User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

Request for informal mediation

Greetings. There is an effort underway to bring the Ebionites article back up to FA quality Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA that could use some informal mediation. Progress so far has not been promising and I would like to avoid a second trip to Arbcom. If you are unable to undertake this mediation yourself, please forward this request to an impartial editor or group of editors that have some understanding of the subject matter. All the best. --Ovadyah (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I might be willing to try, but I don't think I understand the exact nature of the dispute there. Could you possibly summarize it for me here? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, the dispute is about whether the sources for an assertion made by Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus (book) and another by James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty, qualify as fringe, and how much, if any attention to be given the material in this article. The Eisenman source was found to be "eccentric" in discussion prior to the RfC on this article, and the Tabor book gets no support right now on the FTN at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty. There have also been WP:SYNTH issues related to grouping them in the article, etc. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a content dispute over reliable sources. The question boils down to whether source material from Robert Eisenman and James Tabor should be considered "fringe" and therefore removed from the article. There is no dispute regarding notability and verifiability. Tabor's book "The Jesus Dynasty" was on the best-seller list. Recent editors may not realize that Loremaster included much of the Tabor material several years ago, before "The Jesus Dynasty" was even published. I am recommending informal mediation because the editing process is broken. There has been a lot of Wiki-lawyering but no attempt to reach a consensus among the editors working on the article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the above statement is I believe a fairly clear refusal to address the real issue, the "fringe" nature of the Eisenman/Tabor sources, which has been raised by me repeatedly, citing sources (basically reviews), and basically ignored. The refusal of either Ovadyah or Michael to provide evidence that these sources might be other than fringe is a substantial concern. There are also questions, even if they have not been expressed on the article talk page, regarding several other issues regarding all three editors recently involved in the article, myself, Ovadyah, and Michael, regarding a number of conduct and other matters. The sources I have found at what J. Gordon Melton has called one of the best religion libraries in the country have been challenged by others because that library is at a Jesuit school. On that basis, I would ask that you check the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Special collections, which I created more or less based on Melton's book, to see if there are any comparatively well-respected libraries in your area which might have reference books which could provide you with information on the current state of knowledge regarding this subject. There were a few non-Christian libraries listed as well by Melton, but nowhere near as manyand, well, as one of the leaders of the Christianity project, but not the other religion projects, I felt there would be fewer objections to my creating the page for the Christianity project. I have also available a number of magazine references and reviews, which I just sent myself at the local library, which might be useful. If you would like them, and I think it might be in your best interests to have them, please drop me an e-mail and I will forward them to you. They might provide you with additional information regarding the recent state of scholarship regarding this subject and how the Eisenman/Tabor books were received. Alternately, you could get them yourself by accessing the Thompson-Gale and Proquest websites, as I did. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am out of it, so good luck! :0) Ovadyah (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ovadyah, if you're out of it, then is there anything to mediate any more? I'm happy to mediate if there are sides that want to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

John Carter evaded mediation and took the dispute directly to AN/I. You might want to follow the progress of the discussion here. The content dispute is just a smokescreen. The real issue is John Carter trying to get Michael C Price and me perma-banned from the article because we are not "fit" to work on it. As far as I know, Michael intends to keep working on the article, so there will still be a need at some point for mediation. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if John Carter winds up getting himself perma-banned from the article, I may return to editing the article and work cooperatively with Michael C Price to return the article to FA quality. After a two and a half year hiatus, I think I can stand to look at it again. Ovadyah (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on John Carter's behaviour here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Commenting", rather than actually addressing matters of policy and stubtance, is as the history of the article will show, just about all Michael Price does. In fact, Ovadyah noted that to me just about as soon as I first showed an interest in the article. And, regarding perma-banning, how should we count the clearly irrelevant arguments Ovadyah has made to insist a fringe theory be included, his hissy-fit when his insult was pointing out to be inaccurate, and the flat lies contained in the comments above. Nor have I ever suggested Ovadyah be permanently anything, other than recognized as someone who, by his own comments, indicates that he may have a very serious conflict of interests regarding anything related to Ebionites. I did and do believe Michael's behavior will eventually lead to further sanctions, and after a one-year restriction, so far as I know, with an initial penalty of that length, permanent restrictions tend to be what happens next. I have kept originals of all correspondence with Ovadyah, including his original statements to me regarding others, which, based on his own recent behavior, would I think be more than interesting. By the way, please note that the only one of late who has made any real attempts to provide sourcing and additional material to the article. What is really required is not mediation per se, but some way to keep editors who consider fringe theories more important than policies and guidelines under control. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So now John Carter is complaining that I talk rather than edit the article? I was under the impression that jaw jaw is better than war war, but perhaps John has a problem with that, if he's seeking to provoke an edit war. Ho hum. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We are not quite ready for mediation, but I expect AN/I will resolve this dispute rather quickly. Meanwhile, is it really up to John Carter to unilaterally demote articles on WikiProject Judaism and WikiProject Jewish History? I would think that would be up to the members of those groups. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am requesting that the article be locked temporarily until this business is sorted out, and to keep John Carter from blanking the article and replacing it with the Catholic Encyclopedia. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If a nosy passer-by can offer an outside opinion, the problem here seems to be that the content of the article Ebionites relies far too much on the two works quoted above. A bit of research -- or making nice to one's favorite librarian -- would lead one to less controversial sources like Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha; Jeffrey J. Bütz, The Brother of Jesus; Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities. As I wrote in the WP:AN/I thread on this dispute, Eisenman's work might be considered a reliable source, but it is considered controversial by the relevant scholarly community, & from what I know of it, James Tabor's work is only of use if one wants to discuss the desposyni -- & even then it may not be the best source to use. So my take on this dispute is that if the parties involved were to simply ignore the existence of these two works & look for other sources (secondary ones exist in abundance) while extending good faith to one another, both the editting environment -- & the article in question -- would rapidly improve. -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to mediate the dispute here, if the parties are willing to accept me as a mediator. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I am willing to accept you as a mediator anytime, but I'm probably not the best person to work on this article, given the current circumstances. There's no way I can work with John Carter after what he tried to pull on me. However, I did try to convince Llywrch to stay around and contribute. I would have enjoyed working with him. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I accept Jayjg's offer of mediation. Go for it.--Michael C. Price ^talk 05:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything to bring some quality to the article. Please note as well that I am in the process of starting a revised version of the article, which will be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites. Summaries of encyclopedia references, found in the SLU library reference section initially, maybe the Washington University etc. libraries later if such exist, will be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites, with listings of authors and sources referenced, where such exist. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

