Talk:Gospel of John/2012/May
weasel words?
[edit]User:ReformedArsenal has added a weasel words tag to the line about scholarly consensus claiming "5 quotations hardly prove a majority. I could easily provide 5 quotations that assert Johnanine authorship" however even when informed that the quotations are NOT the author's own opinion but about the consensus, with even a qoute from a supporter of Johannine authorship that admits his position is a minority. ReformedArsenal added it again with no explaination. I ask ReformedArsenal not to start an edit war over this. This issue was discussed almost two years earlier and this was the consensus. LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- 5 quotes is hardly enough to demonstrate a consensus, Craig Bloomberg in "Jesus and the Gospels" makes a compelling case for Johannine Authorship, and he cites 3 scholarly sources. It would not be difficult to find more. This is supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia article that represents the available knowledge out there. This article utilizes an inaccurate phrase (the majority of scholarship) to mask the fact that the field is split on this question. I propose that there is a rewrite that highlights that this is still an open question and includes statements from both perspectives instead of just from the one.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'll say it again, the qoutes are not about the scholars own opinions but the overall scholarly opinion. People like Anderson, Thatcher and Lindars are top Johannine scholars and they would know how well accepted the Johannine authorship is. Even Carson, a supporter of the traditional authorship, states that his position is a minority. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbaised but it is not supposed to give undue weight to minority opinions. You can't just cherry-pick sources that support your position and say "field is split on this question". LittleJerry (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- What is the problem with rewriting it to include the fact that there are still substantial (and well educated) voices that still assert traditional Johannine authorship?ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- You can add in that there are some scholars that believe in the traditional authorship as long as you don't make it as if they are 50% of scholarship. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)