User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2020/April

The reference linked to a blog and used opinionated language

You reversed an edit i made to The Shroud of Turin. If you actually read how it was written before the edit, you can't argue that the language was very biased. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and factual. And by the way, the text read " all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted". Now let's analyse the references here. This sentence claims that one side has hard core evidence and the other side of the argument is merely a hypothesis. As a scientist let me affirm that we make a theory, or hypothesis, and then we test it to see if we can prove it with evidence. What I can see on these references are rarely low-level evidence (i.e. opinions) refuting the "challenge the radiocarbon dating" - that cannot accurately be described as "scientifically refuted". In science we have many theories and many of these theories show signs that are promising but this does not always to equate to evidence. Now, in this context, neither side of the argument seems to claim the C-14 testing was in itself inaccurate. That would be farcical. C-14 is widely respected to be generally very accurate. However, regardless of this, the results are justifiably questioned if the sample is not fair. An unfair sample will give unfair results. Like I said in my edit, the reference I removed is a blog post, Which is not permitted as a references according to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore the blog post is not a scientific paper but includes an opinion.

In conclusion, the sentence below: "all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" would be more SCIENTIFICALLY balanced if it were replaced with: "all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been disputed"

The sentence goes on to then detail how it is disputed (which I did not remove).

I will be reverting to my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe9y (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed at WP:FTN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of the Term "Myth" in Almah Page

Dear Tgeorgescu, In January 2020 I edited the terminology used in the Wikipedia page about Almah. I edited the term "myth" and changed it to "belief," to the best of my memory, because I believe that "belief" was a more accurate definition of Almah as it pertained to Christianity. I respect, understand and agree with your intent to keep this Wikipedia page unbiased and factual, but the term "myth" suggests that something is widely accepted as manufactured or made-up. While the term "Almah" and its use in the Bible is certainly debated among Jewish and Christian scholars, I see the interpretation of "belief" as more appropriate because the term suggests acceptance among some, without necessarily having factual evidence. If I thought that the word "Almah" was factually proven to translate to "Virgin," then I would have used a different word. In my opinion, anything regarding religious beliefs that is not backed up with sufficient historical evidence should be regarded as a "belief," since many religious groups debate all kinds of theological and spiritual theories and events. Therefore, I kindly ask that you revert my edit back to "Belief," simply because some people have faith that "Virgin" was the interpretation meant by the author of the book of the Prophet Isaiah. Thank you and enjoy your day.

@LeoGar2: Learn the academic meaning of "myth" already..., see [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Renameduser

Ok, I don't get involved in renaming users, but this puzzles me. Why is someone with less than 400 edits doing this? And look at this move last month.[2] [3] last edit was almost 10 years ago. Ping me please if you reply. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I don't know the rules for renaming accounts, so I can't comment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have long been fascinated by the Christian opposition of the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament.

This one is a humdinger: Origen, a prominent and influential Church father, conceded in the year 348 CE- That the consensus among Jews in his time was that Isaiah 53 bore reference to the whole [Jewish] people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the Jews among heathen nations. Origen, "Contra Celsus". Henry Chadwick, Cambridge Press, Book 1, Chapter 55, Page 50. It is astonishing that the infamous Shroud of Turin is NOT immediately recognized as a piece of medieval art by just looking at it. DUH!!! It is obviously not an image of a person. The image does not look human! Miistermagico (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What about SCIENCE?

Dear Tgeorgescu, Isn't likely the sciences of PSYCHOLOGY and NEUROLOGY give us a better understanding of mind-body dualism than philosophy? Miistermagico (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Miistermagico: I'm not willing to get involved in that quarrel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not asking you to get involved in a quarrel

Dear Tgeorgescu, I am NOT asking you to get INVOLVED in a quarrel I am just asking you for an answer. ONLY an exchange between YOU and ME that will NOT go any further. How about doing me a favor and humor me? Miistermagico (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A second opinion on significance?

Dear Tgeorgescu, I made an attempt to add the following to Mind–body dualism but got WIPED OUT.

