Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 7

Discussion of Summary
This page, at the time of writing is pushing 131K

This is despite the fact that 5 sections of the page are simply summaries.

In order to reduce the page size, and improve readability, this section summarises the summaries themselves.

In addition it summarises a further summary of summaries and the disputes made of that, and the disputes about the disputes, together with an off-topic discussion.

The original text this summary replaces can be viewed at archive 6. Archive 6 contains the summaries that this replaces NOT the text that the summaries themselves replace, these can be viewed at archives 2-5.

It is not in chronological order, but instead ordered by topic for ease of viewing

This summary was made by CheeseDreams, who asserts that in their opinion it is NPOV. This undoubtably will be disputed.

Any disputed paragraphs or sentences, or locations where others demand additions into the summary are marked (0) where this marking corresponds to the section about the dispute which follows after the summary.

Terminology

 * The area should be called "Palestine" or something similar (4 votes against 2)
 * is it more important that Roman Palestine did not exist at the time in question
 * or is it more important that Palestine is the only term covering the whole area


 * The area should be referred to as "Roman Palestine" (7 votes against 1)


 * "pharisees were considered living saints" is either not accurate or inapropriate best wording (4 votes)


 * "at the time of Christ" is an inappropriate phrase (1 vote against 1)
 * "at this time" is an acceptable phrase to replace "at the time of Christ" (7 votes against none)


 * dispute on translation of "Jonathan" and "John"
 * "Yonatan" is "Jonathan"
 * "Yohanan" is "John"
 * "Yohanan" is "Jonathan"
 * King David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew
 * The New Testament is (koine) Greek

Methodology

 * dispute on the matter of prime sources
 * Mentioning the Gospels as prime historic source is NPOV
 * Biblical and western historians exclusively should be cited
 * Citing makes the text unapproachable to a general reader
 * The Gospels are not prime historic source for this perion
 * Citations should (if they are going to appear at all) not just be from Christians or the west.
 * Many people find the historiography of the gospels as highly dubious
 * There are only 3 points of view: Christians, skeptics, critical scholars
 * The Mishnah was not really edited until 200AD
 * There are Jews, Muslims, Talmud Scholars, historians, archaeologists, and many others
 * We must explain how historiography works.
 * There are too many citations
 * The Mishnah existed in oral form before 200AD

Jesus and the Article(s)

 * This article should not be merged with Jesus and textual evidence or Historicity of Jesus (general consensus vs. 1 objection)


 * The title should not be changed into The historical Jesus (4 votes against 1)


 * "the article, is neither about Christianity nor religion ...(it)... is about the culture and events..." (5 votes against 2)

Unopposed statement by Pedant
 * This article is about what its title says it is. ... It is only about the history and culture of the region as it bears on the (real or imaginary) person: Jesus, the central figure in Christian Theology. Anything that conflicts ... does not belong in THIS article.


 * This article should mention Jesus at least a non-zero amount (1st vote - 5 votes against 2) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 2)


 * This article is more background to 1st Century Roman Palestine than cross-referenced summary of Jesus' life (1st vote - 2 votes against 1) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 3)
 * Is this article the background to 1st Century Roman Palestine with asides if something is needed to understand Jesus' life
 * Is this article summarising Jesus' life, and cross referencing it to historical and cultural information about 1st Century Roman Palestine


 * Mild support for specific asides about things that happened to Jesus (vote-1:3 votes against 2) (vote-2:3 votes against 3) (vote-3: 4 votes against 1 (+1 both sides))
 * Should the article be split to make this a non-issue


 * The article should not be split into "background" and "Jesus in it" (general consensus against 1 vote)


 * is it better to have 2 articles
 * one mainly avoiding Jesus in 1st century Palestine and discussing background instead (keeping the title)
 * one predominantly about Jesus in 1st century Palestine and mildly the background (The historical Jesus )


 * or a single article including both

Structure of the article

 * This article should not just be a historical narrative (majority consensus, though with a large minority disputing it)
 * The article should be an historical narrative with asides
 * The article should be structured into topics such as Political situation (regional rulers, high priests, notable militaristic action), Religious organizations (major schools, prophets, messianic groups), Later developments (political control, emergence of more modern Judaism and Christianity)


 * discussion of historical narrative approach
 * 1 dimensional
 * written as if Christianity is the climax of historical events, which is POV
 * style reflects only Christian views of what is important to discuss about the background
 * history and culture are entwined, seperation is a fallacy
 * far too much history
 * it reads better
 * it lacks material


