Hello, Neddo23.nr! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dr. K. 11:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, I'm Nythar. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Transfiguration of Jesus seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stating something that is not historical fact as historical fact is not neutral it is misinformation, as this is an encyclopaedia for facts, that is not appropriate. Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions aren’t relevant to fact. Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. You are unilaterally stating that this is mythology. Please provide reliable sources that state this. (We normally don't add this to religions unless it's generally accepted, as is the case with Ancient Greek religions, for example.) — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is mythological Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s not proven as fact by evidence, it is mythological by deduction. Perhaps you would be happier if I reworded it as an unsubstantiated event? It is misleading to represent an unproven event as if it is a historical one, whether or not it may offend religious people. Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by User:Neddo23.nr. -- Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion with Nythar about the historicity of the wording of the introduction to this article in good faith. I have included a link to mythology, which is appropriate to the context: “Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. Since "myth" is popularly used to describe stories that are not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly controversial. Many religious adherents believe that the narratives told in their respective religious traditions are historical without question, and so object to their identification as myths while labelling traditional narratives from other religions as such. Hence, some scholars may label all religious narratives as "myths" for practical reasons, such as to avoid depreciating any one tradition because cultures interpret each other differently relative to one another. Other scholars may abstain from using the term "myth" altogether for purposes of avoiding placing pejorative overtones on sacred narratives.” however I’m informed that it is more appropriate to refer to these events as factual as it could cause offence? Please clarify, I would like to see this article changed to reflect fact. Please advise of the appropriate course of action. Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps linking to this article is more appropriate? Christian mythology#Mythical themes and types Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:Citing sources? You also shouldn't "arrive at conclusions" in articles. Read WP:Synth to find out why. Your reasoning also implies WP:Original research. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s appreciated feedback, however I’m finding it more difficult to appreciate how something that isn’t factual can be represented as factual without any sources to prove it. Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean if there is a reference to this in another article that includes citations that it’s not relevant to this one? Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sources need to be cited immediately next to a statement. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are no sources needed to prove the implication of a factual event? Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not stated as a fact. The article stated "The Transfiguration of Jesus is an event in the New Testament". That doesn't imply that it actually happened. It does imply that it's an event in the New Testament, which is a book. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, an event is defined as:

event

noun [ C ]

UK

  /ɪˈvent/

US

  /ɪˈvent/

B1

anything that happens, especially something important or unusual:

It cannot be factual if it has not happened. Which by definition means it has actually happened. It’s just semantics. Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By logic your definition and by extension the opening statement of this article is saying that the New Testament itself is factual? Neddo23.nr (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the transfiguration of Jesus is written about as an event. An event in the New Testament. An event in a book. It's not written about as a real event. It "happened" in timeline of the book. Why do I need to explain this? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because this doesn’t seem clear enough in this edit, it is edited with a sympathy for Christianity, which skews the facts through the use of the language.

