User talk:AintItFunLiving

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who want to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles, such as your edits to the article Zefr; it's great to have a new editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the group's talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some help!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens behind the scenes and through the editing policy. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. I wish you all the best, and thank you for your help! Zefr (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logging in

Your edits are similar to those of the mobile IP editor(s), 2600:100C:B0AC:897:54F8:9E0A:19B4:1707 and/or 2600:100c:b0ac:897:f430:98f6:512e:c602 (there are others). If the mobile IP is you, please log in using your new username.

I left two notices at User talk:2600:100C:B0AC:897:54F8:9E0A:19B4:1707 that may apply to your editing.

Thanks. Zefr (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s me! I decided to create an account. I’m heeding your suggestions! Thanks for your help. Genuinely really appreciate it. AintItFunLiving (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checking on the accuracy of wikilinks

Your series of edits here include many WP:REDLINKs, mainly because you are not selecting the accurate link chosen from the link icon 4 symbols in from the left at the top of an editing page.

Please review the individual links first before using the [[...]] symbols. These are called WP:DISAMBIGUATION redlinks which can be avoided with more care. Otherwise, editors have to clean this up. Zefr (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks. AintItFunLiving (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm Joyous!. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Willow, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The edit added doesn't match the source in the article. Joyous! Noise! 02:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Oh dear. Totally misread things. Apologies. I've restored your edit. ...slinking off now, red-faced....Joyous! Noise! 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Hope you’re having a great day! AintItFunLiving (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Juice Plus, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. -- Fyrael (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the content I added was already in the body of the article. Per WP:CITELEAD, references are not needed in the lead if it is sourced in the body of the article. AintItFunLiving (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've reverted myself. Sorry about that. -- Fyrael (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Hope you’re having a great day. AintItFunLiving (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited S-Adenosyl methionine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on Wikipedia

Hello,

It seems you are new to wikipedia. I am noticing that you are removing lots of sources from some religous articles. Most of the time it looks like you are removing relaible sources that you think are biased or the publisher is religous. Most of them seem to be known subject matter experts too, usually involved with universities and academic institutions.

Please read WP:SOURCE on how sources are considered reliable. The criteria on wikipedia does not automaticaly exclude such sources. And since religious toipics inherently have bias for and against religious claims, see WP:BIASED. It is not enough to remove sources on such grounds either because that can cut both ways. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I have removed are fringe biblical literalists who are also publishing from ideological presses. I’ve left numerous citations from, for example, Craig Evans, even though he’s a biblical literalist. He’s academically qualified. Otherwise most of these authors are simply writing parochial apologetic literature published by presses that are not widely respected or credible. AintItFunLiving (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general sources are considered reliable if they are by subject matter experts and if there is some degree of oversight in publishing. What you consider unreliable is not necessarily shared by other editors. This is why wikipedis' criteria is generic and broad for sources including articles, newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Inlcuding blogs. Subject matter experts and those who have been academically involved in things like universities are generally accepted as reliable sources. Religious publishers often used on wikipedia are acceptable too because there is usually editorial overisight of fact checking and many are academic as well. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I have removed are at the level of anti-vaxxers with PhDs. Widely regarded as fringe among mainstream scholars of all stripes. I’m happy to cite sources about each one one by one. Sourcing qualifications on the medical/botanical pages I’ve previously been editing are significantly more robust than that and require a very high burden of proof to be included. AintItFunLiving (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not remove Craig Evans’s article Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology from the page Historical reliability of the Gospels? And in my opinion @Ramos1990 is right to object to your removal of content. You removed Ehrman and Hurtado as well. I find it hard to believe the former is an apologist or that the latter is not qualified. Birjeta01 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evans and Hurtado are basically apologists masquerading as academics. I can tolerate their inclusion based on credentials in limited circumstances, but these are not competent scholars for establishing *mainstream academic views* in an encyclopedia. We can also find flat earthers with PhDs. Ehrman was possibly a mistake. I’ll have to look at that edit. I’m coming at this from editing medical pages where the evidence requirement is *significantly* higher. The same should apply here. Wikipedia should elucidate the current consensus in the field, not provide a platform to people who hold extremely idiosyncratic views. AintItFunLiving (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this claim can be backed. Hurtado was not merely a PhD but was a professor at the University of Edinburgh, one of the leading schools in the United Kingdom and the world, and his work on Christology has been highly influential. Your commitment to quality sourcing is admirable, but WP:MEDRS does not apply here, and finding consensus in the Biblical field can be very challenging. I find your removal of the scholarly consensus that the historical Jesus was known as a miracle worker and the removal of the consensus gospels are Greco-Roman biographies to be highly objectionable. Birjeta01 (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found it rather peculiar that the user removed this information, but proceeded to promote the Christ Myth Theory here. Divus303 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh, Miller, and Thompson are far from mythicists. For a popular overview of the differences:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/31/miracles-and-wonder-elaine-pagels-book-review-heretic-catherine-nixey AintItFunLiving (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your own words, you wrote "Miller and Walsh adopt a postmodern perspective that sees Jesus not as a historical figure but primarily as a literary character shaped by polemical narratives". If the scholars you are citing aren't in fact mythicists, then would this edit not be misleading? Divus303 (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original quote is

