Talk:Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book)

Stub ratings

The ratings in the box above were given before the article was substantially expanded and an image added.Smeat75 (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

@Pipsally: stop blanking out content, or I will report you to the administrators.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed content that is not reliably sourced. this is all WP:SYNTH of authors views, and on self published blogs. They are not RS.Pipsally (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss here, before removing again. Ehrman's blogs are perfectly fine for his views. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pipsally: please, stop reverting my edits or I will be forced to report you. @Joshua Jonathan:, please give me a hand.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pipsally: You appear to be pushing Lataster's views very hard in your edits. There's no need for an extensive quote from him in a fake "reference" in the lede (it hardly requires a source that this book is, well, a book) and you are phrasing Lataster's points in a very accusatory way (what with "Ehrman admitted" as if this point was scandalous or relevant that the book wasn't an academic monograph - imagine "Ehrman admitted the book was not written in Greek". See MOS:SAID.). Additionally, Ehrman's blog may count as a primary source and shouldn't be relied on for outside reception, but it's perfectly valid to further Ehrman's views and Ehrman's reactions to later reactios. SnowFire (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pipsally: Listen, I'm done with you. I will report you to the administrators.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually missed that Karma was cutting that para along the way, I see no issue with that. What I was reverting was the review stuff.

by all means cite the actual reviews. His own website is not a reliable source. Stop adding WP:SYNTH and you won’t be revertedPipsally (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviews

I 've readded the two review quotes I can find a reliable source for. Feel free to add the others if you find the sources, but to be honest I think it's probably overkill anyway - we don't need every bit of cover blurb in the article.Pipsally (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I have removed the New Yorker and Salon.com quotes and citations. They are from four years before this book was published so refer to Ehrman's other work. Maybe usable in his article, but I don't think it'd really be very balanced to add all the glowing cover blurb quotes from his publishers press releases there - text and citations below.

• According to ''[[Salon.com|Salon]]'', "Bart Ehrman’s career is testament to the fact that no one can slice and dice a belief system more surgically than someone who grew up inside it".<ref>{{cite web |title=Jesus is just alright with him |url=https://www.salon.com/2009/04/03/jesus_interrupted/ |website=Salon |access-date=13 July 2021 |language=en |date=3 April 2009}}</ref>

• [[The New Yorker]] called Ehrman "a lucid expositor".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Nast |first1=Condé |title=Holiday in Hellmouth |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/09/holiday-in-hellmouth |website=The New Yorker |access-date=13 July 2021}}</ref>

I can find the original source of the news week blurb, but it's in this press release from 2011 (prior to publication of the article book) and appears to be praise for Ehrman rather than a specific bit of writing https://www.prweb.com/releases/erhman/forged/prweb8219892.htm

The NYT quote refers to his other book God's Problem.

Ping those involved before @Karma1998: @SnowFire:

Pipsally (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)