 * discussion of topical approach
 * standard encyclopedia style
 * different aspects highlighted and discussed seperately
 * not orientated around Christian views of what is important
 * mass redundancy by seperating history and culture
 * no-scholars use this approach
 * many scholars use this approach
 * journalists consider this approach more approachable for the general reader
 * organised in line with the article's title which contains the words "Cultural and"


 * dispute on structure within the topical approach
 * "political situation" should be the same section as "religious organizations", "major schools", and "prophets"
 * "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" should be the same section
 * "political situation" means who is in charge
 * putting "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" together only makes sense as an essay, not an encyclopedia
 * "uprisings" are politics not religion
 * Although seperating politics and religion is a modern thing, so are the audience of the encyclopedia

Introductary Paragraphs

 * "According to most Christians, Jesus lived in the first century in Judea" is POV not NPOV (3 votes against 1)

Should the article (as its starting point)
 * Introduction should comment that some dispute historicity (5 votes against 1)
 * The article should assume Jesus exists as its starting point
 * The article should not make assumption of historicity or non-historicity


 * Agreement that the basis for the first paragraph should be (5 votes to 2 (proposal A) to 1 (proposal B))
 * "Jesus is [traditionally/usually] held to have lived in the first century in Judea. Without addressing Jesus existence as an actual historic figure, this article discusses the cultural and political forces active at that time. see: Historicity of Jesus for information relating to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure."


 * The intro mentioned above makes clear that the existence of Jesus is not being asserted (8 votes against 1 digression)


 * The 1st and 2nd introductory sentences should be recast (input from 6 persons)
 * The main record of the life of Jesus are the Gospels, in the Christian New Testament. These sources place Jesus in what became Roman Palestine (modern Israel and Palestine) during the early 1st century.


 * The 3rd sentence should become (2 votes against 1)
 * The article Historicity of Jesus covers debates regarding the existence of Jesus, but if so then it is agreed by most Christians and academics who hold this view that it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical background in which Jesus is thought to have lived.


 * The 4th sentence should become (general consensus)
 * This was a volatile period marked by cultural and political dilemmas. Out of the Roman occupation of Palestine sprang two of the modern world's religions: Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.


 * subsequent discussion after User X, without being requested, produced a competing version
 * The non-User-X version is balanced, neutral, and appropriate
 * User X (and supporters) thinks their version is better
 * User X thinks their version should absorb the other

Prior History of Palestine

 * dispute over the existance of sacrifice
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is derogatory
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is POV
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is accurate
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is a lie
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is offensive


 * dispute over the validity of the claim of a "dual core"
 * Having a Temple, Torah, Priests, and Scribes, together with having a King ruling by divine right implies a "dual core"
 * Current "scholarship" implies there was not a "dual core"


 * dispute over the 1st and 2nd temple periods
 * There could be a better transition between the 1st and 2nd temple periods,
 * in the 1st and 2nd temple period, both Temple and Law were important.
 * There is no known source for the 1st Temple period which is not suspect of having political spin
 * Excessive detail about the "First Temple" Era and the "Second Temple" Era is irrelevant
 * It is not even known from non-Biblical sources if there was a 1st Temple period
 * There was discontinuity which should be stressed between the 1st and 2nd temple period
 * There needs to be detailed background to the background of Saducees, Pharisees, Temple, Monarchy, and Torah


 * Discussion of the Hasmonians
 * The Hasmonaeans claiming first the high priesthood (under Jonathan) and then the kingship (under Aristobulus I) should be mentioned
 * It is a little confusing to me to call the Hasmonean kingdom the second kingdom.
 * We can be clearer that the Pharisees developed under the Hasmoneans.


 * Herod's reign should be mentioned
 * It should explain who Antipater the Idumaean was
 * It should explain how Herod was Idumaean and a Jew simultaneously

Governance

 * dispute over Jewish reaction to Hellenism
 * Greeks thought circumcision was an abomination
 * Implications of the idea of a universal God are important
 * The Jews thought nakedness was an abomination
 * An emotional quote from Pearlman indicates how jews felt at the the time about Hellenism
 * Implications of the idea of a universal God are irrelevant
 * There was a split between hellenized and "traditional" Jews
 * Implications of Greek interest in Judaism are irrelevant
 * An unemotional quote from Cohen indicates how jews felt at the the time about Hellenism
 * The view that there was a split between hellinized and "traditional" Jews is anachronistic and simplistic.
 * Implications of Greek interest in Judaism are important


