User talk:Jayjg/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Holocaust template

Hi you said that Mohammad Amin al-Husayni wasn responsible for the Holocaust. Inside the Holocaust templates there are person named who share a much lighter responsibility then him. --Santiago84 (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

While it's clear that he supported the Nazi efforts, he didn't actually have a strong hand in the actual carrying out of the genocide of the Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

He made direct suggestions to Hitler. During world war 2 he was at Hitlers Side. He was part of planing the Holocaust, and planing it is also "carrying out". He recruited Muslims to several german squads, signed contracts for a shared final solution to jews for the arab world. --Santiago84 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Monty the meerkat

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

some help with copy-editing?

Hi, when and if you have a time, could you please take a look at my 2 new articles #1 and #2? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for S-Preme

An editor has asked for a deletion review of S-Preme. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lifebaka++ 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Ebionites regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As informal mediator of the content dispute on the Ebionites article, I thought you might want to know about this. Ovadyah (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The formal mediation process has aborted due to lack of mediators. Jayjg, would you be prepared to act as mediator again, either formally or informally, if John Carter withdrew his objection? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 02:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with this suggestion. However, John Carter may first need to deal with some copyright issues. Since we have already given our initial statements, would you might stepping in as the formal mediator? Ovadyah (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani has just informed me on my talk page that he is dropping out from editing the article, at least in the near term, and will therefore not be participating in the mediation. As both of you know, I have great respect for Nishidani's scholarship, and I think we could have worked through his concerns over method. Of course, I have no objection to his joining in the the mediation process in the future if time permits. Let's move forward. Ovadyah (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try mediating again, if John Carter agrees. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The formal mediation is now closed for lack of a mediator. I'm not sure where this leaves us. Probably nowhere until my COIN is resolved, so maybe we should just wait a bit and then regroup. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that my COIN has been archived with no action taken. John Carter appears to be off-Wiki for an extended period, so let's revisit the mediation discussion when he returns. Back to constructive editing. Ovadyah (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that the COIN is over, I ask again that this attack page be removed. The stated purpose of this page was for COIN, and that is ended with no action taken against me. There is no constructive reason to keep it around. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked him to blank it now. Let's give John a couple of days to respond. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

John Carter appears to be off-Wiki for an extended period. How much longer do you want to wait? It's dirty pool to set up an attack page against another editor, direct people to it from an article talk page, and then just disappear. Ovadyah (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the copyright violations at User:John_Carter/Ebionites, he has been asked twice now to take care of it here and here but has so far refused here. It might be a good idea to keep an eye on that too, as Smartse is not (yet) an admin. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't copyright allow quotes? I can't see that JC's evidence page is that terrible - if he wants to keep it, let him. But he should remove any libellous stuff. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You can copy excerpts from an article as quotes, but you can't copy an entire encyclopedic article and say that the entire article is a quote. The problem is compounded by leaving links on the article talk page, and individual editor's talk pages, that direct other editors to that page. This is a policy not a guideline, so copyright is either respected here or is isn't, here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Ovadyah (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The page has been deloeted. Noting that the request for formal mediation has been rejected, and that I see clear problems with the behavior of editors who have engaged in a significant degree of policy and guideline violations, I am having to consider whether the only way this matter could ever be really resolved would be through arbitration, in part based on the obvious POV of some of the editors involved and their refusal to get to the point. In all honesty, although I have no particular objections to the informal mediation proposed, I don't see how it is necessarily likely to make the article more clearly adhere to the encyclopedic standards required as per the first pillar of wikipedia as per WP:PILLARS. And, of course, it should be noted that Ovadyah has been maintaining his own attack page for some time, but apparently had no objections to that. ;) John Carter (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

O.K., the issue of the page appears to be resolved. I'm happy to try informal mediation again, if all parties agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree to mediation, whether formal or informal. It should be noted that formal mediation was accepted, and it was only archived for lack of a mediator. The root of this dispute is over content, and the matter should be resolved there if possible. Ovadyah (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael has already assented to mediation (see above), so let's re-initiate formal mediation with Jayjg as the mediator. We have already made our opening statements there. Jayjg can you notify AGK, or do you want one of us to do it? Ovadyah (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree that the root of the discussion is about content. So far as I can see from the article talk page, there has been no support for Eisenman or Tabor being included in the article by any parties other than Michael and Ovadyah for some time now. Given that lack of support, I have to say that there is a fundamental behavior question regarding ]WP:IDHT on the part of both of those individuals. Honestly, I have seen nothing which would indicate to me that either of those parties has any intention of ever acknowledging that the fringe theories they support, including those of Keith Akers (which may be related to Eisenman) should receive much, if any, weight in the article. On that basis, I am still very much thinking that arbitration may be the only way to address the matter, although I suppose there might be some reason to give mediation a chance, if the problematic behavior mentioned above does not continue. I would specifically think that following content guidelines, which I do not believe has been done, would be a necessity. I do not know that any independent reliable sources which specifically support the theories of either Eisenman or Tabor since they have been published have yet been produced. In fact, I believe the issue has been avoided. I would believe the best way to indicate that mediation would be useful would be for that matter to be addressed quickly, and no longer basically ignored as it has been for some time now. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. If you believe this dispute is not about content, why did you initiate formal mediation? Ovadyah (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

One, the dispute is only partially about content, as I think all recent input from other than you and Michael have indicated the sources fail {{WP:FT]]. Thus, while content is involved in the discussion, the larger conduct issue of WP:IDHT is also relevant. And, of course, it would be good to try all options before taking the final step of arbitration, at least in part to ensure that the problematic conduct is still ongoing. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, are you prepared to resume formal mediation? Ovadyah (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, John Carter has not yet assented to mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind dropping a note on his talk page asking him if he does or does not intend to resume mediation? Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain he's watching this conversation. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. In that case, I'll resume constructive editing on the article, and I'll see you in the next round (whatever that is). Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Since our efforts toward resuming mediation are at a standstill, I am attempting to work out some of the outstanding issues one-on-one with Nishidani on my talk page. I hope this will eventually provide some impetus to the larger group of editors to resolve our differences over content. Ovadyah (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

John Carter filed for Arbitration today on the Ebionites article, so I guess that means "no" to mediation. Imo, that is a mistake. We have been making good progress on the article. Ovadyah (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the arbcoms is suggesting that mediation should be resumed (see the arbcom entry). If you both could comment on this, that would be helpful. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The formal mediation page and formal mediation talk page have been deleted, so the discussion of further attempts at mediation is now moot. Ovadyah (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on Nishidani's talk page asking him to clarify his status to Newyorkbrad and the arbitration committee. If he is an involved party, I'm pretty sure Brad wants him to either accept or decline mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If I am understanding Nishidani's explanation correctly on the arbitration page, he is in effect recusing himself from mediation by reclassifying his status to that of an uninvolved party. (I apologize if I have this wrong.) That's an important distinction because a recusal is not a rejection, and therefore the mediation process continues. We are back to waiting on John Carter in what is now a three person mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I really don't know what to do there, but I suppose it can indeed be taken as an effective recusal. The precedent was that, given our prior difficulties, I thought I should recuse from the earlier meditation becaue my presence there, due to my own oversight, might have complicated things, and Jayjg concurred. I have, throughout this, I think, tried to maintain a certain neutrality with regard to the 3 historic parties, and focused just on the text. I am effectively uninvolved because for the forseeable future I won't be dedicating any concentrated effort on the article, and haven't in the past.

By the way Jayjg, just by coincidence, I noted that 'Daiches' is registered on a wiki page as a Scottish name. I can't ascertain precisely its etymology but it is associated with a distingushed line of Lithuanian rabbis, as you must know. Perhaps you'd like to check it, and, if I'm correct in my surmise, correct it (Lithuanian? Hebrew? Lithuanian-Hebrew?) Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually know its etymology, but it is associated with a long line of Lithuanian rabbis, and we do have articles on two of the scions of that family, David Daiches and Jenni Calder. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, at the risk of confusing even myself, let me try to put this in terms of a risk/benefit analysis. If you are planning on participating in arbitration as an involved party beyond the opening statements - that means once the pages are opened, contributing to the Evidence page and findings of fact on the Workshop page just like last time - the doors to the cabin are closed and you are along for the ride. Two consequences result from taking that position (and it's fine with me by the way). 1. Mediation is rejected by one of the involved parties. In that case, there is nothing to be gained by waiting, and we should tell Nyb to move immediately to arbitration. 2. The behavior of all participants is evaluated in arbitration. While I personally feel that the risk to you is very small, it isn't zero either. Ovadyah (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation proposal

