User talk:Jdtabor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Jdtabor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are Professor James Tabor, you need to identify yourself to the Foundation[edit]

Because we have problems with impersonation, I am going to have to ask you to identify yourself to the Foundation. You can do this by sending an e-mail to; be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and an immediate reply may not be possible. Normally you would be blocked until you did this, but in this case I am simply asking you not to edit until you have been confirmed as actually being who you say you are. The edits you have made so far are non-contentious but more substantial edits to anything related to you should be suggested at the article's talk page as mentioned above. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, your email to me should suffice as I'm an OTRS volunteer. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This user has sent verification to the OTRS team. Doug, if you'd like to see the ticket, it's Ticket:2012032510007329. I've put a note on Jdtabor's userpage. Jdtabor, thanks for going to the trouble to do this! GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Dr Tabor. As a new editor to Wikipedia, you might want to be aware of this article talk page post criticizing your religious beliefs as biasing your academic work. Since this post was made by an administrator, it's probably fair to ask if it is an accurate reflection of official Wiki policy. Btw, you have every right to remove information from the article about you if you know it is factually inaccurate per WP:BLP. You also don't need to have your articles previewed by an admin or another editor. That is a bunch of crap. Welcome to Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Glad to join you and as I figure out some of the complexities of posting and interacting maybe I can be of some help, not only on my own entries, but others as well in the field of Christian Origins. I am one of the few academics who supports Wikipedia with my students. Most of my colleagues forbid its use, probably while using it constantly themselves. I am both a donor and a supporter as I think it is one of the greatest ideas on the planet for the dissemination of knowledge. I am a bit surprised to read a quote from a popular newspaper account in 2008 put forth as support for "Religious bias" on my part. I assume by "the book" the writer is talking about my 2006 book, The Jesus Dynasty. I can't imagine what religious convictions I am supposed to hold that would cause me to argue a very historical view of Jesus and early Christianity, much like Bart Ehrman, Dominik Crossan and all the leading historical Jesus scholars in our field who don't deal literally with "mythology" and theology as if it is history--virgin birth stories, resurrection from the dead and bodily ascent to heaven, etc. But since the comment was all over the place, based on that newspaper quotation, it is hard for me to know what your editor was thinking. My own view, as I tried to reflect in editing my own page James Tabor today, was to stick with information, add books published, solid links, and so forth, no so much to get into the vicissitudes of various theological views, passionately held by many when it comes to Jesus, so much as to lead readers to check out the sources. James D. Tabor 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what Ignocrates is calling a "bunch of crap", but there are often problems with people editing their own articles (see WP:COI). For example, removing something that is "factually inaccurate", as Ignocrates puts it, is not necessarily okay. Generally, material can be removed that is challenged and is not reliably sourced. However, removing material that you know is wrong but IS reliably sourced is not acceptable unless you can find other sources that conflict.
As for your most recent changes to the article, I am uncomfortable with them because (1) they add more material without any inline citations and (2) they lengthen the already-too-long list of external links. Generally, almost every factual assertion (other than obvious things like the sun rises) should be sourced with footnotes. The article has no footnotes and has been tagged for that problem for years. I'm not sure what should be done with the article, but its present state is not a good one.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
What I described as a "bunch of crap" was the rather non-specific assertion that Dr. Tabor should have his edits pre-approved, implying that his work on all articles should be subject to that kind of review. That is outrageous. The only constraints per WP:COI should be on articles about him or his publications. It would have been helpful if that had been made clearer from the outset. Ignocrates (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback[edit]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Please read WP:AUTO. I'm glad your first impressions are positive.... it is a great effort indeed.

Ariconte (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


Talk page hints[edit]

It is always good to 'sign' your text with four tildes, see Wikipedia:Signatures. The computer will substitute your user name and the time.