 * dispute over the nature of the region
 * The middle east was a "powderkeg" with religious aggression contained by secularity just like today
 * The middle east has never not been a "powderkeg"
 * The middle east forms the bridge between persia, greece, and egypt
 * The middle east's position between major empires, throughout history, inevitably gave it "powderkeg" status
 * The middle east was not a "powderkeg"


 * a discussion of the status of sedition is important


 * dispute over reasons for Jewish antaganism toward rome
 * The desire by Jews not to integrate was seen as an affront by Romans
 * A modern historian claims it is not true that the lack of desire to integrate was seen as an affront
 * Romans were tolerant of beliefs
 * Rome (and Greece) was not secular
 * Jews were more offended by taxes than Roman opinions on belief
 * By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been
 * There should be a section about economy and class inequality
 * It is necessary to understand the Macabees to comprehend how Jews react to Rome
 * religious and cultural differences escalated into conflicts with secular governance by Rome
 * It is not true that early emporers thrived but later ones were cruel and murdered
 * By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was no more corrupt than it had ever been
 * Rome (and Greece) had a religious and cultural agenda
 * Early emporers thrived, later ones were cruel and murdered, which demonstrates that there was more corruption

Religious Groups

 * dispute over whether judaism always had two sides
 * There were always 2 sides to Judaism - temple vs. halakhah/prayer
 * Prayer is a form of temple worship
 * Halakha contains ritual
 * Halakha contains specifically prayer-related ritual
 * Prayer is independant to temple worship (which had to occur 3 times a year)
 * Temple worship (but not the temple) goes back to 1500-1300BC
 * Halakha goes back orally before it was written down


 * dispute over nature of the priesthood and pharisees
 * In Judaism, the priesthood was more administrative than acting as intermediary between Jews and God
 * The nature of the Pharisees changed over time
 * In Judaism, the priesthood was more acting as intermediary between Jews and God than administrative
 * The nature of the Pharisees remained relatively stable and constant


 * dispute over nature of the essenes, zealots, and lesser groups
 * There was a multi-party system with at least 4 large "schools of thought"
 * Essenes and Zealots only developed later
 * There was a two-party system (Sadducees vs. Pharisees) with minor additional factions
 * Essenes developed at virtually the same time as, or only shortly after, the Pharisees


 * Dispute about Militant Fundamentalists
 * The Sicarii rejected Roman rule but also rejected Jewish government.
 * The Sicarii were a fanatical underground militant wing of the Zealots
 * The primary target of the Sicarii were Jewish elites, not Romans.
 * The Sicarii were independant of the Zealots
 * We need to add more information about the Sicarii.

Other Messiahs
One (and only one) speaker opposed detailed listing of the known movements in this section
 * Other groups who believed in different Messiah figures should be mentioned (8 votes)


 * Contemporary understanding of the meaning of messiah should be included (general uncontested consensus)
 * It is important to state that kings and priests were anointed
 * It is unacceptable (and meaningless) to use the terms annointed king and annointed priest

Uncontested statement
 * In Judaism, "Messiah" means "annointed". It was the symbol of high office. There were two officers routinely annointed this way - a priest messiah, and a king messiah. The hope of a "messiah" to save them would usually have meant simply, some king or priest who would stand up to the romans or whoever was felt oppressing them at the time. The meaning of "Messiah" in christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups.

Undisputed statement by User:FT2
 * The phrase "Son of Man" is not always apocalyptic (1 vote (+3 informal) no other votes)
 * Many historians claim that Jesus himself did not claim to be a "messiah" in any way unlike other messiahs.


 * dispute over the meaning of "saviour of Israel"
 * there is no evidence anyone thought that a messiah would be a saviour of Israel
 * many expected to be saved from the judgement of God
 * the expectation of a messiah was the expectation of a saviour of Israel
 * many considered the Romans to be the judgement of God
 * the articles Mosiach and Messiah explain the understanding of the term


 * discussion of the paragraph on other messiahs
 * A compromise text was developed
 * One user (user X) produced an alternative proposal
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account elements of User X's proposal
 * User X disputes elements of the compromise text
 * User X proposes a 2nd alternative text
 * Some users dispute the willingness of User X to collaborate
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's 2nd proposal
 * User X disputes elements of the compromise text and considers their own proposal superior
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
 * User X disputes elements of the compromise text
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
 * User X restates their intolerance of elements of the compromise text
 * User X restates their 2nd alternative text
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account suggestions from User X and others
 * The new text is voted on after "packing the house" has occurred.
 * The result of the vote is (2 supporting the compromise text, 5 against it)