Perhaps we made a mistake in the previous mediation round by starting with the most contentious issues, relating to relationship of James to Jesus and the Jerusalem church. Perhaps we could restart mediation if we tackled some of the other issues first; I suggest we start with the relationship of the Ebionites to John the Baptist and/or their possible Essene origins? Ovadyah, IIRC, indicated that there have been developments in this area in the last few years, and JC's position is closer to mine (I think) on this than other topics. Perhaps if we could get going on this it might be easier to tackle the other stuff later? -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I'm open to any reasonable proposal to resolve even part of this dispute through mediation. That's what I tried to do with Nishidani on my talk page. However, arbitration has been accepted, and it is temporarily being held in abeyance. Nishidani can't recuse himself from mediation, arguing that his involvement was too tangential, and then have at it (that is to say have at you) in arbitration. As I tried to explain above, he is either in or out. If he is in, he has already rejected mediation and it's over. We move on to arbitration. If he is out (by changing his status to an uninvolved party), he has recused himself from mediation and the entire arbitration process. If that's the case, we can keep mediation going with three parties. That's what we need to know from him before we can move forward. He is either all in or all out. Ovadyah (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the risk/benefit analysis. If there were a risk I would be in like Flynn, for the sheer thrll of running a gauntlet. There is no 'risk' to me there. There is no benefit, either, since whatever happens, what it means is rather boring. I know the article and the subject fairly well. It is irremediably blocked, and turns on a number's game basically. I prefer to keep the status I've always had there, i.e., of someone quite happy to chip in if help is asked for. Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to let this go. I realize now that I have been arguing my points based on an unwarranted assumption - that it is hypocritical to spend no time actually contributing content to an article, or working through content-related issues in mediation, but it is perfectly fine to lecture and bully other editors as to what they should and shouldn't be doing on the article talk page, and even to the point of arbitration. Clearly, there are other editors who see this as perfectly acceptable behavior. Therefore, as I said, I'm letting this go. We can spend the next four weeks twiddling our thumbs and then go to arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying that I bully and lecture people on the talk page, and show an hypocritical attitude in refraining from actually editing that mess. I've said for years that Primary Sources should not be directly accessed. You and John agree with me, but they remain there. I have only, on request, explained on talk pages what is wrong with the text, and, (read my last comments there) got trouted, only then to find that the lead, which was a mess, was altered along the lines I suggested. I thought it a courtesy not to edit directly to the page, and also a way of avoiding the probable edit war were I to do so. I still think mediation is pointless because this has boiled down, independently of what individual editors want, to a stalemated numbers game, and I am not interest in getting involved in politicking. Were there a dozen people active on the page, this would be simple. With 3, the temptation to seek alliances, rather than simply edit towards the best RS, is difficult to ignore. There lies my insistance that the rules be tightened for articles like this, so that all editors are constrained to propose content only if it meets with the best quality academic sources. Nishidani (talk)

"There lies my insistance that the rules be tightened for articles like this". Thus you admit that the article is in conformance with existing rules? If you wish to change the rules then go to the policy talk pages. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anything about you. I was saying that the fault is mine, for not stepping back and realizing that not everyone sees the world, or this dispute, in the same way. Ovadyah (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Ovadyah. I was addressing trying to get JC to resume mediation - whether N wants to join is up to him. I take your points above, with the priviso that N can change his mind, of course. But the main sticking point is JC; he still hasn't responded to SirFozzie's request with an explicit response. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 01:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't compel John Carter to cooperate. It's up to him. However, I don't intend to wait around for 4 weeks watching John Carter run out the clock by doing nothing. I'm going to ask Brad to give him (all involved parties) a reasonable time limit to respond. If he still doesn't respond, it's up to the arbitration committee to decide whether that is a demonstration of bad faith toward the committee. With respect to N, he will have the same time-line as everyone else to respond, and also to change his mind. Ovadyah (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on Newyorkbrad's talk page. I don't see anything more to be done here. Nyb either sets a time limit to keep the process moving or he doesn't. John Carter either shows up or he doesn't. Ovadyah (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I continue to be appalled by the tone of some of the other editors here. I have repeatedly raised information from the most reliable of independent sources, and have produced verbatim quotations from them. What has happened? It has been completely ignored by Ovadyah and Michael, who continue in their arguments about other sources, while ignoring them. As opposed to both Michael and Ovadyah, when Ovadyah challenged the veracity of the reproductions, I unilaterally stated that I would refrain from editing on that basis, on the possibly mistaken belief that those two editors would act in good faith and address them. I also note the numerous times Ovadyah and Michael have both indulged in completely irrelevant commentary as opposed to directly responding to the material introduced. I cannot believe that any independent outsider would consider this total refusal to deal with material which has been available for a substantial period of time to be acceptable.

Ovadyah has commented elsewhere about the number of edits to the article itself, and how both he and Michael have more. I believe my comments above directly address that point. I am however still very curious why the both of them seem to substantially ignore the material I have produced in good faith. Ovadyah has apparently come to the conclusion that these sources are somehow less important than the views of Tabor and others, which seem to agree with the opinions of the Ebionite Jewish Community. The sources there are I belive very easily available, and could be verified by others, even if Ovadyah and Michael find themselves unable (or perhaps unwilling?) to address matters of those opinions.

If Michael and Ovadyah can force themselves at some point to actually deal in a reasonable way with material which disagrees with their own opinions on this matter, then there will be some basis for reasonable discussion. If they continue to ignore that material, as they have for some time now, then I believe that behavior is sufficient basis for a call for arbitration. The ball is, basically, in their court. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on what you have just said, Are you prepared to resume formal mediation?, or Are you willing to stipulate to the arbitration committee that you reject any further attempts at mediation? Take a position and stick to it. Ovadyah (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, and for the record, your statement that you were compelled to refrain from editing the article because the veracity of your sources was challenged is a complete crock. Ovadyah (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, your own attempt to rephrase my comments with the quotation "compelled", which is nowhere included or indicated in the comments I made, make it clear that the "complete crock" in this instance is your own comments, which seem to be a continuation of your ongoing attempts to engage in insults and personal derogation rather than dealing with matters of substance. Is there any particularly good reason you continue in this manner? Could it be, possibly, that our article is, so far as I can seen, the only independent site which gives any credence to the beliefs of the EJC, that the EJC itself has noted this fact and pointed toward our article for validation of their beliefs (this includes a statement revised some time ago to the effect that we "supported" his claims - that claim was revised in I think December 2009, although I didn't keep a copy of the earlier version), and it (the EJC) would very much resist having the only independent quasi-reliable source it has pointed to as supporting it be revised to indicate the more accurate opinions which do not directly support their contentions? John Carter (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Who wrote the section of the article that mentions neo-Ebionites, and specifically the EJC? Oh wait, that was you. Ovadyah (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Ovadyah, you're right. You, who have been "interested" in the EJC since your first edit to your user page, had somehow refrained from actually including any references to it in the article. And I had indicated on both of your talk pages some time ago that if I did find any independent reliable sources on the subject, I would add them. In fact, when Michael proposed a separate article on the neo-Ebionite groups, I agreed to it, provided sufficient independent reliable sources could be found. It was you who objected to that proposal, wasn't it? Could that possibly be because the EJC website has indicated that the EJC would not want a separate article, because that article might include mention of other neo-Ebionite groups? I believe it is verifiable that such statements are on its website. Tell me, Ovadyah, why did you, who elsewhere were so insistent on people "having heard of" Shemayah Phillips, so averse to any explicit mention of the group in the article? Could it be because you were acting on Philipps' statements, or might it simply be that you prefer having the entire article be reflective of the EJC, and, basically, ignoring or otherwise minimizing the majority of the independent reliable sources which don't agree with it? John Carter (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this last bit of insight. It will make great reading in arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you intend to participate in formal mediation or not? Ovadyah (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, Newyorkbrad left a response to my note on his talk page. He wants you to make the call as the mediator on when enough is enough for the arbitration committee. Ovadyah (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

John, you are effectively saying: "I have problems with these editors, therefore I will not enter mediation with them." This is nonsense; the problems are to be addressed by entering mediation; they are not an excuse for refusing mediation. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please refrain from making unfounded assertions as the one above. I was saying nothing of the kind. It would be very useful if the two of you could refrain from the prejudicial rephrasing you have both indulged in in this section and confine your comments to the matter at hand. It would probably adhere better to policies and guidelines as well. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing coeditors is not making "unfounded assertions". -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is in?

