"25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I was acting on the advice of the admin who blocked you. The responses have a great deal of value, particularly as they're from experienced editors, rather than SPAs with fewer than 500 edits.  (talk) (contributions) 
I agree with Carl and other users that it is important for material to be properly sourced and to avoid original research and synthesis. I was concerned with the first sentence in the section Spin added:
For centuries the common story of the birth of Jesus has been a product of the two birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, but it is not easy to understand the progress of the individual birth narrative in each gospel, because the content of the other narrative is already too well ingrained in our approach to the material, so, in order to clarify the relationship between them, the basic elements are compared in the following table.'
The assertion that ""it is not easy to understand the progress of the individual birth narrative in each gospel"" is a matter of opinion and needs an in-line citation refering to a reliable source. Same thing for the assertion ""because the content of the other narrative is already too well ingrained in our approach to the material"". According to whom? Once again, it needs to refer to a reliable source.
It may be more productive to show the suggested section and table on this talk page or on a sub-page and then have editors comment and work through differences before adding the material into the article. At present there's no consensus to add the material, which means that Spin puts something in and then another editor like Carl removes it. In situations like this it's best to slow down, follow 1RR, and work through issues through talk page conversations. Alternatively, third opinions or other dispute resolution mechanism may help. Cheers,  
For the moment I have removed the introductory comment and left the original statement. (I'll just remind you of all the Christmas creches which depict the shepherds and the magi together, all the paintings which do the same, the comments here of people who cannot accept the scholarly opinion that Matthew has Joseph living in Bethlehem only to move to Nazareth at the end of the narrative.) 
I don't understand how a person will work through issues when they have successfully erased the material. One needs to be constructive to make progress on Wiki, not destructive. It is the dialog which allows progress. If a person doesn't want to enter into a constructive dialog, then it doesn't matter how one proceeds. 
So, how about it, Carl Bunderson, can you be constructive on the issue?  control 
I have been constructive until I am blue in the face. You've no sense of how OR, RS, and primary sources all interact. A clear majority of persons have indicated that your edits are inappropriate, you merely obstinately refuse to acknowledge it. Talking to you does absolutely no good.  (talk) (contributions) 
You have not been at all constructive. You don't use the notion of primary sources as indicated in the material I've already quoted. All you've done is to opine that it is OR which it plainly isn't. You don't give constructive indications as to how to improve the material. Constructive indications involve proposing alternatives that would make the material acceptable to you. As to primary sources, again, this is what Wiki says:
Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.
I make no conclusions about the material. I don't make any interpretations of the material. You seem to me to simply be wrong in your interpretation of the rules.  control 22:"