 * dispute on Mandaeans and John the baptist
 * Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries BC
 * There is no evidence that Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
 * Mandaeans considered John the baptist a messiah
 * Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries AD
 * Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
 * John the baptist was Nazorean
 * Mandaean was a dialaect at this time
 * Mandaean is a modern synonym for Nazorean
 * Modern Mandaeans refer to themselves as Nazorean


 * dispute on divinity and the existance of other messiah's
 * first century messiahs and prophets never claimed they were divine
 * Josephus is not acceptable to cite
 * some first century messiahs and prophets claimed they were divine
 * Jesus did not claim he was divine
 * Josephus is acceptable to cite
 * Jesus did claim he was divine
 * Josephus states that the persons supposedly "messiah"s were actually thought to be prophets
 * the Jews had considerable law on false prophets
 * Josephus supports the idea that there were people claiming to be and thought to be "messiah"s


 * dispute over reaction of the jews to "other messiahs"
 * Sabbattai Lev (circa 1400) shows how Jews found "other messiahs" troublesome and offensive
 * Shabbatai Lev (circa 1600) does not shows how Jews found "other messiahs" troublesome and offensive
 * There is no evidence from the 1st century that Jews found non-mainstream beliefs troublesome
 * There is no evidence from the 1st century
 * According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were conservative
 * According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were sceptical of radical new interpretations
 * According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were disinterested in afterlife/salvation stories
 * According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were making many original claims
 * There was no "mainstream"
 * It is necessary to understand the Macabees to comprehend how Jews react to other Messiahs

Miscellaneous contemporarial details

 * dispute over the nature of the law
 * Jewish religious law was the main law of the land
 * Jewish religious law was mostly lenient
 * Jewish religious law was mostly legislative


 * dispute over significance of Jesus conversing in the Temple on the law
 * It was fairly standard that young people were able to converse on the law in the Temple
 * The evidence that young people would be expected to be able to converse on the law is rubbish
 * Jesus was remarkably unusual in being able to converse on the law in the Temple
 * The evidence that young people would be expected to be able to converse on the law is 100 years after Jesus


 * dispute over general demography of Jews at the time
 * "X% lived in towns, Y% in villages" is too demographic
 * most Jews at the time were hard working
 * in the circumstances of the age, there are not many "slackers" in village life
 * most Jews at the time were God fearing
 * there is no evidence that most Jews were hard working
 * there is no evidence that most Jews were God fearing
 * most Jews at the time were in villages
 * village people are less likely to be hellenised than city people

Development of later religion

 * This article should describe who followed the Pharisees (4 votes against 1, 1 abstention)
 * "Later forms of Judaism" followed the Pharisees rather than "Rabbinic Judaism" (1st vote-unresolved) (2nd vote - 3 votes against 1)


 * Discussion of the subsequent development of Christianity and how it connected to the gentiles belongs elsewhere not here (4 votes against 1 (+1 for a brief mention))


 * FT2s version of the paragraph discussing how christianity emerged is preferred (general consensus)
 * Originally the intent was to preach to the Jews. Some but not all requirements were removed, as it was felt that the new emphasis was on faith and not detailed laws. Thus there were 'Jewish Christians', Jews who believed in Christ Messiah. When the Jews as a community rejected this, the Christian message was taken to the gentiles instead. To make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted. The message that reached the gentiles was therefore a more universal one, in the sense that it was easier to digest, its appeal was more emotional than legalistic, and it did not contain many of the practices beliefs and rituals by which the Jews kept themselves separate from others.


 * Anything later than bar Kochba is irrelevant
 * Is it important that the manner in which christianity emerged indicates the historiography of the Gospels

The non-Jewishness of Christianity

 * dispute over the reaction of Rome to Jews and vice versa
 * The Jewish revolt was about seeking political and religious freedom vs. Romans.
 * The Jewish revolt was about poverty in the peasentry vs. the elite.
 * Jews at the time were under intense pressure from Rome
 * The Macabbee revolt indicates that Jews violently do not like their sense of identity threatened
 * As a group, Jews at the time tended to polarise under pressure.
 * even after Bar Kochba, Romans treated Jews better than Christians.
 * As a group, Jews at the time tended to be protective of their national identity
 * The ideas of how Romans treated early Christians is predominantly later Christian propaganda


 * dispute over reasons for christianity's non-jewishness
 * The jews were becoming politically dangerous due to rebellion against Rome
 * Christians deliberately shifted away from Jewish law to make themselves disassociated with the Jews
 * Christianity is easier to digest
 * Christianity being easier to digest is POV


