I kind of believe that breaking tribal taboos maybe involved in the death of many early missionaries, yet one needs evidence for this. I can hardly imagine a way to find it.
To be sure the early Christian times were close to soviet censorship regarding whatever data about any form of organized pagan resistance. AFAIK no pagan tribal documents have remained, either.
So what can he use for evidence? Because unless he really has some serious academic evidence... he is not reporting about anything apart from his own beliefs.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:36 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sensitive subjects on some Wikipedias
2007/7/15, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
"extending and correcting history" sounds a bit arbitrary, to say the
least.
I have LOTS of things that I would rewrite in mainstream history, and even evidence for at least some of them, yet... this would be a new history
book,
not an encyclopedia.
Honestly, I don't understand how they can keep such a stance within the bounds of the NPOV policy, let alone original research. I understand documenting alternative views on a given issue, but ignoring a mainstream view altogether seems wrong to me.
Well, it's not a case of ignoring the mainstream view. However, the discussion is about whether we are to discuss the mainstream view (that Boniface was killed by robbers) and then the criticisms of it (that it might for example have been a planned action of Frisians resisting christening), or whether we are to spend at least as much space to this person's private ideas (that Bonifatius was executed because thirty years earlier he had torn down some holy oaks).