Please indent your replies to increase readability - to do this precede each paragraph with the number of colons (:) appropriate to the level of indentation. See Wikipedia:Indentation and the overall talk page guidelines at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI on Eisenman and Tabor as authors[edit]

You may want to check this out Talk:Ebionites#Eisenman_and_Tabor. I'm not sure how I would respond to seeing my life's work being described as WP:Fringe scholarship. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to the above flawed allegations which state that a single book by an individual is somehow directly equivalent to one's "life work". Also, regarding your own work and topics related to you directly, I think it is probably in your own best interests to read WP:COI, which seems to me to be directly relevant. The question above seems to be about whether your book meets WP:RS standards. You might want to read that page as well. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Stop WP:Stalking me. This is your last warning. Next time I will leave a third user conduct warning on your talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above comment clearly fails to assume good faith as per WP:AGF. Also, I note in my comment I informed this comparatively new editor of some policies and guidelines which are, I believe, perhaps directly relevant to the input he might make. The above comment not only fails to assume good faith, but goes further in actively assuming motivations which are not supported by the evidence, and making unwarranted and unsubstantiated misrepresentations of the conduct of others. But, really, no surprise there.
Dr. Tabor, returning to your own comments, I believe it would be very useful if you responded to the following questions, possibly on the Talk:The Jesus Dynasty page, as they would help us determine whether your work meets W:RS and/or WP:FT status, which would assist us in determining how much space, or weight, to give your claims, and where.
1) Please indicate, exactly, what objective evidence you have to support your assertions regarding James and your views regarding him. So far as I can tell, the only real objective evidence you have presented is the James ossuary and the Talpiot tomb.
2) I have checked the NewsBank, JSTOR, ProQuest and EBSCOHost databanks for reviews of your book in academic journals, because such reviews are an indicator in determining RS/FT status. I have found very few such reviews in academic journals. In fact, I do not even see any clear evidence that the book was submitted to such journals for academic review. Considering that your book seems, at least to me, to be making new and original assertions regarding the James ossuary and the Talpiot tomb as reliable sources on this matter, or, at least, being among the few sources which give such material substantial credibility. It would be very useful if you could provide evidence of reviews in academic journals which support the statements you make in the book. Also, as I believe it is rather standard for academics to submit their works to academic journals, or comments of other academics relating to your book which are included in academic journals, or in books or other sources which have received academic peer review, it would be very useful to know why you chose not to in this case, if, so far as I can see, it was not so submitted.
3) If you believe that the quote from the newspaper which I included in the talk page of your book is either inaccurate or if it does not meet RS standards as per WP:RS, I would welcome your raising such concerns in the appropriate location.
We are always very happy to welcome experts and professionals to wikipedia, sir. Despite the circumstances which seem to have brought you here, I do hope that you find your time here pleasurable. I note that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology is one which has a broad scope, and a number of extant and possible articles, but could use some knowledgeable editors. Other projects, which can be found at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory, would welcome knowledgeable input as well. At least recently, my own personal involvement has been primarily in the religion content, particularly including content which relates to Christianity, primarily because that is the biggest single religious tradition out there, and, thus, has the most articles. It also seems, for whatever reason, to draw more fringe POV pushing of all kinds, and other dubious edits, as well. If you were to wish to involve yourself in that particular content, as the editor who was (somehow) elected lead coordinator of the Christianity WikiProjects in the one election to date we've had, I guess I can offer a kind of "official" invitation to contribute to that content as well. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
John Carter and all: I must apologize here for lack of time and also that I am finding this process and format, with all the jargon with which I am unfamiliar, very confusing. I will try to give this some time if I can be of help here so as follow protocols for editing and "talking." I have been told to leave a signature mark and yet that is precisely what I did above in my initial post here and my name seems to show. I have no idea what the post above means by Ignocrates: Stop Stalking Me. I assume that was not to me, as I would not know even how to begin to stalk someone, but was it against you John Carter? And is there something here between the two of you I am not privy to?
So far as my book the Jesus Dynasty goes it is a popular trade book published with Simon & Schuster, not an academic book per say. In other words, it is intended for the non-specialized, but intelligent general reader, unlike several of my other books with university presses. See my Bio at my page for details. This, however, does not mean it is some kind of "fringe" book. I am thinking you have not really read or examined it or you would have noticed it is fully documented in academic fashion with original sources, but in end-notes that the general reader can consult if one wishes. So far as its ideas go, they are the product of 30 years of my research and if you know the field they are fairly mainstream. The main points are simple ones, well known to scholars who work on the historical Jesus, but they are not popular with theologically motivated reviewers (like my friend Darrel Bock who teaches at the very conservative Dallas Theological Seminar and writes for CT). Namely: 1) That Jesus was a human being, a Jew of his time, with a human father--either Joseph or by some traditions, Pantera; 2) that when he died James his brother took over the movement, and stood above either Peter or John in authority; 4) That he was an apocalyptic messianic type of figure, well known to us from other apocalyptic texts of the period; 5) that his original Jewish message of the Kingdom, preserved in sources like Q and the Didache and the book of James, is in sharp contrast to later Pauline and Orthodox Christian perspectives (surprise--Jesus was not a Christian!); 6) that he was crucified by the Romans and as a human being, like all of us, died; 7) that faith in his resurrection and exaltation to heaven arose among some of his followers, but such claims for any figure of the past are not considered as historical material. You