Would it be appropriate to identify the New Testament as a book? Neddo23.nr (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it happened in a book and not in reality it’s a significant differentiation that needs to be stated in some way. Neddo23.nr (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious to anyone that the New Testament is a book. That's how all these religion articles are written. Take a look at the Islamic Jinn. The article says they "are invisible creatures in early pre-Islamic Arabian religious systems and later in Islamic culture and beliefs". It says they "are invisible creatures", but that doesn't mean they're real. We don't need to be really specific about these things (unless most of the Wikipedia community agrees that we need to be 100% clear in every single article related to religion). For now, I recommend you revert it to the original version of the article. Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not clear in the opening sentence in question, which is why I proposed edits, it can’t be an actual event and a fictional event in a book at the same time without differentiation. There are reasons why the English language is so specific, encyclopaedic writing is not exclusive about citations, but also about the use of language. I think clarify around these stories is of the utmost importance to the pursuit of truth. Neddo23.nr (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clearly not obvious to little kids who think it’s reality, so I think that being very clear is essential. Neddo23.nr (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you it's not written about as an "actual event". And the "pursuit of truth" sounds to me like WP:Righting great wrongs. If you find content in a religion article that appears to suggest that the religion is true, you may edit the wording for clarity. The sentence you keep changing does NOT suggest the event is true. "Events" are not required to be true. You'd know that if you've read fictional novels. The events described in these books are just that -- events in a book. We don't need to begin the Lord of the Rings article with "Lord of the Rings is an entirely fictional, epic, high-fantasy novel". If we aren't specific about a fantasy novel, why would we be so specific in a religion article? Please find some sources that state this specific event is mythology and we'll see if they're reliable. And "little kids who think it's reality" likely won't be convinced it's fictional by a Wikipedia article, so I'm not quite worried about that. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By definition an event is something purported to have happened, if it is a fictional event it is by it’s very definition mythological in this context. Fantasy novels aren’t purported to be true, as is the case with religions. Neddo23.nr (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since my reasoning clearly isn't helping here, I will ask that you provide sources for the edit you made where you claimed it is "mythology". Please read WP:Citing sources for advice on how to cite sources, and WP:Reliable sources for advice when trying to determine if a source is reliable. Please also remember that sources must be added next to claims; a link to another article isn't enough. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the event is referenced to be ‘in’ a book doesn’t negate this basic definition. It is either an event that happened or a fictional event from a book. Neddo23.nr (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an "event" either way though, isn't it? Now you need to find sources that say it's fictional. Go ahead. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it’s not an event if it didn’t happen. Neddo23.nr (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just said it's either "an event that happened" or "a fictional event from a book" — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because without the additional ‘it’s fiction from in a book bit’, it didn’t happen. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just asked you to provide a source that says it's fictional. Wouldn't that solve this? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 13:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert it back again per WP:3RR - you're currently at 3 reverts. Instead you should continue to discuss the issue here or on the article's talk page. Thank you. — Czello 12:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the incorrect English is used I will continue to edit Neddo23.nr (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being correct with your edits is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that their edits are correct. You will be blocked if you edit war. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not edit warring, I’m trying to correct the incorrect use of English in this sentence as discussed extensively here. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally edit warring by definition. WP:3RR is a rule you've chosen to ignore. — Czello 13:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a different edit in an attempt to reach consensus, so that’s not true. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not require that the exact same edit be involved each time. You've also indicated "I will continue to edit" which implies you will continue to edit war. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The motive of your editing is not relevant. As I said, everyone in an edit war thinks that their edits are correct. You must pursue talk page discussion or dispute resolution instead of edit warring. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am attempting to discuss an appropriate wording to edit this article’s opening sentence that does not misrepresent it as factual, as it currently does. This is not edit warring, as I’m attempting to discuss this with other editors. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should refrain from making that edit until the discussion has reached a consensus, or dispute resolution is exhausted and reached a resolution. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If articles are using incorrect English my edits aren’t motivated by anything other than editing the language, it’s not driven by opinion. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the motive of your editing is not relevant. You have now been partial blocked from the article. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I’m not allowed to edit the English language if it’s incorrectly used? This was a minor edit, and clearly by the backlash, the language has been misused intentionally to distort the meaning of the sentence. Please cite the reasons for this block. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring is a bright-line disruption. You're not entitled to edit-war because you're convinced you're right and everybody else is wrong. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and editors are expected to discuss and reach consensus, and to use approrpriate scholarly and journalistic sources, not their own interpretation. Take it to the talkpage, and discuss this respectfully. Acroterion (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to discuss, I was discouraged vehemently of the need to make any changes. As previously discussed I am concerned with the misleading use of language, this isn’t my own interpretation, it’s based in the dictionary’s definition of words as discussed. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for your block is, very simply, you were edit warring and violated WP:3RR. — Czello 13:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not being helpful or community minded. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for reasons for the block, I gave them. I'm not sure what you were expecting when it's pretty straight forward.