The body of evidence built up over years by psychologists and neurologists about the function of the mind/brain cannot simply be bypassed or dismissed. The monist (singleness) position was at one time a rather radical one that came gradually to be accepted because of the weight of evidence, and not because researchers wanted to avoid dualism.

The reasons being:

as a quote it doesn't add anything of significance to the article, it's the POV of one writer and WP:WEIGHT says, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" – if you think it is significant, then it would be best to discuss it on the article Talk page and seek consensus from other editors – you say, the Alcock quote adds nothing to aid our understanding of mind-body dualism. Perhaps I am mistaken but I would think the view of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Alcock has some importance in this matter. Please reply soon. Miistermagico (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Miistermagico: I don't know enough about that. Anyway, the philosophy of mind is quite different from psychology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll reply here, as it appears Miistermagico left the same message on a few people's Talk pages, and this is the only one that has a response. I agree with the revert [4] in the sense that the paragraph is written as a fact when it is only an opinion of one scholar. If this were a position that was held by Alcock as well as a couple other scholars or reported about by WP:SECONDARY sources (indicating that it is a notable position and not just a novel one), the right way to insert it would be attribution something like According to James Alcock, "the body of evidence built up over years by psychologists and neurologists about the function of the mind/brain cannot simply be bypassed or dismissed"...etc.. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Question

Hello Tgeorgescu. I saw a message you left on my talk page. Sadly it was quite vague. I only check WP when I am starting a new research project anymore, so I am not on it very often. I recall that many years ago presence on WP was a daily, almost hourly, occurrence, but that is another subject. So, perhaps you can answer my questions. My first question is do we know each other from somewhere? Your name is not familiar to me. The next thing that I am wondering is about the message that you wrote on my page. You wrote, "You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science." Could you please give me an example of what on earth you are talking about when you say that I have "shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science"? Thank you very much Tgeorgescu! Taram (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Taram: My name is Tudor Georgescu, not to be confused with the Oxford prof. Tudor Georgescu. I once counted 13 of Tudor Georgescu in the Bucharest phone book. The notification was about the Shroud of Turin. It's not exactly saying that you did something wrong, but in any case you should be aware that extra caution is needed when editing pseudoscience topics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tudor! So, nice to make your acquaintance.You may call me Tara if your wish. Thank you for your guidance. Now I understand what you are talking about. I view the shroud as a tangible object housed in Turin, Italy and you were referring to all the theories that so many people have to explain the image on the cloth. So we were looking at the same thing from two completely different vantage points. It is fascinating to me to study and see how communication can breakdown when people think that the other person is thinking along the same lines as one's self when in reality they are not (i.e. tangible object versus impression creation). Thank you for engaging with me in this conversation to clarify what you meant. If everybody in the world would request and give clarification as well as speak plainly and accurately, it seems there would be more peace. That seems especially important for these days of fear and confinement during the pandemic. Stay healthy and enjoy wikipedia-ing! Taram (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Daniel

I removed the assertion that Daniel is second century because that is not a neutral statement, but one that is an assertion that is challenged by a large percentage of scholars.  The actual date of daniel is in dispute, and is considered to have been written sometime between the 6th and the 2nd century.  To say the 2nd century is to misinform.

No you didn't! It states 2nd century right at the start.71.174.129.190 (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Canvass for opinion

Hi, I wonder if you'd be interested in lending a clear-sighted opinion at: Talk:Rescue_of_the_Bulgarian_Jews#Requested_move_17_April_2020 . It's generated a lot of fringe claims and questionable historiography, as has much else in that article, which I reckon has a very POV name. GPinkerton (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I don't know enough about the subject. Of course I disapprove of Holocaust denialism, but I don't know if it's applicable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Radiation

