Silverfish2024

Welcome!

Hi Silverfish2024! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Silverfish2024! Your additions to Historical reliability of the Gospels have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for graciously explaining why you removed my post! As a new editor I admit I am not as familiar with Wikipedia and its procedures as I should be. I am confused as to why my edit violated copyright rules, as the exact same passage I entered in this page has been present for a substantial amount of time in the page Oral gospel traditions - Wikipedia. Also as far as I understand, many parts of Wikipedia are sourced by books not available for public viewing without purchase, so I do not see what the problem is here. Silverfish2024 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I will look into this in the morning. — Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The online source where I found the content is dated January 2019, but it's been in Oral gospel traditions since December 2013. So we had it first. What you need to do when copying from one article to another is to mention in your edit summary where you got the prose from. In fact such attribution is required under the terms of our license. Please see WP:copying within Wikipedia for more information on this topic. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem! I will try my best to acknowledge whenever I copy from one Wikipedia article to another. Silverfish2024 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gospel seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on this matter. The historicity of the Gospels is indeed of immense weight to many people religious or not worldwide, and it is difficult for many to set aside prior commitments. However, my recent edit, specifically Evans' quote, which has been present in other pages on Wikipedia for a significant amount of time, does not seem to me problematic. Sanders and Borg are mainstream scholars associated with renowned universities, and Evans' work has also received praise from both Evangelical and mainline scholars such as Charlesworth and Theissen. I also referred to more skeptical scholars as well. I understand your concerns and am grateful for your transparency, but I do not believe this removal was justifiable. Silverfish2024 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have also noticed that you reverted my edit regarding Charles Gieschen's reception of Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God. I cannot imagine how this edit could be considered undue or fringe in any way, especially considering that Ehrman himself found it fitting to use Gieschen's work. Gieschen's view is undoubtedly worth noting. Silverfish2024 (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Gospel, citing Craig, a conservative scholar, from a publication from 1993 stating "are now viewed as useful" is misleading, to say the least; that'so in the body of the article, and even more so in the lead.

Regarding Gieschen, Ehrman refers to his work three times; it is undue to mention Gieschen's response in a section on the overall reception of the book. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you dispute Evans's description of the state of the field? He does not cite overly conservative scholars there. I am not the first to either have a high appraisal of Evans or to cite him on this wiki.

As for Gieschen, I think Ehrman says he received his view of Christ as an angel from Gieschen and later Susan Garrett. He even blogged about it. I do not think it is prudent to downplay his work or opinions. Silverfish2024 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

1993 is not "now." Have you edited before using another account? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No, this is my only account. I have only started editing Wikipedia this week. Are you saying I Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

was the one who cited Evans in note 2 of Historical Reliability of the Gospels? Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have seen Wikipedia use many sources older than 1993, and I don't think the Biblical studies field has changed enough, even with the developments you and I mentioned, that Evans' claim is now outdated, as far as I know. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)