spin

I've just removed:

Sextus Julius Africanus popularized the idea that Christ was born on December 25 in his Chronographiai, a reference book for Christians written in AD 221.

from the Christmas page and replaced it with:

Sextus Julius Africanus provides the first sign we have of the idea that Christ was born around December 25, indicating that the conception took place with the arrival of "Lady Pege, spring-bearer", ie on the vernal equinox, March 21st. This is from a fragment of a work known as "Narrative of Events that happened in Persia on the Birth of Christ" written circa AD 221.

spin

spin

So, what other Wiki pages contain inaccuracies that we can correct or at least qualify?

The scope is to make changes that should be acceptable to responsible christians.

(Just had first reversion on the Nativity of Jesus entry...)


spin

mountainman

Sextus Julius Africanus, as represented by Eusebius of Caesarea writing between 312 and 324 CE, to be from a fragment of a work known as "Narrative of Events that happened in Persia on the Birth of Christ" written circa AD 221.

Might be closer to the truth.

Best wishes,


Pete

vid

It is okay to mention it (since it is quite hard to find source of such small citations online), but not in main text, footnote would be better:

I don't think that particular points of transmission of documents should be mentioned. Otherwise we could push it to extreme, to alwys trace entire transmission until the manuscript got to us (well, what if one of them falsified it?), and that would render article completely unreadable. Who is interested in challenging authenticity, can do it with just such reference as I mentioned.

Roger Pearse

Erm, there is something very dubious about people going around editing articles on things with which -- to put it mildly -- they have some dispute. It's unlikely to produce much except dispute, surely? Imagine if we had every pressure group doing that!

Now I've just looked at the Nativity of Jesus page which seems to contain rather a lot of repetitious attempts to suggest that the bible is rubbish. Now this may be true (or not). But surely such claims are inappropriate on *that* specific page, because exactly the same material could be added to every other page with some mention of the bible. Does EVERY article on Christianity have to have a section asserting this, backed by the usual suspects as 'references'? That would render Wikipedia worthless.

We all know there are people who believe this, and people who don't.

I would honestly suggest that people leave these alone. The risk is of a series of POV edits being made to Wikipedia, for sectarian reasons. Let the wars commence!?

I don't have the time to engage in edit wars. I've done a couple of tweaks to one of the pages.

One thing I have done is to look at the Lysanias article myself; as Spin suggests, it was rather inchoate. Unfortunately I have had to move the large chunk of "critique" beginning "Let's consider..." to the talk page. True or not, it was original research. I hope that doesn't annoy anyone (I didn't see who the author was). The raw facts about Lysanias seem to be a bunch of references. May I suggest that the best way forward is for the page to list these references, and add referenced scholarly comments about them (on either side) as appropriate?

All the best,

Roger Pearse
(Thanks to Toto for pointing out that I'd originally written rather more aggressively than I actually intended).

spin

Yawn. This is all merely polemic froth.

So?

The author is irrelevant to the evidence it provides. One needs to deal with the evidence. (And if one needs to know, I constructed the analysis, ie I'm the "author", which doesn't change the evidence cited.)

Research it seems has no purpose in Roger Pearse's approach to analysis of history. Instead of dealing with facts, he has dismissed them. Pearse shows his true colors in defacing the page on Lysanias.

A historical figure is demonstrated with the conjunction between reports by Josephus and coins from the era. He has attempted to reduce the evidentiary status of Lysanias son of Ptolemy to the same level as the once mentioned Lysanias in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

He has left the fallacious argument supporting a late date for a Lysanias based on CIG 4523 and removed the refutation.

Evidence apparently means nothing to Pearse.

ETA: My attempt with the Lysanias entry was to leave all the material I found when I edited it, so that it could be judged because of what it says. I didn't want to rewrite it. Provided the information about the historical Lysanias and the refutation of the analysis of the inscription dragooned for apologetic purposes.


spin

spin

I now see the serpent subtlety of "original research". Wiki doesn't allow it.


spin

Roger Pearse

I'm sorry; I should probably have linked the Wikipedia policy, but I was short of time. This isn't to say that the material isn't useful, and shouldn't be referenced here, but it needs to be an external source.

I don't like the "some say" stuff much in that article. It should be referenced who says what, and someone will undoubtedly stick 'fact' tags on that, and quite properly. Unfortunately I've no such info to hand.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

It doesn't matter. You have mischievous intent. You know that you are hiding evidence.


spin

Roger Pearse

You're welcome to your opinion, although it would be better not to state a supposition as fact.

All the best,

Roger Pearse