I've seen you repeatedly taking down my post on electromagnetic radiation, claiming I posted pseudoscience and that there's no such thing as the Schumann resonances. There's even a wiki article for that. But yeh I get it, that's how wikipedia works right? Can't even post any legitimate information because of getting discredited, by the established, industry paid, watchers. You probably didn't even waste 2 minutes to research my provided sources. Nanobee (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nanobee: Microwave radiation disrupts the bodies natural synchronicity with the earths Schumann resonances is WP:FRINGE/PS — whatever Schumann resonances are, they have nothing to do with microwave radiation used in our homes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: What do you mean "whatever Schumann resonances are?" How about you look it up, and read my provided sources, before preemptively dismissing it as wrong, based on ignorant assumptions. Quite arrogant of you, ain't it. You shouldn't be allowed to delete posts, based on your personal beliefs and what is supposed to be true. Since I provided sources, and study supported evidence to everything I wrote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances Nanobee (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)16:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)16:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nanobee: The sources which claim that are rubbish by default. Only someone who smoked too much pot could claim that our bodies are attuned to the Schumann resonance. Let's say that there is a correlation between electricity consumption in Bijlmer and the flow rate of Niagara Falls. What does that prove? Nothing, I guess. It's just a spurious statistical correlation having no plausible causal mechanism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgergescu: So you're saying that Wikipedia and NCBI are rubbish sources? What about this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11826883

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCtger_Wever

Wikipedia is only such a shitty source for scientific information, since it's run by degenerated, corporate funded, mongrel echelons like you.

Nanobee (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nanobee: Saying that "Wikipedia is biased" or that "Wikipedia fails to follow its own neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Wikipedia to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Judas

Peace. I was just looking at the Judas page on Wikipedia to look up some information for a book that I'm writing, and I just saw some of your discussion page comments on it and such. Concerning the meaning of Judas' name and about how you asked was there any information anywhere about Kerioth or such, if one looks in the Strong's Concordance and looks up Judas, they are directed to that word as one of the two possible words it says that make up his full name. Kerioth comes from Keriath and such, but I myself think Judas' last name came from the Hebrew name Issachar, which one can look up also in the concordance to seek out that name meaning, which is 'wages paid (to one).' Judas means 'Praise.' Issachar to me, when using the simple rules of inference that I use, which cold case file detectives use to solve most of their cases to 99.9% rightness, is about the closest match to how Issachar would look in its Greek way. Yet, I myself think that Judas I.'s last name was a name given to him by Jesus (as I saw that one other scholar also believed on the entry for Judas) much like, how Jesus named Simon BarJonah with the new last name of Peter [Little Rock (or if one includes his first name's Hebrew meaning, Hearing (or Listening) Little Rock)], and James and John as the Sons Of Thunder. Judas' birth name was Judas BarSimon. I think that Jesus changed Judas' name to Judas Iscariot [The Price of Praise]. I think it was spiritually (with Judah's Mom in the Old Testament naming Issachar what she did), prophetic and pointing to how Judas would betray Jesus. Also, in a fashion, since according to how a woman would have her last name changed, when marrying a husband, but keep her first name, I think that Christ also becoming the husband of his disciples, also changed their last names. It's also written in scriptures, that Christians will receive a new name.

Now, I must confess that the nerd in me wants to think that there is something to, how Judas Iscariot's name may have pointed to the 'Praise Chariot' of God. When I look at how Judas' name looks in the Greek, the Hebrew meanings of the words that it may have come from, the Hebrew and Greek words for chariot and such, I do want to say that there appears to be a lot of evidence that leans in that direction, and even in how the name Issachar (with its 'char' part, and how Issachar also to 'charge' wages way). Yet, all of those things start getting into the idea that I've heard once before, that Judas sat on Jesus' one side at the Passover before his death, while John sat on the other. The story goes, that John with Judas were the two disciples that Jesus loved. He loved them all, but I think you know what I mean. Now, looking at the Psalm that prophetically pointed to Jesus, which said how two people entered God's house holding hands to go praise God, but that the one ended up being his betrayer, I can kind of see that helping that belief. I've also heard that, John and Judas in the same way fulfilled the cherubim that were atop the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament. If so, Judas Iscariot meaning 'Praise Chariot' would've been a nice name, and it would've also fulfilled, how Judas pointed to Satan as being the betrayer, because he once covered God's glory as a cherubim, which is what the chariot cherubim that Solomon had made and placed in the holiest of hollies pointed to.