As far as I'm concerned, the mediation must include John Carter, Ovadyah, and Michael Price to succeed. Please indicate below your willingness to participate in the mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Will participate

• Accept. Ovadyah (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Changing my vote to reject. Ovadyah (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept - on the condition we do this through resuming formal mediation, which was opened and only archived for lack of a mediator. Ovadyah (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept - provided the material included below is addressed. In effect, Jayjg, while I applaud you for your ongoing efforts in trying to bring this matter to resolution, I also believe that you are, according to what has been said elsewhere, also basically acting in the position of an ArbCom appointee. It is on that basis that I believe that the matters introduced by me below were raised. I do not envy you the tasks, if you choose to take them, but I believe that a review of the recent history of the article, including the article talk page and the relevant talk pages of involved editors, indicates that such would be called for. And, yes, I do believe that there is good reason to believe that the involvement of other senior editors who have a greater knowledge of RS, FT, and such would be welcome and actually called for. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Will not participate

• Reject - After two days of putting up with John Carter's sarcastic diatribes on the article talk page, I realize he has no intention of attempting to reach a resolution to the problems in good faith. Therefore, this last attempt at mediation is pointless. Let's go to arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Conditional

I would participate, however, I would add a few conditions which I believe pretty much, given the 2-1 attitude which has prevailed on the page for some time, even if the apparent support for the so called 'majority' opinion is at best dubious, that there would be a virtual necessity for the involvement of other parties, who may not share the clear biases that both Michael and Ovadyah clearly have in my eyes, as well as their own assertions of my bias, which they have used to apparently ignore any and all evidence I have produced. Also, I believe that there is a necessity that someone, possibly Jayjg, ensure that conduct guidelines are adhered to, and that any further attempts on the parts of Michael and Ovadyah to ignore or other try to minimize what seems to me the majority of evidence which contradicts their assertions be directly commented upon, and that, should the matter be forced to return to arbitration on that basis or any other, that material regarding such misconduct be presented to the ArbCom. And, yes, I would welcome the involvement of any other editors. I believe the ones I named on the Request for Arbitration would all be good ones, as would Ret. Prof. LLwyrich, and Vassayana, and maybe a few others. I would very much welcome if you, Jayjg, in the capacity as mediator, would request the input of such people in the discussion. And, finally, I would very much welcome you as an individual reviewing the entirety of the talk page history, unpleasant and daunting a task as I know it would be. By saying this, I am not saying that I would necessarily reject without such matters, but I would be much more inclined to accept if there were a bit clearer potential for an even, unbiased playing field than exists today. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Ret. Prof, in whom all parties have expressed confidence, to join the mediation. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be pleased to give some imput. Michael suggested "we could restart mediation if we tackled some of the other issues first; I suggest we start with the relationship of the Ebionites to John the Baptist and/or their possible Essene origins?" I have read John's concerns above and would like to know what kind of agenda he would suggest? Hoping to be of help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this would be an excellent place to start. Welcome aboard. Ovadyah (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would sugges that the place to start would rather be an area that to date an area that has been, basically, all but ignored about the group. The thing that strikes me as most lacking about the Ebionites is information from what are, in fact, the only contemporary sources available, the comments of the Church Fathers. When I mentioned earlier on the talk page how the beliefs attributed to the Ebionites by the Church Fathers were significant to the article, and provided a quote from an independent source which was in list format summarizing those beliefs, Ovadyah attempted to avoid the issue by "seeking outside input" on the basis of a less than rational argument that "lists are discouraged." At no time did I seem to demand that the material be presented in list format. Alternately, as I also suggested earlier, as can be seen from the article talk page, I indicated that, in general, encyclopedic sources are among the most reliable. I have provided any number of verbatim quotes from academic publishers and others, which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. Given that we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, and most of those sources are also generally "encyclopedic" in some form or other, and are, generally, recent, we would be well served by ensuring that the majority of the information from other encyclopedias be included as well. (I myself have reservations about inclusion of some information, such as the emphasis on the Biblical quotes in the reference work by evangelicals. In that instance, I believe that the source is primarily following the tendencies of its intended audience, and that they are not generally followed elsewhere.) But certainly making more thorough reference to the available information from roughly contemporary (if clearly biased) sources, particularly considering that information is itself primarily the cornerstone upon which all the later speculation of Tabor and otehrs, is based, seems to me in any event to be of basically primary importance. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. Now how do you respond to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which states that Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion? - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had already responded to that several times, particularly on the article talk page. There is a difference between using such sources in the early construction of an article, particularly in the development stage, and using them in a final draft. My contention has been in several of these discussions that we could construct the "first draft" of the article using these sources, which are also, generally, more reliable in a sense than individual works of individuals who are, more often than not, presenting their own new beliefs. We could also use those sources as an indication as to which are the most reliable of the secondary sources, based on the number of times those sources are included in the bibliographies of those tertiary sources (though incomplete, that information can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites#Sources), and then improving the reference citations from the encyclopediac sources to use those of the secondary sources which are both most reliable and which most directly deal with that particular subtopic. There are several articles with {{refimprove}} tags as is, which haven't gotten that improvement, but, after a bit of discussion of the "first draft", it would be neither lenghty nor onerous to improve the citations bases on the sources indicated in the encyclopediae. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

John, thanks for taking the time. I am going to reflect what you have said over the next couple of days. You had probably already responded . . . but because of "concerns" editors have raised about their fellow editors, such nuggets often get buried or obscured. Thanks for focusing on the issue at hand, rather than the weaknesses of others. If we follow your good example we will be able to produce a well referenced article from a NPOV and make our mediator's job a bit easier. Thanks again - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on Newyorkbrad's talk page indicating that I am ready to go to arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my position. I am willing to participate on the condition that we do it through formal mediation, so that what is said there remains confidential and discussions over content can't be subverted just to score points for arbitration. If all the participants are willing to go to formal mediation (where we were headed anyway), I am in again. Ovadyah (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What do we do next? - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I imagine we wait for Jayjg to open a mediation page. It's a bit of a pain that the previous mediation was deleted, so we have to start afresh, but at least it lead to the generation of quite a few new sources that got incorporated into the article - so it wasn't wasted effort. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain that AGK has the admin tools to restore the previous mediation pages. I agree it wasn't a wasted effort. Ovadyah (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all agreeing to mediation. I'll create new mediation pages in the next couple of days; I'm not sure yet whether I should undelete the previous mediation pages; I think I'd like to start fresh. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is no rule against it, I would like to recover my opening statement from the previous mediation, even if we do start fresh with a new group of editors. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am neutral - Ret.Prof (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I favour restoration. It would be a shame to keep reinventing the wheel. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 10:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It was never deleted; it can be found at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael is asking about the opening statements and talk page of formal mediation. We are requesting access to those pages. I want to think about the opening statements there while I am formulating my opening statement for the current mediation. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your changes to archiving of Talk:Legal status of Western Sahara

Please take note of User:Kslotte/Auto-archiving and stop "fixing" talk pages that follow it. Thanks in advance.--Oneiros (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would I care what was in that essay? Kslotte is entitled to his personal opinions on the matter, but that doesn't mean anyone else must (or indeed should) follow it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I kindly ask you to do so. Opinions different from yours are not "broken" and don't have to be "fixed".--Oneiros (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to make a request based on the fact that you have a personal opinion on a matter, and are a regular on the page. It's another thing to command one follow a third party's personal opinion. The former is reasonable, the latter is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

G.I. Joe vehicles

Hi there. Last October, Conquest X-30 and H.I.S.S. were two of a few different articles based on G.I. Joe vehicles that were up at AFD. Those two were the first two to be closed, and so I quickly threw together List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles, suggested to merge there on the remaining AFDs, and those all resulted in merge. On the Conquest AFD, a merge was suggested (although the list page did not exist at the time), and you closed the AFD for HISS stating "If an editor feels there is noteworthy, mergeable material, he/she can try to merge it to an appropriate article." I restored the two deleted ones and redirected them to the list page, figuring that someone may want to merge them sooner or later (I was kind of ambivalent so did not do it myself). Eventually, you decided to re-delete the two redirects, and I decided to leave them alone. A couple days ago, I noticed a new user User:Jake fuersturm was working on the list page, and merging other articles into it, so I restored the two redirects again and notified him on his talk page that he could merge them if he wanted to do so. He did the merge, but then a few hours ago you re-deleted the redirects again. Now, it's my understanding that an article's edit history should never be deleted if its content has been merged into another article. You even seemed to indicate yourself, as I pointed out above, that you would have no problem with a merge. So, if you don't mind, would you please restore the redirects once more?

Thank you, BOZ (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You can delete an article after its contents are merged, so long as you indicate where the contents come from. The AfDs in this case were clear, that the articles should be deleted. I have no objection to you creating a new article that is a re-direct, or even restoring the most recent deleted version (i.e. just the redirect statement), but I do object to you regularly undeleting articles deleted at AfD, and then turning them into redirects. "Turn into redirect" is a possible outcome of AfD, but not the outcome reached by consensus in these cases. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if this the way you want it, I will respect your wishes and leave them deleted. I can't say I understand, but I don't really need to understand. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse this interjection. While I think that BOZ should have discussed before restoring, he is correct that the current state does not conform with Wikipedia's licensing. WP:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant guideline. For example, this content in List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles was originally written by contributors to H.I.S.S., whose attribution (normally given in the page history) has been removed by deletion. There are alternatives to restoring and redirecting listed at WP:Merge and delete, but they have their own drawbacks. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The solution, then, is to remove the content and re-write from scratch. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing the content permanently (WP:Revision deletion) is probably not feasible, as there are more than 50 revisions since its insertion. Your latest deletion summaries mention appealing at WP:Deletion review. Would you mind if I took these two AfDs there for outside input, possibly following with a more general discussion at WT:Articles for deletion? Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Given the amount of work put into the article, I'm not really inclined to remove the content and rewrite it from scratch, especially since it will probably look 90%+ the same as what was removed. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: H.I.S.S., I believe the final decision on the AfD was: "The result was delete. If an editor feels there is noteworthy, mergeable material, he/she can try to merge it to an appropriate article. Jayjg (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.I.S.S.. Looks like someone has indeed tried for a merge, so shouldn't the original article be resurrected and turned into a redirect? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure, actually. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you given this more thought? If you're not willing to restore, I am planning to take this to DRV. The non-restoring alternatives are technically acceptable, but I would like a wider discussion before using a non-standard solution. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this would actually be a good thing to review at WP:DRV - it would help set some precedent. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

