Talk:Buddhist influences on Christianity

message: My edit here  seems to be controversial. My reasoning behind it:
* "According to the linguist Zacharias P. Thundy" is not an acceptable citation, though somebody probably has a source and can complete it. I used the CN tag.
* "Living Zen by Robert Linssen (Grove Press New York, 1958) " seems to be from a small press and largely a religious subject matter. A more scholarly source is needed, preferably from a journal or a university press.
* "The Original Jesus" (Element Books, Shaftesbury, 1995), Elmar R Gruber, Holger Kersten. Same as above. Element Books publishes a lot of fringe material, including astrology and various New Age spirituality books. A more scholarly source is needed. 
There is no rationale here for reverting my edit just because I didn't ask for permission on the talk page first. That's only the case in contentious articles with ongoing content disputes. I see no evidence of that here in the last three years. Geogene (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added "unreliable source?" tags for the time being. If these sources aren't either improved or defended in two weeks or so, I'll delete them again, text and all. Geogene (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am looking at your tags, there is no two week time limit on responses, as I am sure you are aware. 22:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant by that, is that instead of deleting that nonsense now, I'm offering to give you a reasonable amount of time to defend the sources, or find better ones. I'm technically not obligated to do that, but it's good practice. Geogene (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Well, look. You've been edit warring for no apparent reason, and here I am trying to work out a solution on this talk page. I've justified my edits. So far, what have you contributed to this? Insults, and nothing else. Under WP:BURDEN, you have to justify those sources if you want to keep them in the article. You seem to be trolling instead. Geogene (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You call the good faith edits of others "nonsense" (I did not create those edits) and then say I am a troll.  You are the troll and technically you are edit warring, another change will put you over 3RR, (which is a bright line only, all edit warring is frowned upon) and you know better.  So how about you let me review what you posted and kill the passive aggressive sarcasm unless you want passive aggressive sarcasm back?  Lipsquid (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just told you I was looking, what is the problem? Serious bad faith.... Lipsquid (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for discarding some sources

message: User:Geogene Would like to make good faith edits that show the full scope of beliefs regarding the topic and my comments are not WP:OR, now you may say that it is WP:UNDUE and I am certainly willing to discuss, surely we can find common ground on edits that contain the best encyclopedic content possible from all sides of the story.  If you want me to revert my edits while we find compromise, I have no problem with that, but work with me here.  What are you looking for specifically?  Lipsquid (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I told you what I'm looking for before you reverted. We've already discussed on my user talk page here , and you dismissed my concerns as "an opinion". My objections: presenting facts that might seem to support the possibility of Buddhism influencing Christianity, but without sources giving that in this same context is WP:SYN, as I've already told you. The facts are true but you're using them to construct a novel argument. Changing "most" to "many" because it's only one source asserting something is also OR/editorializing. If one good secondary source means "most" scholars believe something, that is good enough. And as I said on my talk page, it's not correct to refer to the Septuagint as the "earliest form of the Bible", as it's a translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Presenting it here in a manner that implies that the Old Testament might have originally been written in Greek, or that Greek ideas might have leaked into Judaism, is misleading. It looks as though you're trying to construct your own argument here, in the interest of "balancing" the article. Geogene (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

text: For example, this source you've introduced could be used in an article about Greco-Roman mystery religions influencing Christianity because it actually talks about that . But Buddhism is nowhere to be found there, so it's not useful for that. Geogene (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: GeogeneI gave sources, I can come up with gobs of them and I made no analysis or synthesis.  Any fact I stated is easily checked and verified.  I presented the FACT that the Old Testament WAS translated to Greek, Koine Greek to be specific which was the lingua franca of the Middle East and Mediterranean regions at the time.  Also, Greek ideas did leak into Judaism  Hellenistic Jews, it isn't misleading, it is a FACT!  Unfortunately, it seems we have a WP:Competent problem. I want to work this out, but this is problematic.  I already said I want all of the best information available in a neutral light and I was serious.  Please reconsider and look for compromise.  Lipsquid (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand the neutrality policy, or no original research. I also don't think you understand the spirit of the edit warring guidelines (there's a lot more to this than 3RR). This is understandable, but I feel like it's a waste of time to continue going over this with you when you aren't listening. Take some responsibility for your own misunderstandings instead of blaming it on everyone you get into content disputes with. Geogene (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Filed at  to get opinions on whether it's WP:SYN or not. Geogene (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Lipsquid (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion regarding lede