Awhile back, I also saw that someone had made a movie called Judas' Chariot. I was surprised. I found out though, that it's was a terrible idea, which tried making the point that Jesus had made Judas kill him, and therefore damned him to hell forever. I hate it. The creator of the movie wrongly used the scriptures to make up a lie. Just because Jesus told Judas that he was going to betray him, didn't mean that Jesus was making him do it. Neither, did how the Old Testament say that one would betray Jesus, mean that it had to be Judas. The Holy Spirit signified through the gospel stories, that it could've been anyone, one of the disciples like Peter who Satan entered also (because Jesus said to him once, "Satan get behind me!), or even Jesus could've fulfilled becoming the son of perdition along with being the son of man, and the son of God. It's written that God doesn't want any to perish, but wishes for all to repent. Jesus sharply admonished Judas at the dinner in Simon's house, where he called out Jesus for letting Mary anoint Jesus' feet with the spikenard, but like how we saw how Paul also later sharply admonished Peter also with a rebuke because he was guilty (and twice guilty because it was already after Peter had been told by Jesus in the dream on top of his house to not ignore the Gentiles in place of the Jews), Judas could've also been forgiven. I know according to the Levitical Law he betrayed innocent blood, which was punishable by death.

But, like how the Levitical Law also spoke of how a father or husband could acknowledge a sin committed by his wife, by taking the sin upon himself (or else she would bear the sin forever), after Peter betrayed Jesus three times, Jesus (spiritually Peter's husband) acknowledged him by looking at him. So, Jesus had acknowledged Judas' sin even at the Passover meal, when he showed Judas that he knew that he was betraying him. Even when Judas kissed Jesus, Jesus though angry, also acknowledged him then too. What damned Judas, was Judas. He didn't wait until Jesus had risen from the dead, because Jesus would've forgave him. But, Judas cursed himself by dying from hanging from a tree before Jesus took on the curse. Judas' sins came upon him and he killed himself. Like it's written, one kind of repentance (like Peter's) led to the clearing of the mind and vindication. But, the other (like Judas') led to damnation. Judas had no foundation left to stand on. If he'd paid more attention to obeying God instead of being a thief, he would've had Jesus' seeds sowed fall on good soil, instead of rocky ground. The more I learn about Judas, the more I hate his sin. He hated Jesus and wanted him dead just for the money that he would get. When Jesus tried to correct him, he got mad and went to the Pharisees to betray him. I do believe that The Holy Spirit left king Saul.

But, it also for a time left king Hezikiah to see all that was in his mind. The Holy Spirit left Jesus too in the same way. Hezekiah sinned, but repented and was forgiven. Jesus asked his Father, why he had forsaken him, but he submitted to death and saved us all. I think that if Saul had, when dying on top of Mt. Gilboa, had instead done what Samson had done, and asked God something like, "God, let your Holy Spirit return to me one last time so I can avenge myself of this Amalekite, which people you before commanded me to wipe out." Then, in what would've been my favorite What If fulfillment in scriptures ever, Saul would've said something to the Amalekite like, "[After strengthening himself, rising, pulling his sword from out of below his 5th rib (which was where Joab twice stabbed someone (Abner and Amassa), which pointed to Jesus being pierced in the same place, because it's behind the 5th rib, where the heart is, which has a sac surrounding it, which when put through severe trauma fills up with water), and it would've read something like, "And, out flowed blood and water."] As you planned to kill me with my own sword, and to steal my crown and bracelets thinking you'd receive a reward for them, with my sword I will strike you down." And like, how it read how Samuel later hewed down the Amalekite, it would've instead read something like, "And, there king Saul hewed apart the Amalekite and they both fell down together and died on top of Mt. Gilboa." Wow! That I think, would've been the toughest thing in the scriptures besides what Jesus did on the cross, because it would've pointed to it. Samson was forgiven and with his death he killed more Philistines than during his life. And, so, with Saul's death, he also would've made right in fulfilling God's command to kill the Amalekites. But, Jesus saved many more in his death because his death paid a ransom for all.

I didn't mean to say all that. The Holy Spirit must've wanted to share something with you, and so if you want to contact me or such with any good report or such, please know that you can at 8124796434, because I'll not see any comment from you or others back to me here. Thanks for reading this. David 50.4.188.203 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)