But while I've got your attention, I suggest you read WP:TRUTH, as this is a word you've used a lot to justify your edits, but I think it shows you might have misinterpreted our policies. — Czello 13:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if I had added a citation to the dictionary definition of fictional event, would it be appropriate? The sentence I edited means a fictional event, by its reference to it occurring in a fictional book (with very little reliable historical evidence to back up its stories). This isn’t my opinion, it’s a fact. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be arguing from the point of view that a given religious text is fictional. That is a very different thing from discussing word definitions. Take it to the talkpage, and be respectful. Acroterion (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An event is either an actual event from reality (which may or may not be written on a book) or a fictional event from a fictional book. Events purported to have happened generally are proven by historical evidence, something that the gospels don’t prove. I don’t respect religious people misrepresenting myth as fact , through bullying tactics. Religious texts are no more or less fictional than The Lord of The Rings, and aught to be represented as such, without the subtle manipulation of language in order to skew their representation. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's still WP:OR. You seem to be kind of working backwards here - you've deciding it needs to say "fictional" (because of your belief of it being fictional) and now you're searching for sources to back that up. That's not how we work - we gather the sources first and then represent what they say. — Czello 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes however it is currently misrepresented with no sources to prove it is a real event. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't state it's a real event - we just say it's in the New Testament. — Czello 13:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word event means it happened unless there are further distinctions Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again, it still means it happened in the New Testament, which by extension means it happened and that the wording is stating it was a real event. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to state it was a real event, because the word event means it happened, thereby it is real. However if it was not a real event, the distinction needs to be made. It’s a word that by itself means one thing, but only with the addition of another word (myth, fiction etc) changes the certainty of its actually having occurred. It should more appropriately be termed a story or a scene from a book, not an event. Neddo23.nr (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a narrative from the New Testament, not an event. You can’t have a personal/opinionated take on some language, it means what it means. I don’t personally know if it’s factual, however if it’s saying it’s a story from a book, then it’s not an event from a book unless it actually happened. Neddo23.nr (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again I’m not attempting to alter the actual information in this article, only to articulate it better using the language, I am concerned that the sparseness of the wording in in order to misrepresent its inherent meaning. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neddo23.nr reported by User:Czello (Result: ). Thank you. — Czello 13:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello @Acroterion After multiple chats you are neither of you addressing my concerns around the terminology used in this article, alternately saying it is not a substantive issue and at the same time, that any changes to the wording would not be neutral, however the use of language shouldn’t be about imparting points of view, but about properly explaining what those words are describing. If the sentence in question is talking about a story or narrative from a book, then it can’t actually be described as an event unless there is a distinction to clarify that it is not a real event (thus my original edits), as alone the word event means something that has happened. Referencing it to a book doesn’t necessarily alter that definition, thereby my concern is that the language has been edited and been blocked from editing in order to represent a certain perspective as opposed to being correct and informative, which is at odds with Wikipedia:NPOV or Wikipedia:V . Please go back to my previous discussion, if you are unclear about the meaning of the word ‘event’, or respond with any constructive thoughts. Thanks Neddo23.nr (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators deal with behavior, You are blocked from the article for determined edit-warring, until you successfully resolve your content concerns on the article talkpage through collaborative discussion with other editors.You have been offered policy-based advice by experienced editors. Please read it and take it, rather than simply repeating that you're right and do not need to take take into consideration the encyclopedia's policies. Both edit-warring and refusal to consult or collaborate with other editors are disruptive behaviors, for which your editing has been restricted. Acroterion (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the information linked, however I’m now only concerned with the misuse of one word in this article. I don’t see that this is in conflict with any of these policies or even introducing new information, as the article is about a narrative from a book, it just isn’t stating that. I have attempted to discuss the issues with other editors and taken on board their feedback and made a different edit the second time, however none of the other editors have seemed concerned about it’s misuse, or in fact the need for using words properly, but have been more insistent that the article as it is doesn’t have a biased tone, which implies it is true, by the very fact of not stating that it is otherwise. I was unaware of a policy over edit warring, so it was completely unintentional. There are previous edits concerning the use of this word in other sentences in the article in question where it has been changed from event to episode and then back again with very little in the way of consensus among editors. I have not been intentionally disruptive, and to be honest, all those who have responded have done so in a very aggressive tone, which I don’t imagine is the spirit of any of Wikipedias policies. There are many mentions in these policies that say they are only a guideline, however I have not implied that I don’t need to take into them account if I have not directly stated it, evidenced by my change of approach from using a term such as myth, to identifying the reference as a narrative from the New Testament, which is accurate and not biased, Wikipedia is always in need of improvement, which is why many of us support it, through editing and donations. I will go to the talk page as advised. Thanks for being soo friendly and helpful 😊… Neddo23.nr (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Transfiguration of Jesus) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]