” Neither Miller nor Walsh would describe themselves as mythicists; indeed, both keep a wary if friendly distance from Carrier. (Neither mentions him in their bibliographies, but both have made peaceable references to him in interviews.) They could instead be described as postmodernists—Walsh regularly cites Bourdieu, as Miller cites Derrida—who think that asking “Did Jesus exist?” is naïve and off target, more a question for the History Channel than a question to be channelled through history. Jesus, whether a historical figure or not, exists for us only as a literary character in a series of polemical exchanges. Even if he existed, his actual purposes, whatever they might have been, are marginal to the development of Christianity as a religion.”

from the New Yorker article cited above. I can clarify that in the article. That was worded poorly on my part. Thank you for pointing that out. AintItFunLiving (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, is the fringe view that the story of Jesus is a work of mythology with no historicalsubstance. Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, it is the view that "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."

Christ myth theory

They could instead be described as postmodernists—Walsh regularly cites Bourdieu, as Miller cites Derrida—who think that asking “Did Jesus exist?” is naïve and off target, more a question for the History Channel than a question to be channelled through history. Jesus, whether a historical figure or not, exists for us only as a literary character in a series of polemical exchanges. Even if he existed, his actual purposes, whatever they might have been, are marginal to the development of Christianity as a religion.

Walsh and Miller may not be mythicists, but they aren’t exactly distant either. There have been previous discussions [[[Talk:Gospel]] on undue emphasis on Walsh. Birjeta01 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do folks consider to be the absolute best source for this page? For example, on med pages we’re looking at LiverTox, meta-analyses, offical government or WHO reviews. I think if we move beyond individual authors, we can be more productive in this process. I’d like to find a 2020s high level encyclopedia article for example. AintItFunLiving (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no absolute best source. However, I would generally consider relatively recent works written for a college level audience that are overviews and which have been reviewed favorably in academic journals to be a good starting point. Books like

"The New Testament: a historical introduction to the early Christian writings" by Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press [OUP is one of the most respected academic presses], first published 1997, most recent edition (co-written with Hugo Méndez) in 2023. Note in particular sections on further readings (ideally these should be annotated so as to guide the reader on why they are valuable or if there are 'iffy' sections within them).

I would also note that history is not done like medicine (among other things it usually involves a lot less physics/chemistry [though that does happen especially when archaeology is involved] and studies of document much more common). The acceptable range of scholarly views is often wider and historians are well aware that they and their peers have biases (though "conscious as we are of one another's biases", to paraphrase Charles Bowen, is more easily achieved than recognizing one's own biases) as well as any documents they are studying (no document can be completely objective). An Wikipedia entry like those you have been editing recently might cite several secondary sources to indicate the range of views still considered reasonable for scholarly debate.

At this time you are putting so many changes in to so many articles that is difficult for us other editors to keep up though I noticed at least one statement that was not backed up by an obvious source. Could you slow down and concentrate on one article and explain on the article talk page what you are trying to do. Erp (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OUP textbook is a great idea! Focusing on the resurrection of Jesus page right now. Occasional small edits on other pages as I dig into this. AintItFunLiving (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also note you are a new editor so I best warn you that many articles about religion can get quite contentious. You probably want to glance over the related talk pages to get an idea on what are the contentious issues for that particular article. Erp (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IVP, Licona, and Keener have very little merit in an academic encyckepdia. Find other sources and you’re welcome to add those back in. AintItFunLiving (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licona has wrote articles for respected journals, such as the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. His book Why are there Differences in the Gospels? was published by Oxford University Press. His views have been appreciated by biblical scholars such as Bart Ehrman, whereas he tends to mostly have a bad reputation among other Evangelicals. Divus303 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IVP, Licona, Keener, Hurtado, Evans, etc and the rest are subject matter experts and their sources are acceptable per wikipedia policy and criteria. Claims about worldviews are not enough for removal as this can be reversed to non-religious scholars who clearly have bias too. Wikipedia is a shared space and there is a spectrum of views in new testamnt scholarship. There is no consensus in most matters (they dispute each others views and agree on some points only). These fall within the general spectrum of scholarship, not the firnges like Christ myth theorists clearly are. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the other 4 when describing that some academics have certain views, but publishing with IVP is certainly not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, right? It’s basically devotional books.