seem to wonder even about some of the most basic elements of this sketch, i.e., that James took over the movement. I quote the sources in my book and there are countless academic books on this subject saying the same--see the bibliography, where I list the main ones. James D. Tabor 21:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. And don't worry about the delay in responding. We very much know that there is a bit of a steep learning curve for editors who jump in the deep end right away, as you are, more or less, being asked to do. Yes, Ignocrates' comments were another in a comparatively regular series of such attacks on me from him. I will refrain from going into details regarding some rather serious conduct issues I see regarding him here, however. FWIW, unfortunately, when I was referring to it being "fringe", it was in relation to WP:FRINGE (WP:FT is actually for Featured Topics. I can't believe I screwed that up). I actually have read the book some years ago. The question of being a "fringe" theory is, basically, in reference to our extant policies and guidelines determining how much weight should be given to individual ideas in an article. I do note however that in your summary above you differ remarkably from Michael Grant's assertions in his book on Jesus. There, basically, he said that religious matters are, basically, religious, not scientific. My question about whether James took over the movement is in relation to whether that belief is one which has received widespread support in the relevant academic community. My own review of the matter has been in regards to the relevant reference works on the topic, from the libraries of St. Louis University, Webster University, Washington University in St. Louis, and the other local libraries. (Yep, I live in St. Louis.)
To a degree, in general, although I'm not right now sure it is necessarily written explicitly anywhere, as the phrasing of policies and guidelines changes rather regularly, unfortunately, the content in our articles is, I think, more or less, supposed to me roughly in accord with content of other highly regarded reference works in the field, where such articles exist anyway. The basic bone of contention here is about how much weight to give material related to your book in the Ebionites article. I acknowledge that there is a rather significant disagreement on the details of the nature of Jesus in the comparatively "secular" academic community and the "religious" (particularly Christian) communities. So far as I have seen, our article on that topic differs rather dramatically in several regards from the majority of similar overviews and discussions in reference sources. We do try to make our content basically neutral in accord with WP:NPOV regarding science and religion, but there is to my eyes a bit of a question regarding the specific degree of acceptance given your opinions in the general academic community regarding that topic. My own base source here is the article in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which seems to me to be the most highly regarded of the recent reference sources on the topic.
We do have a number of articles relating to the general idea of the "historical Jesus". There is a bit of a question, unfortunately, about how much weight (or space) in main articles on a given topic to give the often comparatively new ideas regarding that topic.
The ultimate "bone of contention" here is regarding the Ebionites article. So far as I can tell, there seem to be a number of sources, many of which like yours were intended for the "popular" audience, not the academic audience, which have asserted that James and the early Ebionites were more "Jewish" than Paul and later Christianity. Unfortunately, at least so far as I have seen, that assertion, while a widely reported (and accepted) one in the popular culture, is still, maybe, "up in the air" a little, at least in the general academic world. And we try not to "predict" the content, based on what we think will be later very highly reliable sources, as that can have POV problems. In such cases, we try to make a short section in the main article, as per WP:SS and other policies and guidelines, describing the idea in a rather compressed manner, with the bulk of the material in a separate main article.
I hope that makes some degree of sense to you. Sorry about the verbosity by the way, but like Stephen King I've been accused of diarrhea of the typewriter more than once. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
John, you really should try to curb your diarrhea; you are unreadable.
James, thanks for your cogent and concise summary of your position. Makes sense to me.
-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course it would make sense to you, Michael. After all, you and Iggy have been trying to keep the page in a poor shape for some years now, haven't you? And I notice that even despite your recent reprimand for incivility, you apparently just can't help but continue to insult people? Or is it so central to what might be called your "personality" that you have no control over it at all? John Carter (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Dr. Tabor, I'm sorry you had to be exposed to this kind of incivility. I'm working on a definitive solution to the problem. Best regards. Ignocrates (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I am used to disputes. I inhabit the academic world :-), and archaeology at that, which seems to be particularly contentious. I do find insults though neither helpful nor humane, so I try to avoid them. I will comment on some of the substantive issues mentioned here regarding the Ebionite issue just as soon as I can find the time. James D. Tabor 06:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Your input on Ebionite issues generally will be much appreciated. Good to have you here. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I echo Michael's sentiments, and I would like to help where I am able. However, I have to take a break for a few days, as I have been threatened with a block for the first time in almost 7 years of editing. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
All you have to do to avoid a block is stop making any comment that can be construed as a personal attack. And if you want to discuss that, this is not an appropriate place, please don't subject this new editor to arguments that really don't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Your advice, Doug, would sound more impartial if you'd handed John Carter a similar warning, since he has made, and continues to make, personal attacks (e.g. accusations of lying, irrationalilty, wilful vandalism etc), yet you chose only to "warn" one side. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if it might make more sense to carry on this kind of internal editorial dialogue that has nothing to do with content or my materials per se, in another forum. Not sure how this works but it might make more sense for future readers of these pages. Have a good weekend everyone. James D. Tabor 21:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We do have such a venue (we have places to discuss most things) which is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, and as I've said above, I agree, your talk page is an inappropriate place to carry out this argument.Dougweller (talk)