DRV filed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21#Conquest X-30. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Update #2

Hi Jayjg. Believe it or not, the dispute with that one editor over the Al-Shabaab group of militants is still going on. He has now opened an Rfc since the "Third Opinion" initiative didn't quite work out and only one pro-Somaliland account weighed in contrary to Wikipedia:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute". The timing of this Rfc is also quite interesting, as it comes literally right after I had just posted a new batch of tie allegations that were leveled against the Somaliland region which have not yet been included in the article. Given past experiences with some of these accounts, it seems not unlikely that the Rfc will attempt to be used as a way to override including mention of these new tie allegations. Indeed, the editor is still proposing we actually shorten the passage despite these new tie allegations. I would therefore be most grateful if you could monitor the Rfc to make sure that no non-neutral parties attempt to bias the discussion. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As predicted, one of the pro-Somaliland accounts has already shown up on the talk page [1]. Middayexpress (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

One of those accounts has protested that I have no proof that he is a supporter of Somaliland's independence and that he is therefore indeed a "neutral" Rfc participant. I believe this is absurd since he recently uploaded a non-free fringe map [2] depicting an independent Somaliland "country" juxtaposed by the Somalia it is internationally recognized as being an autonomous region of. The map is supposedly sourced to "MapArt Publishing", a company which has its entire catalogue online but includes no such map. The map therefore could've easily been taken from a partisan source, like a secessionist publication. The user also claims that WP:Third opinion's clear instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute" does not apply to WP:RFC, although WP:RFC itself clearly indicates that RFC participants are offering third opinions: "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first."

I would therefore really appreciate a neutral, authoritative opinion on this issue. Does WP:Third opinion's instruction on providing neutral opinions also apply to WP:RFC participants? Or can they be partisan editors, who have also had numerous dealings/run-ins with one of the RFC disputants? Note that this is an editor who just last month attempted (unsuccessfully) to get me blocked over a separate issue on another related article [3]. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In practice, partisans or participants in a dispute often comment at related RFCs. There doesn't seem to be any way of stopping this from happening. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Just so it's clear, this user isn't actually a participant in the dispute nor was he listed as such in both the earlier Third Opinion initiative and the current Rfc. He is just someone who wants to weigh in on the Rfc. However, he seems to have a personal animus against one of the two actual disputants (i.e. me), so I doubt he can offer a truly neutral third party opinion and observe WP:RFC's instruction that third parties should "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and "mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart". At any rate, perhaps we should start thinking about drafting a new clause for WP:RFC to address these concerns regarding non-neutral third party involvement. Of course, this will have to be done after the present Rfc is completed. Best, Middayexpress (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to identify who "non-neutral" third parties are, at least to the satisfaction of everyone. Many people insist they are neutral, despite others insisting they are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for input

Please understand that this is in no way an attempt to "suck up" to the mediator in a matter in which I am currently involved, and I would sincerely hope that no one describes it or sees it as such. However, as can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, I proposed some months ago that there might be some sort of regular meeting of editors who deal extensively with religion related content. I believe you are rather active in the Judaism related material, and I would welcome any input you might have, positive or negative, on the proposed conference of editors who work extensively with religion related material at User:John Carter/Religion meeting. Any input you might have, particularly as it relates to Judaism related material, would be welcome. I would also welcome any input as to whether you believe it might also be expanded to include discussion of philosophy related material. Many aspects of philosophy, particular ethics, are rather closely related to religion, and it seems to me that the amount of overlap might make it reasonable to expand the scope of the proposed meeting to include such material. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is most definitely an attempt to suck up to the mediator. Editors should feel free to spontaneously form groups to meet and discuss anything they want, but the idea that religion-related articles should be left to an invitation-only cabal of religious "professionals" (read theologians) violates the spirit of Wikipedia. There are a number of highly-accomplished religious scholars who also happen to be atheists (Bart Ehrman, Michael Goulder, and Morton Smith, come to mind), and there is no reason why this should be any different for Wikipedia editors. Ovadyah (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

First, it should be noted that Ovadyah's assertion that it would be "invitation-only" is in no way supported by any real evidence. It had first been introduced as an idea by me back, I believe, in December, and has already been linked to on the Religion project talk page. Second, his assertion that the material should be left to an invitoation-only cabal of professionals is also in no way supported by the material as included. I also note how Ovadyah himself has posted on this page for input from you on a similar basis. As I believe I indicated, the page is expected to be moved into wikipedia space come the beginning of April, hopefully with reference in the Signpost and the talk pages of all related WikiProjects. I realize Ovadyah seems to have extremely serious problems in not taking each and every word of anyone who does not support his positions in a non-prejudicial manner, but hope that he can at least in the future avoid jumping to such clearly unsubstantiated assumptions and allegations. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

John, thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look, though my time it stretched right now. Ovadyah, let's try not to expand the scope of the conflict. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the specific questions seem to be to be relating to whether the scope should be expanded to include philosophy-related articles, which seem to me to be often directly related. Also, as someone who has seen a lot of content, as you have, I would welcome any input on subjects which you think might be inadequately represented in reliable sources, like, maybe, medieval Spanish kabbalah, if you believe it to be inadequately discussed in independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation comments

In review, it looks to me like the individuals I indicated as being ones I would like to see take part as experts on FT, RS, etc., might be seen as being biased, based on their earlier comments on this matter. However, I do believe that of the individuals involved, only myself and (maybe) Nishidani have had any substantial involvement in such matters, and my own isn't necessarily something that I would describe as impressive. On that basis, I do believe it would make a great deal of sense to have at least some individuals who are respected for their ability to help determine these matters involved.

Lastly, yes, I do hope that you review the entire history of the article, including perhaps any relevant user talk page discussions. In a sense, like it or not, I get the impression that the ArbCom will regard you as being the "cop on the scene" in any proceedings which might take place, and your input would probably be the one held as having the least bias. And, yes, I do believe that the behavior, which I believe is still ongoing, is such that an ArbCom case is, even after thirty days, likely to be called for. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This may be moot, as Ovadyah is now apparently not agreeing to mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reconsidered the matter after discussions with Michael and Ret.Prof on the article talk page. I accept resuming mediation on the condition that we reopen formal mediation with you acting as the mediator, and that the proceedings of the mediation be kept confidential. Four of the parties have already made their opening statements. We need to add Ret.Prof as a participant and have him make an opening statement. I would also welcome Llywrch's participation based on his prior remarks on the article talk page, two trips to ANI, and his opening statement in arbitration. Llywrch is one of those rare editors who, like Socrates, knows what he doesn't know. Of course, that's up to him. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to have you back into the loop, Ovadyah - not many people, unfortunately, can change their mind in public. And you're right about Llywrch - I was impressed by his statement at Arbcom.

Don't forget to unstrike out your acceptance.

-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The clock is ticking and we need to get on with mediation. We already have a proposal on the table that could bring this content dispute to a conclusion rather quickly. Ovadyah (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted Llywrch about participating in formal mediation. If he agrees, that is probably enough people for a well-rounded discussion. I am also going to encourage Nishidani to reconsider and rejoin the mediation, since he has already articulated a reasonable proposal to resolve this dispute. Ovadyah (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I wish to know exactly what Ovadyah is requesting: informal mediation or formal mediation. I do not know that I have agreed to formal mediation, only informal mediation. If formal mediation is wanted, I believe that it is in the best interests of all involved that as many knowledgable parties as possible be involved. This would include not only LLwyrch, but also the editors I indicated in my previous statements above, or, at least, individuals equally familiar with application of those relevant policies and guidelines. I do not see that as having yet taken place. I am far from convinced I would take part in formal mediation without the involvement of such editors. In that event, I think that having ArbCom review the conduct of all editors involved, myself included, might be the best way to resolve the matter, particularly after they issue their rulings regarding conduct to date and the decisions they make to address them. Particularly with arbitration due to begin in a few weeks, it might even be a faster way to address the matter as well be a better way of addressing with such matters. John Carter (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting formal mediation. Since you requested formal mediation initially, it seems rather hypocritical to reject it now, unless of course you have no desire to see mediation succeed and the dispute over content resolved. Formal mediation will keep us focused on the task and keep all the posturing for the arbitration committee to a minimum. Using informal mediation as an opportunity to engage in WP:CONSPIRACY and WP:GAME only subverts the purpose of mediation, and it will get us no closer to a resolution of this dispute. I find this diff particularly telling, where I asked you, going forward, what you actually intend to do to improve this article. The answer, as I expected, is nothing constructive or substantive. Btw, I have no objection to other parties joining the mediation, as long as they are not your hand-picked acolytes. The only one who seems to be objecting to this approach is you. Ovadyah (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ovadyah, the one thing you very clearly have extreme objections to is making any comments without inserting your gratuitous bile into them. If you have allegations regarding meatpuppetry to raise, then by all means do so. Otherwise, I have to very, very much call into question why you seek to label several editors, many of whom, like Blueboar, I have had substantial disagreements with in the past, as "acolytes", as you seemingly did above. Is it currrently even physically possible for you to make comments without inserting gratuitous insults, I wonder? The recent evidence does not seem to support such a conclusion. And, regarding your allegations of hypocrisy and other matters, I am not entirely sure that you, as an individual, are the person to make such allegations, y'know? John Carter (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against Blueboar or any other named editor. I do, however, object to your repeated habit of canvassing other editors with prejudicial statements as to the nature of the dispute and the editors involved. An example of this would be when you covertly approached Cirt, who doesn't even know me, about filing a COI against me on your behalf here and here. Also, notice the unsolicited offers to forward confidential emails and the 'I hate you' nonsense that was proven to be false in ANI. Now I have a question for you: You previously walked away from informal mediation and insisted upon opening formal mediation. Why is it that you now are rejecting the very same formal mediation you requested and you are requesting the informal mediation you previously rejected? Please explain your reasoning. Ovadyah (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I believe that there may be an attempt here to perhaps further delay the onset of arbitration, and because I believe that such might be counterproductive. At this point, I believe that there are numerous demonstrable behavioral issues, and that any attempt to delay the recognition of them would be counterproductive to the improvement of the article, and very likely, at least potentially, detrimental to the project as a whole. Also, I believe that there may very well be the potential to have additional, qualified, editors involved in the process in the near future, possibly as a result of arbitration, and I cannot see any reason why such should be begun before such parties are involved. I believe that there have already been instances when people have sought to disqualify others from mediation, and that there is a very good chance that such attempts might take place again, particularly if the mediation is begun perhaps prematurely. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And so having said all this, what has changed? You have already accepted mediation. What are you recommending we do here? Ovadyah (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

