User talk:PanaRio

Page-blocked from Pool of Bethesda

Thank you for creating an account. You are obviously the same person who has been disrupting Pool of Bethesda from several different IPs. You have been blocked indefinitely from the article. Note that you may still edit Talk:Pool of Bethesda, as well as the rest of Wikipedia. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 19:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen,

It would be nice of you to explain how I disrupted the Pool of Bethesda article, by restoring the original Wikipedia text, that has been constantly distorted by uncareful editors, using vague and confusive language, over the text and the scholarly citations. Concerning the supposed "disruptions" I made: First of all, regarding the "Gospel account", it is evident that the Pool of Bethesda was an Asclepieion in the 1st century AD, as this is the assertion of the scholarly consensus, and this is what the original Wikipedia text said.

Secondly, in the History part, "Hellenistic and Roman Temples", Doug Weller attributes exclusively the first statement to Jeremy O' Connor, ignoring the second citation of André Duprez. Hence, this edition is false and misleading, since Connor is not the only one to make this statement. The same applies to the third statement, where Weller again ignores the citation of André Duprez. Also, the editorial change of the previously written "as part of an asclepieion" to "with a religious/medical function" is not only distorting the original text, contradicting the provided scholarly sources, but it is also non-sensical and incoherent with the fourth statement. If the Pool of Bethesda was not an Asclepieion (pagan shrine of Asclepius) as it had baths with a vague religious/medical purpose, then how could this have to do with non-Jewish religious presence in Jerusalem, making the presence of the pool outside of the holy city, tolerable to the Jews? Furthermore, concerning the last statement, Hadrian would not have expanded the site into a large temple of Asclepius and Serapis, if this hadn't already been an asclepieion. (Since the conversion of a non-pagan shrine into a pagan one is incompatible with pagan customs. Hadrian could not have converted a medical Jewish pool into an asclepieion, otherwise he would have done the same with the Pool of Siloam). Consequently, the editorial change is not only misleading (creating the impression that Hadrian changed the site's "religious/medical" use and turned the baths into an large asclepieion), but it is also contradicting the provided scholarly citations. It is also incongruent with the "Relation to pagan healing" part of the relevant Wikipedia article "Healing the paralytic at Bethesda".

Taking into account all the aforementioned points, I call and please you to revise your act of blocking me, and in your turn, to show me any errors that I have made.

Yours sincerely,

PanaRio PanaRio (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You were urged repeatedly to discuss these matters on the talkpage, see for instance this edit summary, and this. But you never went there, instead choosing to use various IPs and now an account to push through your preferred content. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and that's why I blocked you. I'm acting as an admin; I'm no expert on the content of the article, and am not up for discussing it here with you. If you open a discussion on Talk:Pool of Bethesda, the editors you have been warring with will hopefully reply, and answer the questions you post above. Note also that the article is supposed to go exclusively by reliable secondary sources, not by your own arguments. See the No original research policy. Bishonen | tålk 08:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC).

I understand. I forgot to inform you, that I am new in Wikipedia. Previously I did not have an account, hence I created one in order to provide the Wikipedia with every help of amelioration. The fact, that I saw this article being changed constantly, despite the original text and the provided citations, made me create an account in order to stop this. And this is how I lately found out about the talk page (of which previously I was not aware of). Is restoring the original text "pushing through my preferred content"? That was the original text that was being distorted as I demonstrated above, it had nothing to do with "preferance". As I stated above, the corrections and restorations I made are based on the scholarly sources that are provided in the citations. Nonetheless, you ignored the fact that the aforementioned editor ignored the citations and attributed all the statements exclusively to one scholar, (omitting the other source) as well as using confounding language which is non-sensical and incoherent with the sources. You could check this out by yourself at first. Despite this, you ventured to block me, who tried to restore the original language of the text, and let this editor change with confusive language the text by omitting the cited sources. Besides, could you show me from the editorial history where did I supposedly express my own arguments into the Wikipedia article, that is to go exclusively on reliable secondary sources (since you say so)? Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Am I to be blocked when I was trying to stop the apparent misuse of a distorting editor, which of course you as an administrator should have noticed? Although I explained the reasons, it seems you did not take them into account. PanaRio (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I of course disagree with the characterisation of my edits. And as pointed out, you never tried to justify you edits by bringing sources to the talk page. As an IP you were told several times to use the talk page, but you made no effort to do so. My edit summaries made it clear that there was a talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Doug Weller, You can and have every right to disagree with an actual criticism of your "edits". Nonetheless, it should be noted that as a supposed editor, you are not to change the language of the text, by attributing the statements solely-exclusively to one specific scholar, while ignoring the other scholar, pointed in the provided citation. Not only did you attribute the statements exclusively to Jeremy O' Connor (ignoring the citation of André Duprez), but you also kept changing and distorting the original text, despite my many efforts to preserve the text from your persistent change. You also, erased the original asclepieion references, replacing them with vague references to "baths", "with a religious/medical use", which of course are non-sensical and incoherent with the rest of the text as well as with the scholarly consensus, indicated in the citations. (Which by the way I explain in my answer to Bishonen). Nonetheless, if you had read my previous response, I am new in Wikipedia, as I was unaware of the talk page's function. Even though I could see that, I did not know how it worked, since I recently started to understand the Wikipedia function as a new editor. I just had to make a Wikipedia account in order to prevent your persistent misrepresentation of the text. Perhaps you could have corrected me in this response, where I was wrong in my points (which you did not), instead of keeping the persistence of the same distortions. PanaRio (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

More personal attacks. And what does “supposed editor” mean? Doug Weller talk 19:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

These are not personal attacks, but just a profound criticism of your editing actions. The expression of "supposed editor" indicates that as an editor you are supposed to be, you have to follow the usual editing methods (such as taking into account the citations before attributing a statement exclusively to one scholar while ignoring the other: thus creating confusion into the text. Or in the best case, avoiding use of vague language that is incoherent with the rest of the text as well as with the scholarly citations). It is obvious that you distorted the text by doing the aforementioned things, yet you interpret that as "more personal attacks". If omission of cited scholars, attribution of statements exclusively to one scholar and use of vague and incoherent language aren't distortions of the text and misrepresentation of facts, then what are they? I hope that, at least, you know the meaning of the words "attack" and "critism" as well as the difference of their meaning. Apparently you avoided and failed again to explain yourself, concerning my aforementioned judgemental points on your edition. lf you are correct on the subject and justified about your changes, why do you still avoid explaining your points on this? PanaRio (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You still haven’t used the article talk page and you continue to complain in vague generalities instead of specifics.. Doug Weller talk 21:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)