Talk:Gospel of Marcion

message: There are a lot of references for this possibility here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcion as pre-dating Luke 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Marcion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121130122725/www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/meadmarcion.htm to http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/meadmarcion.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What this article needs is a summary of Tyson to balance the summary of Harnack.  Deipnosophista (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you think of the current version of the article? Veverve (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: Epinoia recommended that I take our talk from his user page to the talk page for this entry... I'm copying our thread thus far... Input and suggestions are welcome. I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to learn how the process works. Thank you for your patience with me. Obviously, I have a clear interest as a subject matter expert. I'd like to start a conversation with the editorial community in the interest of seeing if we can find some consensus. I'm quite willing to contribute to the article without saying anything about my research, but of course I'd also like my research to be read and considered as part of the broader conversation.
.....................
New to Wikipedia... Thanks for helping to teach me the rules of the road. Would you kindly take some time to review my work and come to your own conclusion about whether it deserves at least some mention on this page? By all means, please ask additional editors on or outside of Wikipedia who have expertise in early Christianity for their views. As noted in my edit, Phil Tite of U Washington has made a robust public statement of support for this research. If having more endorsements would help, I can ask other colleagues to do the same thing.
The open science book format (a LODLIB) is a new Linked Open Data and Open Science approach to academic publishing that I'm pioneering as a recognized expert both in Religious Studies and Information Science. Archiving scholarly findings permanently in open science repositories is common in the hard sciences (e.g., COVID research datasets and pre-prints), but almost entirely foreign to the humanities, especially as a mode of book creation, distribution, and production that sidesteps traditional publisher monopolies. It is quite resonant with Wikipedia's commitment to transparency and global open peer review.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Vocesanticae (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Vocesanticae: — please read the Wikipedia guideline WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Your work has not yet gone through this process and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source (WP:RS) — please also read other guidelines such as WP:COI, WP:UNDUE, WP:PUFFERY, WP:REFSPAM, WP:PROMO, etc. — it's not my job to "ask additional editors on or outside of Wikipedia who have expertise in early Christianity for their views" — the proper place to address such issues is on the Talk page of the appropriate articles (WP:TALK) — you can initiate a Request for Comment if you wish WP:RFC — in the meantime, please avoid using Wikipedia as means of promoting your work — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

text: — see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and other guidelines already provided — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: — take it to the Talk page (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Wikipedia:Talk dos and don'ts) — I am only one editor and Wikipedia is based on consensus (Wikipedia:Consensus) — if consensus can be reached, then there is no problem — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the two-source theory to the section "As a version of Mark" — doi are not included in the reference as doi is usually for journals, but feel free to add them to the reference if you wish — cheers, Epinoia (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 chapter and 2020 LODLIB on Marcion's Gospel 

message: The title of the article is Gospel of Marcion so that implies that the main name is Gospel of Marcion, not Gospel of The Lord. I'm reverting an edit that changes the name throughout the article. Andrew.schalk (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gospel of The Lord 

message: Alright? Andrew.schalk (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm cleaning up this article fyi. 

message: Inviting Wikipedia editors to read and consider including/citing four journal articles and eight related datasets recently peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Open Humanities Data.
* "Normalized Datasets of Hahn's and Zahn's Reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel." Journal of Open Humanities Data 7.31 (2021) 1–5. doi.org/10.5334/johd.63
* "Normalized Datasets of Harnack's Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel." Journal of Open Humanities Data 7.24 (2021) 1–7. doi.org/10.5334/johd.47
* "Normalized Datasets of Klinghardt's and Nicolotti's Reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel." Journal of Open Humanities Data 7.32 (2021) 1–6. doi.org/10.5334/johd.70
* "Normalized Datasets of Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel." Journal of Open Humanities Data 7.27 (2021) 1–6. doi.org/10.5334/johd.57
On that note, please consider adding references to all eight major reconstructions to the opening lines of the article, or making a new subsection detailing all eight major reconstructions published so far. Currently the opening of the article only mentions the reconstructions by Harnack and Roth, which is prejudicially narrow.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocesanticae (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normalized and Morphologically Tagged Datasets of Marcion's Gospel