 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Per discussion there. So yes, this stub does have the same problem... multiple names from different apocryphal religious traditions. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreeing with common sense WP:move by User:St Anselm. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Majority view
editIf it is the majority view of mainstream Bible scholars, then it is good enough for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Minority views should be expressed only in compliance with WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
To draw the line: such dating is taught as fact in most secular universities, in most mainline Protestant divinity schools and in many Catholic divinity schools. Those who disagree with it big time are mostly Fundamentalists or Conservative Evangelicals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Particularly in the age of the Internet, it is not hard at all to find someone with a Ph.D. in a relevant field who lends a countervoice to mainstream thinking. This is true in the sciences, in biblical studies, and in any academic field.
One can always find someone out there who thinks he or she has cracked the code, hidden to most others, and disproved the majority. And, in my experience, too often the promotion of minority voices is laced with a fair dose of conspiracy theory, where the claim is made that one’s view has been ostracized simply because it challenges the establishment. Those without training in the relevant fields are particularly susceptible to following a minority voice if it confirms their own thinking. But simply having a Ph.D., having research experience, or even having written papers on minority positions, does not establishe the credibility of minority positions.
The truthfulness of minority claims must be tested over time by a body of peers, not simply accepted because those claims exist and affirm our own positions.
— Peter Enns, 11 recurring mistakes in the debate over the “historical Adam.”
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
According to WP:CENSOR, we simply cannot remove the mainstream academic view from Wikipedia articles. Minority views should be rendered when appropriate, but this is not carte blanche to fill every small article with the conflict between majority view and minority views. See e.g. https://ehrmanblog.org/how-do-we-know-what-most-scholars-think/ for what Ehrman means by majority view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)