O.K., great, I'll start a mediation section. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

E1b1b: repeated edits of 195.132.185.48 with apparent ethnic motivation

As I know you have also been watching this repeated activity, could I ask you to rollback, if you find it appropriate?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had rolled back his edits before I even noticed your comment. As a slightly different IP he's been making other similar deletions over the past few months, some of which I've also fixed. Also, from his edit history it seems clear he's also Ekarfi13 (talk · contribs), who is doing much the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

QA Wizard Pro delete

Could I get a copy sent to me of this page which was removed because not enough third-party references could be located by couple of people poking around? May consider future article once I've located better references. Spent couple hours on the article so don't want that time completely wasted. SlightlybentOR (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you locate the better references first? Let me know when you have them, and are planning to actually work on the article, then we can talk about restoring the article to a user space. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about Criticism of Judaism

Jayjg, I reread your comments, and I'm trying to understand your position. So a question I have is, of the topics on the page as it exists today, which topic do you has the greatest potential for meeting your view of policy? The reason I'm asking is it would help me understand what direction you would want this article to take (assuming it's not deleted and salted, or doesn't simply melt down). --Nuujinn (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, a proper, encyclopedic discussion of the topic would actually discuss notable critiques of Judaism, not the nonsense that's in it now. If I were you I'd start with Kant and Hegel and their critiques. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Geez, been 25 years since I worked with Kant and Hegel, but I'll give it a go. Thanks for the advice. I also think there's some potential in regarding Purim. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Kohanim

I saw your recent edit to Judaism. It leaves a somewhat unclear situation, where the word "are still mostly restricted" has no meaning. Perhaps you should remove the second sentence also. In addition I would like to ask, since you claim this is undue attention to the subject, whether the subject is treated properly in another article? Debresser (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The word "still" belongs because the last sentence explains what "still" happens today, versus in the time of the Tanakh. For future reference, please note item 3 in the Big Yellow Box at the top of this page, and now in the page edit notice too. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I hadn't payed attention to that notice. Debresser (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Leo Frank and Accusations of Jewish Bias

Jayjg,

I really want to help try making Wikipedia more neutral, so I'm sorry for coming off as selfish and rude to you and others on Wikipedia. Please forgive me I am sorry. I want to publicly apologize to you for saying that our religion was the reason why there is so much bias in the Leo Frank article. I was just concerned that because the subject was about our people that we sometimes tend to lean the articles in our favor. I promise you I will not bring up the subject of Jewish Bias in the Leo Frank article again and I'm sorry for being insensitive and disruptive. The issue I brought up was that the overwhelming majority of the sources in the Leo Frank article are from Jewish Scholars who presuppose Leo Franks innocence and therefore the whole article is slanted. I was trying to suggest that there doesnt seem to be enough sources in the article that bring neutrality and even-handedness to the article. It seems like all the facts which suggest Leo Frank might be guilty were left out. I just feel like this is a problem that is pervasive throughout Wikipedia and I don't know what to do or how to bring this up without being insensitive. I truly feel in my heart of hearts that we often take sides when it comes to topics about our Jewish community. How can I bring this subject up without pissing anyone off or getting myself deleted from here? I do not want to be deleted or cause problems, I really want to help and contribute to wikipedia. I am sorry from my heart about mentioning this and will try to do so in private, because I know it could be seen as disruptive and I want to personally from my HEART say sorry to you. Can we please talk privately about this matter? Machn (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail me; the link is on the side of this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to thank you for hearing me out and I hope my apology on the Leo Frank discussion forum can end the uncomfortable line of discourse. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, could you tell me specifically what I click on to contact you privately? Also, how would you recommend I make an apology in the Leo Frank discussion area to bring the edit war there to a closure? thank you. Machn (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No need for apologies, please just stop talking about Jews, or promoting conspiracy theories about Jews. If you want to e-mail, you can go to the Toolbox at the left side of this screen, and click on the "E-mail this user" tab. Alternatively, you can just click on this link. However, to do either, you must have attached your own Wikipedia account to an e-mail address. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Redaction

Done before your demand; it may genuinely be that others are ignorant of what anybody who deals with policy pages sees with regret. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarona Reiher

You deleted it because it was recreated. She is now in WWE, so her page should and needs to be put back up. Y5nthon5a (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)