I’m fine with listing published views in a general way but we need NPOV sources like encyclopedias, etc. to elucidate that (metaphorically) “this product is not intended to treat, cure, or prevent any disease.” (i.e. these views are metaphorically supplements, not medicines) AintItFunLiving (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I deleted is not because they were included but because they were included as definite sources for what scholars think in general when simply citing their own view AintItFunLiving (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any recommendations for high level, NPOV sources, I’d be happy to update the article. It seems to be mostly people trying to outdo each other with their preferred view at this point. AintItFunLiving (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a book showing the actual spectrum of views in scholarship from IVP acadmic press [1] with contrbutions by multiple scholars covering the whole spectrum. The only criteria needed for wikipedia is the criteria from wikipedia policy, which has been established by consensus. And multiple sources can co-exist. Its not one or the other. WP:BIASED covers the issue of bias in sources - which is acceptable per policy. All sources in the humanities, religious studies, etc all have bias. All the sources you favor such as Walsh, Miller etc also have bias. This is common in humanities. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to @Divus303‘s good reply, I would add that Craig Keener is not merely a legitimate academic source, but a highly renowned scholar who has been at the cutting edge of New Testament Study. His commentary on Acts is the most extensive by any scholar to date, and some top scholars have done high praises.

Somewhat surprisingly, a socio-historical approach to Acts still needs to be defended and its value demonstrated. No one does this better--is more informed about ancient literature, parallels, and precedents, and more interactively and fruitfully engaged with contemporary literature and issues--than Craig Keener. In the introduction (a monograph in itself), his treatment of the genre of Acts, especially his judicious discussion of the genre 'novel,' of the character of ancient historiography, and of the historical integrity and value of Acts, is unbeatable in today's market…

--James D. G. Dunn, University of Durham

The commentary was notable enough to be republished as part of Cambridge University’s NCBC.

'Keener’s four-volume commentary on Acts has become a standard work. All readers will welcome this one-volume abridgement of the longer commentary which still contains all the key discussions, as well as the wealth of information from ancient sources, contained in the longer work. Keener’s work is essential reading for all seeking to read Luke’s work in its original historical context.'

--Christopher Tuckett, Emeritus Professor, University of Oxford

Jeffrey Tripp referred to Keener as among the most respected scholars of Christianity today in his review, and I would agree. He was also chosen to write a commentary on Mark for the International Critical Commentary, arguably the most prestigious of all critical commentaries on Biblical texts available today. Birjeta01 (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, numerous of these scholars have also been authors of Cambridge Bible Commentaries. They are definitly within the spectrum of scholarship and are not fringe at all. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t deny that they’re respected. It is however not judicious to elevate their views above what they are. Again, my concern now is to find the equivalent of meta-analysis and definite statements from the likes of Oxford and Cambridge, etc. We need to establish what the preponderance of evidence is on pages like this. Not just list the views of scholars. A philosophical section is meritorious as well.

https://iep.utm.edu/resurrec/ AintItFunLiving (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources is not the same a weighing sources. And diminshing scholars you don't like as fringe is not good faith editing. It reflects personal bias. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to weight in here too. Three separate editors have expressed concerns now; I aslo object to the maniacal speed of your editing, and your removal of sources. Which comes close to a warning. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am attempting to be more judicious about my edits on history pages. I was using the standards I learned from the longtime editors of the medical pages in editing medical pages which I have since learned do not apply to historical pages.

I do think and write rapidly. My general goal so far has been to pair up lead sections with bodies. I have found some quite egregious incongruences especially on less-edited pages. I try to summarize quickly and accurately. AintItFunLiving (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got Hurtado conflated with Habermas, so I appreciate your reversion. AintItFunLiving (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Receptor name formatting style

Hi AntItFunLiving. I noticed that you recently used formatting styles for receptor names like "5-HT₂ₐ" and "5-HT₂A" on several pages including mescaline, dimethyltryptamine, and LSD. Please be sure to follow the standard/established formatting style on Wikipedia of "5-HT_2A". It creates more work for others having to fix the styling otherwise. Thank you. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 02:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! Thanks for the heads up. AintItFunLiving (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]