John, do you want to mediate or arbitrate? If the former, then I'll put up the mediation page. If the latter, then you should just go back to the arbitration process. You have to be committed to one choice or the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The comments above were opposition to the "formal arbitration" Ovadyah had discussed, in addition to informal arbitration already agreed to, which struck me as counterproductive. I have to acknowledge that I have very serious questions regarding whether there is any likelihood of progress through mediation, particularly if there is an effort to disqualify potential newcomers. On that basis, I do believe that Arbitration is very likely going to be the only way that the matter will be resolved. However, it seems to me that at this point it is you, Jayjg, who have been given the authority to "call" the matter. That being the case, I guess the most reasonable way for me to go is to accept mediation. Having said that, I do hope that you do review the relevant pages, as has been requested before, and that, perhaps, when and if you see that there is likely going to be no further progress through that measure, that you refer the matter back to ArbCom. Is that sufficient response? And, for what it's worth, I do hope Ovadyah will allow you to speak for yourself in the future, as opposed to engaging in preemptory comments such as the one above. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean "formal mediation". If you are going to quote me, do it accurately. Why do you use 200 words to respond to a direct question from the mediator when you can use 3 (I accept mediation) to say the same thing? Ovadyah (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, although I find it endlessly amusing that you chastise others for misquoting you, when you have such a history of doing so yourself, and making yet another gratuitous snarky comment about the input of others, when you have, I think, recently used the article talk page to make a rather extensive comment on the Skarsaune book which has little if anything to do with the article itself, and could easily be seen by a neutral party as perhaps soapboxing? John Carter (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From now on, let's all try to focus on policies and sources, on the mediation pages themselves, not individuals or history. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Let's move on to mediation. Waiting around is just causing this dispute to fester. Ovadyah (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I would only add that despite Ovadyah's assertion above, the "I hate you nonsense," as he put it, was never proven to be false. Ovadyah has himself repeatedly sought intervention from others on noticeboards and other pages, and all that was proven was that they were not be found on the few pages checked. Unlike Ovadyah, some of us do not confine all their efforts to a single page, and on that basis may not have the time to search their entire record of contributions as quickly and easily as he can. If he insists on making these inflammatory comments, he could at least make an effort to not overdramatize them for prejudicial purposes. And, yes, Cirt is one of the best, if not the best, editor I know of for dealing with POV pushing from religious editors, given his substantive history of dealing with the Church of Scientology. That was why I sought his input. And you will also notice that both Astynax and Cirt have a rather impressive ability at producing FAs and GAs, given their user pages. In fact, I think that they might be among the best at such in the general field of religion. That was why I named them. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jayjg: Um, where be dese mediashun pajes u menshun, pleez? Me not reel shur which u meen. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to create the mediation pages tonight. Please, let's not fight about what happened in the past or discuss other individuals any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for somebody to tell me where to go? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here: Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I may need a day or two to submit my opening statement. I would like to take some time to think about it and get this right. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We are only waiting on John Carter now for an initial statement in mediation. Ovadyah (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I thought this content dispute was about WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FR, and the use of Eisenman and Tabor as sources. Now, it is apparently not about that at all, but WP:SYNTH, or WP:NAME, or something else. Has this entire exercise been nothing more than a way to generate points of contention just to have something to dispute for over 10 months? If so, we have a serious user conduct problem, not a content problem. Ovadyah (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just checked with Michael. There is no dispute over the possible existence of more than one group or over names. I have already discussed this in detail with Nishidani on my talk page, and I modified the Lead section (along with Michael) awhile ago to reflect that possibility. The main body just needs to be polished up a bit to reflect the thinking of new sources over the past three years. Periodic updates based on new material are just the normal course of editing. How can this be the basis of a dispute if no one disagrees? And it certainly does not explain the blanking of article content, mass removal of references, locking the article, and repeated application of cleanup or other tags. All we have left is a long-running pattern of tendentious editing by a single editor. Ovadyah (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that we have a new front opened in this content dispute - tag-spamming of reliable sources. I pointed out on the article talk page that problems of synthesis should be worked out one source at a time on the talk page rather than through the mass use of tags, which tends to provoke an edit war. Two of the references already have inline quotations in the references which support this view, John Painter (p.229 "A connection between early Jerusalem Christianity (the Hebrews) and the later Ebionites is probable."), and Michael Goulder (p.134 "So the 'Ebionite' Christology, which we found first described in Irenaeus about 180 is not the invention of the late second century. It was the creed of the Jerusalem Church from early times."). I could also include an additional reference to Eisenman, as I indicated on my talk page (These "Ebionites" are also the followers of James par excellence, himself considered (even in early Christian accounts) to be the leader of "the Poor" or these selfsame "Ebionites".– The New Testament Code p.34) Even the Encyclopedia Britannica supports this view, Encyclopedia Britannica: Ebionites ("The Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (ad 70). Its members evidently left Palestine to avoid persecution and settled in Transjordan (notably at Pella) and Syria and were later known to be in Asia Minor and Egypt. The sect seems to have existed into the 4th century.") It appears that 2, 3, or even 10 reliable sources will not be sufficient for some editors. They do not see the sources supporting the article content because they do not want to. Ovadyah (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review new article

Hi. I've created a new article, Jews and money and I would appreciate any feedback. If you have any time, could you take a look at it. Specifically: (1) I want to ensure that it meets very high standards of neutrality ... do you seen any issues or shortcomings? (2) The title doesn't seem satisfactory. Can you suggest a better title (see my notes in the article's Talk page). And, of course, you are free to edit the article directly! Thanks in advance. --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for André Thomas

Greetings, Jayjg. I sent you an email discussing a possible DELREV. Let me know what you think. Thanks. -BerretSO4 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd need to start with reliable secondary sources first, before you were able to make a case at WP:DRV that the article should be restored. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I'll see what I can do. BerretSO4 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New party in Ebionites mediation?

It looks like User:Astynax has added comments to the mediation page. I personally don't know if that is technically acceptable, but thought you should be appraised of it, and, if so desired, advise appropriate parties. I personally have no objections to the involvement of any experienced editors, but I believe others have expressed reservations about other editors in the past. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason he/she shouldn't participate. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic was taking up a minimum of half the page.

By the time I did it, it had degenerated into the standard circular arguments, so I was WP:Bold and made a decision. I never actualy mean to close the discussion, just squeeze it down to a manageable size; is there something that allows you to do that and not actually close the discussion? And finally, it's called humor. I use that a lot. HalfShadow 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New editors were posting all the time, with their own, unique opinions, and reading the previous discussions, so it wasn't and isn't a good idea to try to shut down discussion or hide it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to make it a bit less of a humongous mess. No harm was meant; my intent was only to shrink it down to something manageable. HalfShadow 00:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but "shrinking" isn't a good answer. If a thread gets really long, it is sometimes turned into a sub-page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gee, thanks

It's ever so pleasant, after going through the edit history of a generally neglected article, finding a case where an anonymous contributor removed some apparently relevant content without explanation, and restoring it (with an edit summary to explain why I put it in), to get a templated nastygram. I don't object to the removal of the content, which may well have been justified; I object to your rudeness in "cautioning" me for "spam" content when you had absolutely no reason to assume that was the intent. There's a talk page for the article. You maybe should feel free to use it in the future to help other editors shape the article better.