Professor, you are right, and my apologies about the misuse of your user talk page. Having said that, I'm not entirely sure what you mean about future readers of these pages, because editor talk pages generally don't get "read" by anyone, generally. Obviously, your input on any article talk page would be welcome. However, we really shouldn't have individuals who do have some form of conflict of interest regarding a subject, such as having expressed opinions on the subject in print elsewhere, as you have done, not editing an article except under some sort of "review" by other, non-involved editors. John Carter (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The conflict of interest only extends to The Jesus Dynasty book article. Any broader implication would affect people editing from, say, a Roman Catholic perspective, which I'm sure, John, you would find unacceptable? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 11:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I believe WP:OI can reasonably be assumed to apply to any articles in which the work which is the cause of the conflict would appear. However, I would myself agree that if there are any concerns regarding the specific application of COI, asking a question on the topic at WP:COI/N would probably be the best place to get definitive responses. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
IOW, yes, I was correct, Professor Tabor is able, and encouraged, to edit article about matters on which he is an expert. Conflict of interest only applies to articles about his publications and his own bio page. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 04:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I said nothing even remotely resembling that Michael, and I find what seems to me to possibly be an attempt on your part to put words in my mouth unfortunate. There is a serious question with the Professor, as with any other academic, regarding whether or not material he might add from his publications might be inappropriate to an article for other reasons, such as, for instance, possibly be in support of a fringe theory as per WP:FRINGE. Even if he or others might consider him an "expert", for possibly personal reasons, neither the Professor himself, nor some of his supporters or opponents, should think that any contributions he might make would automatically be acceptable simply because he published a book on the subject. In fact, I remember an academic who was banned from editing because he was trying to adjust the content of the Book of Concord article to better promote his book. In that instance, the name the sockpuppeteer was using was User:Justas Jonas. In such cases, it is legitimate and proper for him to seek approval on the relevant talk page first, or, possibly, for him or others to request input at WP:COI/N. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Would those conditions apply to a Jesuit priest editing on religious articles as well? Just wondering. Ignocrates (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That would best be determined at WP:COI/N. In general, however, no, unless they are in some way promoting their own work. The same would probably apply to individuals who are simply adherents of fringe non-notable cults or NRMs, rather than leaders of same, as well. If you have any such concerns that have any degree of substantive support to them, rather than possibly simply being unfounded allegations, then WP:COI/N would be the place to raise them. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)