User talk:EEMIV

SEMI-RETIRED

I'll check Wikipedia several times daily but don't have the time to remain engaged in more than a handful of articles. If there's a particular area where I can be useful -- mediating or weighing in, that kind of thing -- drop a line on my talk page and I'll head over.

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

If I left a message on your talk page, please respond there.
You may leave a new message here. Unless you request otherwise, I will respond on this page.

Article analysis

Hey fellow old Star Trek editor, I'm looking for someone to look at an article Historicity of Jesus and give me an opinion. I feel it is horribly non-NPOV but can't make any headway. I'd appreciate someone whose opinion I value to tell me I'm right or I'm reading too much into it. I feel like opening an admin request to look, but that seems to be jumping the gun when I can ask someone else to look. StarHOG (Talk) 23:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take a look at the article. I see there's a substantial talk page thread ongoing, and.....a LOT of talk page history. Probably won't get to this until the weekend, but I'll look. --EEMIV (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got into it as best I could. I don't know enough about the topic to weigh in with non-NPOV confidence -- it definitely leans toward substantiating the claim that Chris was a historical figure, for sure. But if that's rooted in scholarly consensus (and I don't have the expertise to probe that), that seems appropriate - the comparison I drew on the talk page is to Causes of climate change, where there's a scholarly consensus that it's man-made and real, with little coverage of "fringe" theories like, I dunno, off-gassing or whatever denialists put out there. And even if there is that scholarly consensus, the semi-token "Christ mythicists" section really beats a dead horse about how "wrong, wrong, wrong atheist/agnostic mythicists really are -- soooooo wrong!, and here are a dozen citations to prove it." I did a minor content pass and dropped some suggestions on the talk page for follow-up.

The article has other problems, too: it's clunky, repetitive, straddling something between a disambiguation page and an annotated bibliography and a sampler from all the Main Articles that virtually every section points to. I think there's a semi-local manual of style - between the sub-sub-sub-heads, footnote/reference formatting, etc. - that just isn't how I prefer to maintain articles that also makes it hard for me to get through. Some of that low-hanging-fruit copyediting cleanup probably helps address some of the repetitiveness and awkward tone -- which might contribute to the appearance of bias/non-NPOV, though probably not hugely so.

TL;DR: I trimmed around the edges and tried to ask some questions/make suggestions on the talk page. I think the article has problems but I don't see it as problematic -- but I'm not sure I'm equipped to fully interrogate non-NPOVness.

I appreciate you asking for my input. It's always nice to edit alongside you. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your look, and I'm not asking you to do anymore, your comments are well received. One of the problems is that readers come along and see the same thing you do, "scholars all agree" and think that's pretty official; you even equated that to climate change. But those aren't climate change scholars, those are scientists. The scholars they are talking about are biblical scholars which is not a degree or a science, just someone who "studies the bible." So that is another problem with their sources, they are quoting experts that are self-proclaimed experts. Anyway, thanks again and let me know if I can ever return the favor.StarHOG (Talk) 02:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Language and literature Good Article nomination

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Funeral Oration (Lysias) on a "Language and literature" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]