Thank you for the reminder of why I stopped editing in the first place. Captainktainer * Talk 00:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to upset you. However, I would think it was obvious why on a WP:BLP one shouldn't restore external links to "profiles" on a) an ideological website maintained by a couple of guys, and b) an ideological wiki. WP:ELBLP makes this fairly clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Entering a previously deleted article

How does one enter in a new article for a topic that was previously deleted? Seems like there should be some way, but I think I muffed it. Advice for the future would be great, so I don't make that mistake again. Some of the Wiki instructions easier than others to undestand.  :) Slickwilliejr (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You could create it in your user space first. Of course, you should only create it if you think the new article addresses the issues raised in the AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Your Message Concerning Information Added to Sarona Reiher Article

First, I am only adding this to your talk page because you commented on mine instead of the talk page for the article at issue, Sarona Reiher. Second, I added that she managed Santino Marella because to not do so would be inconsistent with his article, as she is listed as having managed him. If you feel like my addition to Sarona Reiher's article included poorly referenced information, then you might want to consider removing her from his article, as - if it is controversial information - it too concerns a living person. I was just trying to maintain consistency, not add new information. bluegreen 04:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegreen1011 (talk • contribs)

The fact that there is unsourced WP:BLP-violating material in other articles is no reason to add it to this one too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

muslims preferring kosher food

Hi. I checked footnotes that you had mentioned, it was 13, 14, 15 and 16. Let's go through them: 13th footnote doesn't seem to have mention about Islam or Muslims at all. 14th, does indicate that muslims prefer kosher food. 15 th - can't check it, since it's a book, care to give a link to electronic version on the internet? 16th - broken link. So what do we have? 1 unreliable source that states what's in the lead of the article. I don't think it's enough to make an inclusion of it, considering how important and arguably this statement might be. Userpd (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources in question are found in footnotes 12, 13, 14, 15. If you would ever actually read the article, you would quickly see that. Source 12 specifically mentions Muslims. Source 13 also mentions Muslims - please read it. Source 14 specifically states Muslims prefer kosher food. Source 15 provides a quote from the book, specifically mentioning that Muslims look for kosher certification, and why. There is nothing whatsoever contentious about this statement, which is backed up by many other sources, e.g. [4][5][6][7][8]. Also, it appears that you've been deleting this material without reading the article, the footnotes, or the sources, which is never a good thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't cited while it should be, you don't place cite in the end of article and then the statement of it in the lead and then tell others to check the whole article to find the source by themselves. It should be clear and go right after this statement, which undoubtedly needs verification. And no, you seem not to check footnote 13, if you still say that it can be found there, and now you add another footnote while omitting 16th that you had mentioned here. Userpd (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It is cited in the article; it does not need to be cited in the lede. If you would read the article, you would note there is a sentence that says

Certification leads to increased revenues by opening up additional markets such as Jews who keep kosher; Muslims who keep halal; and vegans, Seventh-day Adventists, and the lactose intolerant who wish to avoid dairy products (products that are certified as pareve may meet this criterion).^{[12][13][14][15]}

That is the place that indicates that you should be looking at footnotes 12, 13, 14, and 15. You don't need to go to the end of the article and search through every citation, you just need to read the article, and it will lead you to the correct citations. And it is you who "seem not to check footnote 13". For what I hope is the last time, please actually read the source provided, rather than just scanning/searching it for key terms, and you will see exactly where it says this. Here's the link again:http://oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/the_kosher_tax_fraud/ Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Material was not poorly sourced

With respect my material was not poorly sourced. Please take a second look. If this is not adequate, I will supply you with more.

List of Primary Sources

1. ^ Gospel text

List of SECONDARY Sources

1. ^ Justin, Dialogue,
2. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies
3. ^ Tertullian, On Prayer 26
4. ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
5. ^ Origen,
6. ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
7. ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
8. ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
9. ^ Epiphanius, Panarion
10. ^ Jerome, On Psalm 135
11. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
12. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
13. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Micah
14. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
15. ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
16. ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
17. ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
18. ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
19. ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,

There is remarkable agreement among the secondary sources. The following are representative of the early secondary source material.

Summary by Epiphanius:

They too accept Matthew's gospel, and like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, they use it alone. They call it the Gospel of the Hebrews, for in truth Matthew alone expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew using Hebrew script. - Epiphanius, Panarion 30.3.7

Summary by Jerome:

"In the Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Chaldee and Syriac language but in Hebrew script, and used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel of the Apostles, or, as it is generally maintained, Matthew's Gospel, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find . . ." - Jerome, Against Pelagius 3.2

Among the secondary sources to the time of Jerome, by both Christians and Non-Christians, no writer ever asserts either directly or indirectly that the Hebrew Gospel (aka the Gospel of the Hebrews) was ever composed in Greek. Jerome clarifies this on several different occasions.

Clarification by Jerome:

Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. - Jerome, On Illustrious Men 3

Clarification by Jerome:

In the gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call the Authentic Gospel of Matthew (or " Matthaei Authenticum " ) the . . . - Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 2

Clarification by Jerome:

And whoever accepts the Gospel circulating under the title "Gospel of the Hebrews", which we most recently translated, in which it is said by the Saviour, “Even now my mother, the Holy Spirit, carried me away by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of God proceeds from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the bride of the Word, has the Holy Spirit (which in " Hebrew " is feminine in gender, RUA). - Jerome, Commentary on Micah 7.6

Finally, it must be stated that among the sources to the time of Jerome there is no mention of a Gospel of the Ebionites or a Gospel of the Nazarenes nor is there any mention of either the Ebionites or the Nazarenes ever composing their own Gospel. The sources are in agreement that these Jewish groups used Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.

Other sources

This is where we run into trouble. Modern scholars do not have the Hebrew text, as it has been lost. There are also substantial differences of opinion. Also an enormous quantity has been written on the topic over the years.

List of more modern sources

1. ^ Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009
2. ^ Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010.
3. ^ Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278
4. ^ Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005.
5. ^ "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007. "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
6. ^ S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5,
7. ^ Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum
8. ^ Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.
9. ^ von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der
10. ^ Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums.
11. ^ Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.
12. ^ Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.
13. ^ Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.
14. ^ Pick, Bernhard. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005
15. ^ Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
16. ^ Pierson Parker, Ancient citations of the gospel according to the Hebrews.
17. ^ Pierson Parker, A partial reconstruction of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
18. ^ Pierson Parker, The Gospel Before Mark.
19. ^ Pierson Parker, A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
20. ^ W. R. Schoemaker, The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
21. ^ Walter Richard Cassels, Supernatural Religion.

22. ^The Gospel According to the Hebrews - by Edward Byron Nicholson 1879 (POD 2009)

"The Gospel according to the Hebrews: its fragments translated and annotated, first published 1879, is a highly creditable work. The list of fragments and of references has never been so completely made as by Nicholson" - Review of The Gospel according to the Hebrews 1879 by Robert Vaughan, The British quarterly review, Volume 71-72, Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. p 277 Google Link

23. ^The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition - by James R Edwards, 2009

• Dr. James R. Edwards, Bruner-Welch Professor of Theology, is an Ordained Presbyterian minister, contributing editor of Christianity Today, member of the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton, and recipient of Outstanding Teaching awards at Jamestown College and Whitworth University. He is a published scholar and joined the Whitworth Faculty in 1997. His scholarly works include The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (Eerdmans, 2009); Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Eerdmans, 2005); The Divine Intruder (NavPress, 2000), Commentary on Hebrews in Renovare Study Bible (Harper, 2005); Commentary on Romans in New Interpreter's Study Bible (Abingdon, 2003); Commentary on The Gospel of Mark, PNTC (Eerdmans, 2002); Commentary on Romans, NIBC (Hendrickson's 1992) and is currently writing a Commentary on the Gospel of Luke for the Pillar New Testament Commentary Series (Eerdmans). Google Link

• The Hebrew Gospel: "This landmark study, a decade in the making, advances a bold and fresh interpretation of gospel origins that seems sure to generate interest, debate and controversy for some time to come. This is an important and exciting work that offers students an excellent introduction to early Christian views of the gospel tradition – and it gives synoptic scholars much to chew on." - Markus Bockmuehl, Professor of Biblical and Early Christian studies at Oxford. "This book is a real contribution that will be studied and discussed for years to come!" - Loren T Stuckenbruck, Princeton. This scholarly work is the most extensive and up-to-date study on the Gospel of the Hebrews ever written Google Link and may even surpass Nicholson. It can be divided into three major sections.

1. References to the Hebrew Gospel in early Christianity: This is an extraordinary piece of scholarship. It meticulously evaluates the historical evidence and is objective in nature. He searches out and finds material previously unknown. "Edwards revives an older scholarly fascination with the mysterious 'Hebrew Gospel' that was held in high regard by many church fathers and attributed to Matthew the apostle. Drawing on patient study of patristic quotations . . ." Markus Bockmuehl, Oxford.
2. Adieu to Q: This section is a bit more controversial. Edwards joins the growing number of scholars who have difficulty with the Q hypothesis and "not only form a vital part of the correct solution to the synoptic problem, but also enable one to dispense with the hypothetical sayings source, Q. There is much New Testament scholarship that is built on the so-called two-source theory, and if correct Edwards' alternative would necessitate a radical rethinking of many critical positions." - P Foster, The Expository Times, 2010.
3. Semitisms in the Gospel of Luke: This is by far the most controversial aspect of the scholarly tome. Historians have long related the Gospel of the Hebrews in varying degrees to Matthew but to say the Hebrew Gospel is the basis of the Gospel of Luke is novel to say the least. "Drawing upon patient study of patristic quotations and on Semitisms in the Gospel of Luke, Edwards proposes that the Third Evangelist used a single Gospel document in Hebrew both for his special material and for his overall narrative outline." - Markus Bockmuehl, Oxford.

