User talk:John N. Lupia III

John N. Lupia was trained in biblical studies and archaeology at Seton Hall University's Divinity School, (B. A. 1976). His graduate studies in biblical scholarship were at the Immaculate Conception Seminary. He studied under Msgr. James Turro, one of the contributors to the Jerome Biblical Commentary. He went on to graduate studies in art history and archaeology at City College of the City University of New York, (M. A. 1982) and published his thesis "An analysis of Leonardo da Vinci's Portrait of Ginevra de' Benci", which demonstrated the portrait was rendered using anamorphic perspective. He served as an extern in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Frick Museum, and the Jewish Museum. He went on for his Ph. D. in art history at Rutgers University, studying under James H. Stubblebine. He served as his graduate research assistant for several articles and his book Assisi and the Rise of the Vernacular (New York : Harper & Row, 1985). Later, he was made a graduate fellow of Rutgers School of Information and Library Studies (MLS 1993). In 1994 he published a landmark article on Italian Renaissance artists and their use of anamorphic perspective in, "The Secret Revealed: How to Look at Italian Renaissance Painting,". Medieval and Renaissance Times, Vol. 1, no. 2 (Summer, 1994): 6–17. ISSN 1075-2110. He served as an intern at Princeton University's Special Collections in the Marquand Art Library. He taught art history and archaeology for over fifteen years at various universities including Seton Hall University and Kean University. He served as a leading contributor for Macmillan Publishers Dictionary of Art; 35 volumes, 1995. Mr. Lupia is listed in Catholic Biblical Associations Member Directory; Gale Publishers, The Directory of American Scholars; 5 volumes, 1998 edition; ABI's International Directory of Distinguished Leadership, 10th ed; and IBC's Directory. He has been a member of the Society of Biblical Literature; College Arts Association of America; the Catholic Biblical Association of America; the American Society of Papyrologists; the American Numismatic Society; the American Philatelic Society. In 2001, he founded Roman Catholic News and serves as its editor to the present. In 2009, he contributed suggestions to Q. David Bowers for his outstanding landmark book on Colonial Numismatics, Whitman Encyclopedia of Colonial and Early American Coins (Atlanta, Georgia : Whitman Publishing, 2009). In 2010 he published The Ancient Jewish Shroud At Turin (Regina Caeli Press, 2010). In 2011, he founded Numismatic Mall, a website devoted to numismatic research. In October 2013 he published the first of a two volume revised edition of Emmanuel Attinelli's, Numisgraphics titled, American Numismatic Auctions to 1875 ISBN: 978-0-9826739-1-1. The first volume alone provides more than 90 never before seen or known, to American historians of the past 140 years, coin, medal and coin book auctions. The second volume provides even more newly discovered auction sales that will change how numismatic historians understand American numismatic history. He has published numerous articles in various journals on numismatics and philatelics. He has traveled throughout Europe and has lived in the Middle East studying the Holy Land archaeological sites in Lebanon and Egypt.

February 2020

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Shroud of Turin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: the two sides of the debate are not equal and we don't do WP:GEVAL. See WP:FRINGE and WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Shroud of Turin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19 February 2020 12:23:24 (UTC)