Open main menu

Contents

Please Remove BlasphemeEdit

Please remove the section suggesting that the affection between David and Jonathan was one of a carnal nature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.126 (talkcontribs)

WP:NOTTHEOCRACY, WP:NOTCENSORED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RevertEdit

I reverted the recent change because adding "alternative" does not clarify anything about the interpretations; the edit's only function seemed to be to prejudice the reader against perfectly legitimate interpretations. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RevertEdit

I removed the "three decades" original research - it is unsupported by the sources and indeed I'm able to find documentation of this interpretation that's over a century old. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pete unseth: 1, among many others. Where do the sources say "three decades"? Can you provide a page number? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
My sources for "three decades" were the sources cited. To change the time frame back, provide sources to substantiate an earlier time. Pete unseth (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
In other words, your "three decades" was original research that you now know for a fact is inaccurate yet will not revert? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to be unclear. I am perfectly willing to be reverted, if we can find an acceptable source. Until then, I do not know what is inaccurate. Not always clear what sources are considered primary or secondary. Humbly hoping we can find a way to say all this clearly.Pete unseth (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The whole paragraph ((seems)) to be original research because it seems to be sourced to primary sources. The paragraph says that "some authors have interpret the relation between David and Jonathan as sexual" and then put the authors books where they the authors suggested it was sexual as sources for that statement. I had access to the first source but I haven't seen the second one.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want, "According to Boswell and Halperin, David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship." This is fine, it is used with attribution. By the way, Michael Coogan disagrees with them in a recent book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: primary sources where? The cited sources are certainly not primary; are there others to which you are referring? @Tgeorgescu: as I've pointed out, this doesn't seem to be some idiosyncratic theory supported by only one or two people; listing all the people would be disruptive. The text pre Pete's inaccurate OR addition is best. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Roscelese, The first source is certainly a primary source. Notice what the paragraph says and what the source says. The first source is an author nothing in the source says "some authors think" or "some authors says". This is an inappropriate use of sources. Even if attributed we certainly need secondary sources that analysis primary sources. We don't want Wikipedia to be the secondary source that analysis primary sources. Otherwise I don't understand your objection of the word "three decades" it is just the same as the whole paragraph. I haven't checked the second source but I am pretty sure that it is also a primary source.-SharabSalam (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: You're misunderstanding how we reference secondary sources here, unless what you're proposing is that we flat-out write "Jonathan and David were a gay couple" or whatever. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────No, I don't understand how you can't see the problem of the paragraph as I am seeing it. Let me make it simple. This is how I see the paragraph.

Some people (X and Y) have said something.<ref>X book , Y book</ref>

Even if we tried to attribute we would be using primary sources. This problem seems to can only be solved by quoting directly from their books. Like this

X said "quote from X book", and Y said "quote from Y book".

That way we would avoid our editorial interpretation of primary sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Please see WP:PRIMARY so you can correct your mistaken impression of what a primary source is. Boswell's book might be a primary source in Boswell's article; it is not a primary source in articles on the subject of his scholarship! –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Roscelese I have a question: here is the paragraph:
"but in the last three decades has been interpreted by some authors as of a sexual nature."
Who are these some authors? Aren't they Halperin and Boswell?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. We specify "some authors" because it is preferable to making the statement as though it were an uncontested fact, but it's a statement about the Bible and homosexuality, not about Halperin's work or Boswell's work. Please see WP:PRIMARY. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Since you said yes then these sources are primary sources because the sources are (Boswell, John. Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Vintage, 1994. (pp. 135–137)) and Halperin, David M. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. New York: Routledge, 1990. (p. 83)
you keep telling me to read WP:PRIMARY but I see this
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. The passage obviously analysis what primary sources are saying.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: They are reliable secondary sources, which is why we are referring to them to interpret the primary sources, instead of to the primary source itself. I don't understand what about this you need explained to you. Meanwhile, what is your justification for removing a source and adding a claim about "three decades" which not only does not appear in the sources, but which is demonstrably incorrect? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Roscelese, where are the secondary sources? The justification is that we haven't reached consensus yet, please don't hurry, everything should first be settled in the talk page. We don't want editwar.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
"We don't want editwar" is not a justification for removing sourced content and adding unsourced content that you know is objectively false. You can avoid an edit war by not edit warring. This is a separate issue from your bizarre and persistent misunderstanding of what constitutes a primary source (it isn't the multiple secondary sources already cited). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Roscelese, the whole passage should probably be removed unless you provided a secondary source. The two sources are primary sources. Is the source that you added less than 30 mins ago the secondary source?--SharabSalam (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It is a secondary source because it "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." The author has read the opinions of other authors and reports them. While the term "some authors" would be weasel wording if it was the conclusion of Wikipedia editors, "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." In this case there is a significant minority view that there was a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. The fact that the person reporting their views may disagree with them is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Actually I understand now. I didn't know that the Bible was the primary source here. It seemed to me that the sources were primary and that the passage was an analysing of these sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

RevertEdit

I reverted the recent change to the lede because it begs the question re: many debated passages, which the article discusses. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There are already 3 sections in this talk page called "revert". Please name the issue at the head of the section. Not always "revert". I don't know what you are talking about so I don't know what this section should be named.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to "The Bible and homosexuality" page.