24. ^The Secret Legacy of Jesus: The Judaic Teachings - by Jeffrey J. Bütz & James Tabor, 2010

• The Rev. Jeffrey Bütz M.Div., S.T.M., is an ordained Lutheran minister and adjunct professor of World Religions at Pennsylvania State University. Butz is the author of "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity" (Inner Traditions International, 2005), which has received critical acclaim. Google Link His area of expertise is early Church History when James the Just lead the Jewish Christians and Christianity had yet to evolve away from its Jewish roots.

• Dr. James Tabor is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. His first book was a study of the mysticism of the apostle Paul titled Things Unutterable (1986). The Journal of Religion named it one of the ten best scholarly studies on Paul of the 1980s. In 2006 Tabor published The Jesus Dynasty that focuses on the Jewishness of Jesus and his extended family in the days before the destruction of Jerusalem in year 70. Also in 2006 Tabor completed an edited volume with Prof. Eugene Gallagher, Crossing the Bounds: Humanity and Divinity in Late Antiquity (E.J. Brill, 2006). Last year he published The Secret Legacy of Jesus and in 2012 will release Two Communities: How Paul transformed the Gospel of Jesus.

Tabor serves as main editor of the Original Bible Project, an ongoing effort to produce a new translation of the Bible. Tabor is a popular public lecturer and writer and is often consulted by the national media (Time, Newsweek, USNews&World Report, NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost, Wall St. Journal, Harpers, AP, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX). His work has been featured in several TV documentaries (PBS Frontline, Discovery, Learning Channel, History Channel, BBC, Channel 4 UK). Google Link

• The Secret Legacy of Jesus: "The Secret Legacy of Jesus is masterful, nothing less than the new definitive work on Jewish Christianity..." -- Dr. Barrie Wilson. "It is eminently readable and accessible to non-scholars while being thorough in [its] research [and] raises the specter of a revisioned Christianity and challenges readers to rethink the nature of both orthodoxy and heresy.” -- Publishers Weekly. It is the most extensive and up to date work ever published on the Hebrew family and followers of Jesus from the time of the Crucifixion to the destruction of the Temple. Google Link

• Hebrew Gospel: The Secret Legacy of Jesus is important to our topic because it provides an objective, up to date summary of the scholarship pertaining to the Gospel of the Hebrews in a manor that the lay person can easily understand. (See pp 174 - 180)

The Gospel of the Hebrews is the original version of Matthew.

Since native Palestinian Jews were quite opposed to translating their scriptures into any language other than Hebrew,* this supports the likelihood that the Nazarene gospel—most commonly known as the Gospel of the Hebrews—is the original version of Matthew. p 174

There was only one Jewish Christian gospel.

The reason these writings have come to be known under variant names such as the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Nazarenes is that the Church Fathers discussed them according to which groups used them, and this has given the false impression that there was more than one Jewish Christian gospel. It would seem most logical that there was just one Hebrew Gospel (written in the Aramaic dialect) and that this was the original version of Matthew . . .which most people consider the authentic version of Matthew . . . The title Gospel of the Hebrews is as descriptive a title as any by which to recognize this Jewish Christian Gospel, and the one we will adopt here. p 176

The Gospel of the Hebrews is the only gospel written by an eyewitness.

The Gospel of the Hebrews was uniquely written in the first person, and claims to be written by Matthew himself, which would make it the only gospel directly written by one of the twelve. p 179

Print on demand

Kessinger Publishing Nabu Press BiblioBazaar If you have access to a major Biblical library, at a seminary or theological college then by all means use the material there. However, if you do not, then POD presses provide affordable access to the notable works on the topic. I am a great believer in POD, but I do agree that it is a good idea to have the first edition date along with the POD date.

Mainline or fringe

It has been asserted that Nicholson, Edwards, Butz, etc., are "fringe" and "pulp", while Vielhauer, Schneemelcher are main line. I have carefully checked the material and found no references or sources to support this position. Indeed the reliable sources say quite the opposite (see above).

• All these so called "mainline sources" are not even on topic. They do not address the issue at hand. Schneemelcher's work, which is often cited as a mainline authority, is actually about New Testament Apocrypha, not the Gospel of Matthew or Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. Indeed, the closest Schneemelcher comes to the topic is 6 pages devoted to the Gospel of the Hebrews (page 172-178) Google Link

• Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Butz, etc have been said to be "pulp" in that their theories are based on sensationalist speculation rather than solid historical evidence. Again you have presented no reliable sources to support your position. Edwards supports his scholarship on the Gospel of the Hebrews with substantial historical evidence. When he points out it was composed in Hebrew, he cites 75 ancient sources that testify to the fact that there was such a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link When, in scholarly fashion, he asserts it was written by the Apostle Matthew he cites 12 different ancient sources from before 385 C.E. Google Link Then he meticulously evaluates all the surviving material from the time of Christ to Jerome and shows in scholarly fashion that their is no ancient historical source, either Christian or Non-Christian, that disputes that Matthew composed the Gospel of the Hebrews in Hebrew.Google Link The same cannot be said for Vielhauer, Schneemelcher etc. When dealing with the language issue they fail to cite any ancient historical evidence and certainly fail to make a case that the Gospel of the Hebrews was composed in Greek by someone other than Matthew. Google Link

Thanks for taking a second look - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability Policy contradiction

Please see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Policy contradiction?. -- PBS (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would very much like to have your views there on the specific example about the article Bride. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Temple Beth Israel (Sharon, Pennsylvania) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Temple Beth Israel (Sharon, Pennsylvania) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Beth Israel (Sharon, Pennsylvania) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sayyida al Hurra

The DYK project (nominate) 16:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Mr. Bot. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the Talmud is not = antisemitic canard

Seeing you reverted my explained edit hereI'd suggest you to continue this discussion at the article's talkpage. Userpd (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I think it was me who messed up the archiving at the Gospel of Matthew. I really did appreciate the kindness you showed me in handling the situation. . . and I can use all the Wiki-kindness I can get these days. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew

We could use your diplomatic skills at the Gospel of Matthew if you have the time. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look, but I can't promise I will comment there - I apologize, but my time is pretty limited right now. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As one of the two editors who has tried to remove the duplicate (Messianic?) section on Matthew into the GMatthew article I would welcome you taking a quick look Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew#Proposed_Draft_Edit_.23_2_-_Matthew and confirming there that the whole section is a cut and paste. It will only take 3 minutes. Thanks.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it will take a bit more than 3 minutes. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope it may only take 30 seconds. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now fixed that problem. ::The Torah Shebiktav is the Written Torah. According to tradition, God dictated the entire Torah (except for the very last part of the book of Deuteronomy) to Moses in the Sinai desert. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. The Torah Shebeal Peh is the Oral Law. See Google Link for a list reliable sources. I do not think it is Messianic POV content? In any event if you find the "non-English" terminology offensive we can drop it. Still a little confused but I hope I answered your question? Cheers - See talk - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg. There is a proposal outstanding at Talk:Gospel of Matthew to delete the entire duplicate cut and paste material section which has been copied from Gospel of the Hebrews. After clicking the above Google search, I hope you will consider adding a remove or keep as appropriate. RetProf. I would like to see more mainstream editors appear at the page, but it's Jayjg's choice, now let's leave his talk page alone.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the specific dispute is about whether or not to include the following paragraph:

Matthew, a Galilean and the son of Alpheus[19] collected taxes from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas.[20][21][22] Matthew was "called" by a Jewish rabbi named Jesus to be one of the Twelve Disciples.[19][21][23][24][25] As a disciple, Matthew followed Christ, and was one of the witnesses of the Resurrection and the Ascension. It is important to remember that Matthew along with Mary, James the brother of Jesus and other close followers of Jesus were Jewish.[26][27][28][29] They remained in and about Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jesus son of Joseph was the promised Messiah. These early Jewish Christians were thought to have been called Nazarenes.[30][31] It is near certain that Matthew belonged to this sect, as both the New Testament and the early Talmud affirm this to be true.

Is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is not correct. Please look carefully at the edit histories and references below. - Ret.Prof (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes but not only, what is proposed is the removal of all 5 duplicate paragraphs in 1.1., not just the first paragraph. The whole section, all 5 paragraphs, was cut and pasted together from Gospel of the Hebrews into Gospel of Matthew at the same time:

"Matthew, a Galilean..."

"It is important to remember..."

"As Jews, this group worshiped........."

"This situation changed drastically..."

"The resulting diaspora, (or Tefutzot תפוצות, "scattered").."

