Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 3: Line 3:
<br clear="all"/>
<br clear="all"/>
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}

== Designation of existence of historical Jesus as fact, non-existence as fringe theory, and subsequent warring, attempts to ban, etc. ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Noloop|Noloop]] ([[User talk:Noloop|talk]]) '''at''' 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Noloop}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Cyclopia}}
*{{userlinks|Bill the Cat 7}}
*{{userlinks|Antique Rose}}
*{{userlinks|Ari89}}
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACyclopia&action=historysubmit&diff=375788048&oldid=375786802]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABill_the_Cat_7&action=historysubmit&diff=375786559&oldid=375308930]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAntique_Rose&action=historysubmit&diff=375786282&oldid=375442942]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAri89&action=historysubmit&diff=375786453&oldid=375332016]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Just_to_clarify_a_few_points]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&action=historysubmit&diff=374429798&oldid=374428667]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Ari89:_Repeated_bad_faith.2C_personal_remarks.2C_etc.]
*[[Talk:Historical_Jesus#Identifying_religions_of_sources]] and [[Talk:Historical_Jesus#NPOV.2FN_-_is_this_a_non-neutral_fork.3F]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Historicity_of_Jesus]

=== Statement by Noloop ===
The basic conduct issue here is editors using the “fringe theory” designation as a basis for excluding views and editors; the designation of “fringe view” is religiously motivated by both editors and sources. In the last week, I’ve been blocked twice and subjected to a proposed topic-ban for inserting an alleged fringe theory into [[Historical Jesus]]. All attempts to question the orthodoxy lead to edit warring.

The alleged fringe theory is that there was no definite [[Historical Jesus]]. This position has become an excuse to POV-fork Jesus-related articles, by dumping non-historicity theories into an article called the [[Christ myth theory]]. It is an excuse to assert in articles that the existence of a historical Jesus is factual.

Virtually all of the sources behind labeling this a fringe theory (and thus behind blocking and excluding editors and views) are Christian theologians.

Sources who think Jesus is the Lord and Savior are not neutral on the existence of Jesus. If you consider X blasphemy, you’re biased on the validity of X. So, the majority of Jesus scholars are biased, since they are Christian theologians. There is also [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias]].

Zero evidence has been provided that the religiously neutral academic community contains any consensus about the existence of a historical Jesus; there is not even a consensus about the definition of "historical Jesus" (see Pagels below). Wikipedia is bursting with assertions that every major scholar accepts the existence of a historical Jesus. This claim boils down to members of the theological community citing each other.

I considered mediation, because there are many issues of content, but they are intertwined with issues of conduct. It is unlikely that mediation will go anywhere. The religiosity and cultural bias inherent in the topic make consensus problematic. The fringe theory issue is community-wide, spanning multiple articles, It would make no sense for the non-historicity of Jesus to be a fringe theory in one article but not another: Holocaust denial is a fringe theory community-wide. There seems to be a precedent for fringe theory disputes to be addressed by arbitration.

Finally, I note that there doesn't appear to be a formal community-wide consensus to label the nonexistence of Jesus a fringe theory, since it is not listed in Category:Fringe theories. Is arbitration the process for listing articles there? A fringe theory is not the same as a minority view. We don’t exclude minority views; we don’t POV-fork articles or topic-ban editors for adding minority dissent.

These specifics give some background to the issue and the use of Wikipedia to promote Christianity.

[[Historicity of Jesus]] contains factual statements essentially characterizing skepticism as a fringe theory.
* The article says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The source is a book by a Christian theologian; not peer-reviewed. Many attempts to attribute it (i.e. treat it as opinion rather than fact) reverted. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=next&oldid=374441114]
* Factual statements in article: "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]
:*105 contains three sources. The first publisher self-describes: "...proudly publishes first-class scholarly works in religion for the academic community...and essential resources for ministry and the life of faith."[http://www.ppcbooks.com/wjkmain.asp]. The author's Web page says: "As we share our faith stories and listen to the faith stories of others... We come to understand our own experience of God better, and we come to recognize new possibilities for the life of faith"[http://www.trinitylutheranseminary.edu/powell]. The 2nd publisher is "Trinity Press" (figure it out) and the third is... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." [http://www.eerdmans.com/].
:* Source 106 is 76 years old, so there's little information. It does contain a chapter called "The Guiding Hand of God in History". [http://books.google.com/books?id=lhE8AAAAIAAJ&hl=en] It is out of date.
:* 107. Published by Eerdman's (see above). Author is a theologian, founder of the Institute for World Christianity [http://www.praystl.org/contact.asp]
:*Source 108 is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, cited in a book called An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. Figure it out.
:* 108 is a theologian: [[James_Dunn_(theologian)]]. Publisher is Eerdman's, Christian press, etc. Not peer-reviewed.

That's a complete summary of the coverage in this article. The reader is told as fact that the non-historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory. Every single source for that claim is a theologian, and one is a bishop; 6/8 sources are from Christian presses. Obviously, no peer review. My attempt to remove the material was reverted.

Note the editors involved in tag-team edit warring: Ari89, Bill the Cat, ReaverFlash. One editor reverts two or three times, then another takes over. Recently, [[User:AKMask]] was subjected to this.

