers), explaining why the Book of Daniel is significant to these groups. It definitely has a lot of influence here. So, after "Daniel was quoted and referenced by both Jews and Christians in the 1st century CE as predicting the imminent end-time." I simply added: "Jesus cited the prophecies of Daniel when answering the question of the time of his return. ". I suppose you have access to a Bible to verify the accuracy of those quotes. The article then continues with a citation of influences in the 2nd & 3rd centuries AD. So my addition is on the topic, is significant, and its source is cited. It seems to me that it is a very constructive edit, and is in no way a "maim, bash or troll" nor promotion of pseudoscience, extremism etc. Let me know if you still see a problem with it, and if so, specifically what is the problem? If you agree that it is appropriate, please restore it, or let me know so that I can restore it. Thanks.Jetstream423 (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the Bible isn't WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not asserting that the Bible is reliable. I am only asserting that this is what Matthew and Luke recorded. (If you want me to preface my statement with "Matthew and Luke wrote that Jesus cited...." I can certainly do that.) Matthew's and Luke's records may or may not be reliable, but the reason that this is under the sub-topic of "Influence" is because a large part of the Christian world believes that the statements are reliable or at least worth noting. So, what Matthew and Luke recorded about Jesus' statement on Daniel has a big influence on many denominations.

Also, if we should not be discussing the Bible because it is unreliable, why do we have an article on the Book of Daniel in the first place? (I note also that the WP:RS article does not specifically mention the Bible or the Qur'an or other religious texts as being sources which must be totally avoided. Of course, I'm aware that they can't be seen as unbiased sources of historical truth, but nevertheless they exist in the present and have an effect on present day thinking which cannot simply be ignored.Jetstream423 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, anyway: find a mainstream Bible scholars who says that (guess there are many who do), problem solved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Messiah Claimants

Hi. I didn't mean to overwrite your edits. I have no problem with your suggestion, so you can go ahead with it. :) AprilDass (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Jetstream423 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of messiah claimants, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bab. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now updated the spelling of "Bab" to include the accent mark and avoid the disambiguation problem. Jetstream423 (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)