In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I work with both of these editors on other articles, so I would like to see this dispute resolved amicably with everyone maintaining WP:AGF (remember the Two Ways). They could really use your help if you can find the time. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

However, the material was poorly sourced, and violated WP:NPOV and WP:WTA at a minimum. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The five paragraphs of duplicate material are now proposed for deletion at 1. Talk:Gospel of Matthew 2. Talk:Saint Matthew, 3. Talk:Canonical gospels, 4. Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews, not counting 5. Talk:Jesus outside the New Testament, and 6. Talk:Oral tradition and the historical Jesus. The section I removed at Gospel is a separate duplication.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Ictu Honest: This is beginning to feel more like an election campaign. Ictu seems to be spamming everybody. Actually, I spent a lot of time fixing the duplication. Then Ictu reverted my edits. And then complained about duplication. In the Gospel he have done some "strange" duplicating. Ictu, please do some serious clean up. You have made quite a mess.

Finally Jay, please make the time to check my sources (I know you are busy) Thanks- Ret.Prof (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg. I think Ret.Prof means Talk:Gospel of Matthew (which see) rather than "Gospel" per se. Ret.Prof has't been entirely straightforward about his history in this area, though as far as I can judge it has been done with use of anon IPs rather than registering sockpuppets, and the anon IP activity mainly concerns Gospel of the Hebrews rather than Gospel of Matthew, though the duplicate cut and paste content on Gospel of Matthew and elsewhere does originate from Gospel of the Hebrews. There doesn't appear to be an actual Admin who has looked at it, so perhaps if you can't then you recommend one who could?In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please do check me out, and I think you will find I am honest, straightforward, good faith user. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability edit

Your edit summary for this edit claims that the talk page supports the edit, but I am unable to find the support; would you please point it out? Jc3s5h (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The summary points out that this was discussed and there was no consensus for the change. Where was such a consensus was formed? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it is the requirement for in-text attribution of all quotes and close paraphrase that is an innovation with the last few days, and there is no consensus for the introduction of this innovation. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the policy as it stood on January 1, 2011. This is not "an innovation with[in] the last few days". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of RFAR on behalf of filing party

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#David Irving and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Posted on behalf of User:Tholzel (filing party) --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

...who has now been permanently banned. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't call the Nazis Nazis.

Like this ... they consider it incivil. In all seriousness, edit summaries like that can't possibly help defuse a situation, no matter how accurate or appropriate they may seem. c.f. 2011041210017601 Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually wasn't calling him a Nazi, I was saying his edits were in support of Nazis. I probably should have used a different edit summary though. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Really are you mad

i had links on that page and you cant block me for posting stuff with links. tons of articles use onlineworldofwrestling and is considered very reliable and as that was one of my links its reliable and the other is a fansite dedicated to her which is also considered very reliable so whats your problem with me it seems like you know nothing about wrestling if your gonna yell at me for using reliable sources and if you didnt know her dad was the superfly then you really know nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black60dragon (talk • contribs) 21:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

saronareiher.com is a fansite that states "SaronaReiher.com is not affiliated with Sarona Reiher, WWE.com or any other organization(s) in full association with her." It obviously doesn't qualify as a WP:RS, per WP:BLP. www.onlineworldofwrestling.com also fails WP:RS, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Online World of Wrestling. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

well excuse me you should of told me that instead of yelling at me saying your going to block me and saying its not good enough you should of told me what was wrong and maybe i would of stopped posting it but if you just threaten me im going to keep doing it and oww is used in hundreds of wrestling pages so whats wrong with it just because 1 person said its not doesnt mean it is and why did you tell me that the first time i put that superfly was her dad everyone should know that and not every sentence needs a link or each page would have over 20,000 links on it--Black60dragon (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)--Black60dragon (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP. Don't put anything into an article about a living person unless it is cited, and the citation meets the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Conduct

I am requesting a review of the conduct in the on-going mediation on the Ebionites article. Some of the participants are beginning to expound at length and address other participants in a less than respectful manner. All of this is in clear violation of the rules of conduct set up at the beginning of mediation and repeated again recently. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything yet that violates the Ground Rules, but perhaps I missed it. Could you point out the specific comments that concern you? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing flagrant has happened, but the sharp comments are starting to escalate. Everyone needs to calm down and try to engage in a dialogue. This is our last chance to try and accomplish something. There is only a little over a week to go before we resume arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If the mediation is going well, I'm sure the arbitrators will extend the period. So far it seems to be going well. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Today is the last scheduled day of mediation (arbitration has been on hold for exactly four weeks). John Carter made the suggestion to self-revert the section of the article on neo-Ebionites, his only contribution of sourced content to the article, and the other editors agreed to its removal. A separate article for neo-Ebionites has been re-created instead, so that development of article content can take place on that article and any disputes that may arise in the process will not complicate the ongoing dispute on the Ebionites article. Jayjg, what do you want to do now? Ovadyah (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

First, the only individual I see who agreed to the removal was Ovadyah, and I also note that I believe the section should be expanded to include the entirety of the Ebionites "spiritual legacy," including those discussed in Butz's book. I also don't see the separate article on neo-Ebionites that has been recreated, and, personally, based on the information available to me, if it is created it very likely would be deleted as non-notable, at least upon the lack of sourcing which I have found to date. So, in effect, that seems a non-starter option as well. As for the completely irrelevant put-down about the only addition of sourced content, I have noted repeatedly that I have not added because of the allegations that the sources I found and have added at User:John Carter/Ebionites and its talk page were said by Ovadyah to be potentially flawed. I indicated when the point was raised that I would recuse from editing on that basis. I also said, somewhere, that I would personally revoke my adminship were it to be found that any of them were significantly flawed. Typos, possibly, somewhere, but that is a different matter. I also note that there has been no real challenge to any of them. On that basis, I wonder whether I might be, under the circumstances, permitted to allow my recusal to lapse and actively contribute to the topic on the article pages. Ovadyah, of course, cannot miss an opportunity to take a dig at others, rather than addressing matters of substance, so I guess I expected that, but still note it anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective the discussion has been going reasonably well so far; as I've stated earlier, as long as it is progressing, I don't think we need worry about 4 week time limits. I plan to start trying to bring to conclusion and close down individual discussions over the next couple of days. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I should note that I may be less available for a few days this week, and hope that my delay in making comments should not be taken as a refusal to do so, should it happen that I not respond in what others see as quickly as I should. I will try to access every day, but the workload has, fortunately (trying to look at the bright side here) heavier than usual, and that might impact response time. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It is progressing better than I had hoped. There have been some rough patches, but then if discussions over content were going smoothly we wouldn't need mediation. I am optimistic that we will continue to make progress. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the above statement about creating a page on the neo-Ebionites was fallacious. What was in fact recreated was an article on the Ebionite Jewish Community, a single group within the larger neo-Ebionite community. That article has based on the lack of independent reliable sources been nominated for deletion again. I do however note the amusing fact that some people seem to think that the Ebionite Jewish Community is the only neo-Ebionite group, per statements above. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, what is "fallacious" is your intentional misstatement of my position shown here, so that you can create another straw-man to knock down. A review of the talk page there shows clearly that I have always advocated for a more general article with as many groups mentioned as possible, as long as the sources reporting on them satisfy WP:V requirements. Also, John Carter's previous vote to merge/keep, and his previous statements affirming that James Tabor's Jesus Dynasty is a reliable source here and here, are inconsistent with his nomination for deletion. Ovadyah (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

John Carter, as usual, has all his facts wrong. When I demerged the neo-ebionite section into the EJC article I said that the intention was to rename the article "neo-ebionite" (or some equivalent). I asked for feedback, not a pointless AfD which is now focusing (redundantly) on the EJC exclusively. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And Michael, as usual, is making amusing assumptions himself. As he well knows, when he raised the question earlier on the Ebionite article talk page, I had said that, so far as I could see, there were not sufficient reliable sources for either an article on the EJC or on neo-Ebionits in general. Evidently, his memory is no better than his basic grasp of policies and guidelines. As I have said repeatedly, the changes to that article's talk page evidently didn't appear in the first few screens of several thousand page watchlist. Nor was there any mention of the potential of separation in the mediation page, which I would think would be a given to anyone who would seek to make such changes. So, once again, Michael and Ovadyah seem to be indicating that other people are required to operate at the highest possible level, while their own failure, as per the AFD page, to demonstrate even the most basic grasp of XFD guidelines is perfectly acceptable. Thanks for the laugh, Michael. :) John Carter (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the unnamed source, consisting of primary sources, from the disputed sentence in the article. Ovadyah (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Since it was supported by secondary sources, there was no need to remove it. The test is, would a reader find the collection of (supported) references useful? I think they would.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, if you want to recover some of these primary sources, just embed them as inline references, along with page numbers, in the secondary sources that cited them. For example, now that we have a consensus in mediation that James Tabor's Jesus Dynasty is a reliable source for this article, all of the primary sources we discussed last June and recently could be embedded as inline references within Tabor. It is not a good editorial practice to leave primary sources free-standing; text is moved around, editors come and go, and soon it looks like someone improperly added a primary source. Ovadyah (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 05:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

John Carter, is once again using arguments of violations of WP:V as leverage to delete article content and evade mediation Talk:Ebionites#Slavonic_Josephus. He is also calling for a canvass of all the edits I have ever made to the Ebionites article to screen them for possible violations of WP:V. Can we bring this back to mediation where it belongs? Ovadyah (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)