Page move

This article is POV fork that you just created.
Please restore true edit history.

Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RetProf

1. Since this article was 80% about noncanonical gospels it was moved here from REDIRECTcanonical gospels to here.

2. That redirect has now been restored to its original status as a REDIRECTGospel.

3. A move isn't a fork.

4. As for page History it's here, look above.

Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Please restore true edit history. The way you have disrupted things, it looks as if i created the Noncanonical gospels. Is it your intent to confuse? - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ret.Prof.

1. As regards Edit History, that I'm afraid has to do with the way you decided to move back content from Noncanonical gospels on top of canonical gospels by cut and pasting and deleting rather than by moving. The history naturally shows as cut and paste and delete rather than move. It's not something I can do anything about.

2. Back to the more important point:

Canonical gospels used to be a simple REDIRECT to Gospel. You came along and inserted a new article, which I guess would have been fine, except you didn't make any effort to notify anyone on the Talk page of Gospel you were doing it, and the content of the new article barely mentions the subject (ie: Synoptic Gospels + Gospel of John) and instead is a lot of, cough, material about Development of the New Testament canon (which already has an article) and a blow-by-blow listing of the Noncanonical gospels.

The reality is that this article, blown up from a simple REDIRECT placeholder to Gospel, overlaps with existing articles, the only distinction being the Point of View, which broadly speaking looks like that of Professor Peter from the University of Destiny.

As Bearnfæder says above "I am sorry I have not been around much. Honestly, I began to find the task of fixing this article an impossibility, especially on my own against one such as Ret. Prof, whose dedication to the inclusion of poor source material, and tiring lists of 'references' in his favor make any attempts at productive editing certainly futile. Quite frankly, I am in no way opposed to the deletion of this article; it serves no purpose on Wikipedia. There is already an article regarding the Synoptic Problem, and individual articles on the canonical (and non-canonical) gospels; why this page is needed at all confuses me, since it offers little in the way of additional information to the already-present articles and nothing in the way of quality or reliability. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect in all of this, however, is that the poor-quality research and information contained in this article has found its way weaved into so many other articles on Wikipedia; a full removal of this gibberish (which is all it is) is going to be a task representing a massive undertaking, which will no doubt be fought against vehemently by folk with the strong religious bias that produced and spread this information through Wikipedia in the first place." which pretty much expresses my feelings too.

1 or 2 or 3 editors have been around on Wikipedia since 2005 dedicatedly planting the views of User:Poorman (i.e. Poorman="Ebionite") regarding Authentic Gospel of Matthew etc etc etc and it seems very skillful at preventing more mainstream, and more easily fatigued, editors from restoring any semblence of mainstream content.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gospel of Matthew :( In ictu oculi (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]