[[Historical Jesus]]
This article is so proselytizing, it's hard to know where to begin. I began with this paragraph: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Jesus&diff=next&oldid=374136491] I converted the factual statements to opinions by attributing them, and identifying sources as Christian theologians. It was immediately reverted. In response to my concern about religious bias in this text, [[User:Ari89]] edited tendentiously, adding a source named [[John Dickson (author)|John Dickson]], "director of the Centre for Public Christianity, a media company that seeks to promote the public understanding of the Christian faith". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Jesus&action=historysubmit&diff=374352681&oldid=374351023]. My removal of it was immediately reverted.

I've been blocked twice for a total of 6 days out of the last 7, for trying to add skepticism to this article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Jesus&action=historysubmit&diff=374795014&oldid=374772902]. In Talk, the reason for removing my skeptical sources was that they advocate a fringe theory: [[Talk:Historical_Jesus#Identifying_religions_of_sources]]
*"in these comments Noloop wishes to bring this back to the fringe theory that Jesus did not exist." [[User:Ari89]]
*"I notice that authors who hold fringe theories that just happen to coincide with Noloop's own personal views are prefixed with "Nobel Prize winner"...[[User:Ari89]]
*"Those who argue that there was no historical Jesus (ie the whole thing was made up later) are definitely into fringe territory.[[User:Elen of the Roads]]
*"The text is blatantly false and/or sourced to fringe theorists who have no current backing in the relevant academic fields." [[User:Bill the Cat 7]]

And in a section on whether it is a POV fork to move all skepticism to [[Christ myth theory]], [[Talk:Historical_Jesus#NPOV.2FN_-_is_this_a_non-neutral_fork.3F]]
* "The problem with your example of the unicorn is that academic consensus is positive on unicorns not existing, and in Jesus existing....Separating fringe views from standard views is not POV forking" [[User:Cyclopia]]
* "the Christ Myth theory is tenuous at best and, so, giving it equal status with an article about the historical figure theory (which is quite well expounded/established) is possibly undue." [[User:Errant]]

Note the editors tag-team edit-warring: Ari89, Bill the Cat, ReaverFlash. In addition to me, [[User:MishMich]] has been subjected to this.

From [[Christ myth theory]] (theory that there is no historical Jesus)
* "The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2].” The footnote contains four sources. The first is a theologian [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/religion-obituaries/6005904/Graham-Stanton.html], not peer-reviewed. The second is a theologian, [[James H. Charlesworth]]; the publisher is Eerdmans, a Christian press. The third is interesting, just because the expert self-describes as recently agnostic--after a life of evangelism. Unfortunately, the original publisher is [[Fortean Times]], a popular magazine focused on science fiction and the paranormal.[http://www.forteantimes.com/]. The 4th source is [[George Albert Wells]]; he doesn't support the historical Jesus theory, and so is misrepresented as considering its opposition a fringe theory. [http://books.google.com/books?id=mUUKAAAACAAJ&dq=isbn:9780879754297&cd=1]
* "The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance.[85]” The source is [[Craig A. Evans]]. The publisher is "Theological Studies: A Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology" [http://www.ts.mu.edu/]

The [[Jesus]] article has the exact same problems. I examined some of its sources in an ANI: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Just_to_clarify_a_few_points] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Typical_example_of_objectionable_editing]. All the sources are evangelical or theological, the publishing houses are Christian, and so on. The ANI was immediately transformed into two proposals to ban me for advocating fringe theories. Roughly 99% of the editors involved believe the existence of historical Jesus is a secular, academic consensus, and 1% their sources support it. I am to be banned for demanding something higher than 1%.

These are the edits of people using Wikipedia to promote their religion. I didn’t look at every source, but I looked at a helluva lot. I see no peer-reviewed, secular basis for the fringe theory accusation. I also didn’t see a peer-reviewed, secular source for the existence of a historical Jesus; maybe that’s the real fringe theory. Heavy reliance on poor-quality sources suggests the case can’t be made with high-quality ones.

Desired outcomes:
* Affirm that the standard for reliable historical sources is not suspended for the historicity of Jesus: peer-reviewed, secular academic presses.
* Affirm that declaring the non-historicity of Jesus a fringe theory requires peer-reviewed, secular academic support, and differs from declaring it a minority view. The following policy is not suspended for the sake of Jesus: "The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every reliable source states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim (e.g. a reliable source states, "consensus is that" or "the literature shows that" the sky is blue)." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Academic_consensus]
* Affirm that the existence of an objective, physical Jesus is a question of fact rather than opinion. As such, religious sources are less reliable than secular ones. The topic is analogous to the origin of the species, arrangement of the solar system, etc. Articles on natural selection are 100% scientific and 0% religious for good reason, a reason that applies here.
* Affirm that this is a subject prone to [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias|cultural bias]]. Christians are biased on the existence of Jesus, yet they are much, much more likely to publish on it. The standard policy of weighting views according to their prominence will end up favoring religion, because the most prominent group takes the existence of Jesus on faith.
* Affirm this guiding principle regarding Anglo-American bias applies to all bias, including religious bias: "(editors) should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus]
* Affirm that religious belief, answering to a Higher Authority, etc., do not override Wikipedia's principles. This is not the place to promote Christianity.
* Affirm that the guideline for neutrality in moral and religious topics is not suspended for Christianity: "On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith. We should then list all points of view, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view]
* Affirm that naming consistency is a part of neutrality. For example, if the theory that Jesus never existed is to be named "Christ myth theory" then the theory that Jesus did exist should be named "Historical Christ theory", or something similar.

The scientific, encyclopedic fact is that there is plenty of evidence of a "Jesus movement” and teachings attributed to Christ. But, that’s true of [[Dionysus]] and [[Orpheus]] too. [[Elaine Pagels]] did not get all her degrees at Bible college:

"The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. But what we can investigate historically is how the "Jesus movement" began. What the new research shows is that we have a wide range of teaching attributed to Jesus." [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pagels03/pagels_index.html] --[[Elaine Pagels]] Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)

Conduct issues.
* The main conduct issue is the tendentious use of low-quality sources to create a “fringe theory” campaign aimed at promoting Christianity and excluding editors who dissent.
* Canvassing and well-poisoning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&action=historysubmit&diff=374429798&oldid=374428667] which led to tag-team edit warring.
* Tendentious editing. Everywhere. For example, the previously mentioned [[John Dickson (author)|John Dickson]] edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Jesus&action=historysubmit&diff=374352681&oldid=374351023]. Or a “discussion” with [[User talk:Antique Rose]] about using evangelist [[Francis Schaeffer]] as a source. Initial diff: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=374412497] Talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Historicity.2C_legend.2C_myth.2C_etc.]
* Hostility. Pretty much everywhere. Excerpted in ANI [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Ari89:_Repeated_bad_faith.2C_personal_remarks.2C_etc.] (kind of old now).
* My Talk page documents my own righteous and pure behavior. Let’s just call it “immaculate conduct."
{{unsigned|Noloop}}

::I'm certainly willing to try content-oriented dispute resolution (although this isn't limited to content), but I'm pretty certain it'll lead nowhere. I feel the Wikipedia community doesn't recognize certain implications of (extreme) systemic bias. The majority of involved editors think it's an objective assertable fact that Jesus existed. Yet, no article has a single source from a peer-reviewed secular journal that says Jesus existed. There is no will to comply with principles on sourcing or the definition of "fringe." Normally, that's a job for persuasion and dispute resolution. So.... is the world's greatest dispute resolution going to persuade Christians that Jesus might not have existed? That it should be open to debate? One has to be sensible. ArbCom does hear cases about fringe theories, even though they are content disputes. What are the guidelines? [[User:Noloop|Noloop]] ([[User talk:Noloop|talk]]) 05:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:::So, now I'm being called a bigot a lot, in various Talk pages. It seems to me the conduct issues alone call for action. But this is all silly and we all know it. The consensus process will not uphold Wikipedia's principles when those principles come into conflict with a major religion. It is a prime case of cultural bias. And the admonishments of various admins about avoiding controversy only reinforce cultural bias, because such admonishments will only be directed at those who challenge majority views. To say it's a fact Jesus existed and cite only Christians is patently absurd. To say skepticism is fringe theory and should be excluded, and cite only Christians, is patently absurd. Yet that is the situation in all these articles. How is this different from the other fringe theory cases (a content matter) that ArbCom considered? [[User:Noloop|Noloop]] ([[User talk:Noloop|talk]]) 03:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Bill the Cat 7 ===

Arbcom will most likely reject this request, so I won't bother to respond to Noloop's opening statement unless the request is granted. In fact, Arbcom will be doing Noloop a merciful favor by rejecting it. But if not, then I'm game. [[User:Bill the Cat 7|Bill the Cat 7]] ([[User talk:Bill the Cat 7|talk]]) 00:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Cyclopia ===
As Bill the Cat above, I will comment in full if the ArbCom decides to take the case. --[[User:Cyclopia|<font color="green">Cycl</font><big>o</big><font color="green">pia</font>]][[User talk:Cyclopia|<font color="red"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 00:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
*'''Recuse''', per my role as a neutral mediator in [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory]]. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Recuse''', per my vote on [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Topic_Ban_2|the discussion to ban Noloop]]. [[User:AlexandrDmitri|Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri)]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 19:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0) ===
*'''Decline''' Seems like a content issue, plus comments like "I don't trust the admin community to be careful or fair." makes me think that if any such case would be accepted, that it would be to the detriment of the filer. I suggest holstering the footgun, and working through DR if anything needs to happen. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 20:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' - content issue that needs to be worked out by the editorial community. One bit of advice for Noloop would be to look back at what happened last time there was an arbitration case involving you, and to read the final decision that was handed down there. You quit back then and quit recently as well. You need to work out how to cope with the pressures that come with editing on Wikipedia. Maybe try a quieter area of the encyclopedia? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', agreeing with both of the above comments. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 00:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', also agree with the comments of my colleagues. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per above. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 13:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Fascinating though the discussion is, it really is a content dispute. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 03:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:36, 29 July 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=376140293"