 * dispute over importance of restrictiveness of some Jewish practises
 * Judaism's restrictive practices prevented non-Jews from converting to it or similar religion
 * Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law
 * Many non-Jews turned to religions with restrictive practices
 * it is logical that dropping more Jewish traditions made Christian beliefs more palatable
 * it is not logical that dropping more Jewish traditions should make Christian beliefs more palatable
 * Replacing halakhah by pure faith instantly made Christianity more acceptable to non-Jews
 * a teacher observing halakhah does not mean students will reject lessons in algebra
 * a train going at 100 mph does not mean that the driver had sausages for breakfast


 * dispute over reasons for early christianity to be amongst the gentiles
 * Early Christians failed to convince the Jews thus tried elsewhere
 * Early Christians were never part of Judaism
 * Early Christians failed to convince the Jews thus felt rejected
 * The Ebionites are those whose Christianity descended from the apostles themselves in person
 * The Ebionites are a strange Jewish sect, happening to be in Jerusalem, who misinterpreted Christianity
 * The Ebionites are not similar to early Christians, but very similar to Jews


 * dispute over early christians and orthodoxy
 * The early Christians were often at odds with groups they considered heretical
 * Historians think there was no disputation
 * Historians think there was no orthodoxy
 * Historians think the situation was "Iranaeus and Co." vs. "Anyone who disagreed with Iranaeus and Co."

Consensus and inconsensuality

 * early discussions
 * Early discussions focused on achieving consensus, and included voting
 * A visible solution was reached on most of the issues
 * A version for discussion was drafted at a user talk page
 * Discussions were had
 * Submissions were made with regard to compromise
 * The article was unlocked
 * A draft of the changes was made on the article
 * A request for 48 hours non-editing to discuss the article was made
 * Most users respected the request


 * reversion war
 * User Y violated the request, rewriting the article substantially
 * User Y's version predominantly went against the consensus and the voting
 * User Z reverted user Y's version to the version about which a 48 hour non-edit was requested
 * User Y reverted it back to their version
 * User Z insisted on the concensus version being restored
 * User Y reverted it back
 * User Z reverted it once more
 * User Y's associates reverted it to User Y's version
 * User Z restored the discussion version
 * The revert war continued
 * The article was locked in the User Y state.


 * disputed behaviour
 * it is acceptable to make some changes
 * it is unacceptable to make large changes for this article in that state
 * it is fundamentally important to ask for a pause in editing to prevent edit wars
 * it is acceptable to make major changes to the article when it is so contested
 * Slrubenstein has the right to revert from FT2s version although the opposite is not true
 * if a page is not protected, editors have a right to work on it
 * the way forward is discussion on talk pages
 * it is inappropriate to ask for a pause in editing for the purpose of discussion
 * respect and decency demand that though one has rights, one should sometimes abstain from them
 * Saying one editor can revert, but the other editor cannot, is hypocrisy


 * the resulting 2 versions
 * The people User X invited to this page all support his version
 * 3 users (none of whom invited the other) do not support User X's version
 * The value of a split depends on the nature of the articles
 * User X sarcastically suggests splitting the article
 * Splitting the versions into two articles will solve this problem
 * User X's version is NPOV
 * User X refuses not to edit both articles to how they think it should be
 * User X admits User X will never tolerate the other version
 * User X's version is POV not NPOV
 * The not-User-X version is complicated
 * The not-User-X version complies more than satisfies journalistic standards for readability
 * User X's version is appallingly unreadable
 * User X's version is exquisite

Issues with users on this talk page

 * "Packing the house" occurred between the sets of voting
 * It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is unethical
 * It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is currently allowed


 * Mediation was formally requested
 * It became apparant that Slrubenstein, Amgine, and CheeseDreams should formally request mediation between them (which has is now occurring)


 * FT2 as a mediator
 * At an early stage FT2 arrived and behaved in the manner of a mediator
 * Slrubenstein disputes that FT2 was ever treated as a mediator
 * Slrubenstein and JDG think that FT2 is agenda driven
 * Wesley, Amgine, CheeseDreams, think that FT2 is fair


 * Worth of scholarship
 * The lack of academic qualification does not mean one is unable to speak truth
 * Academic qualification does not mean one is always right
 * Amgine has secured access to ATLA.

User X thinks User X's opponents
 * Have done little or no research
 * Are mistaken and ignorant about many things
 * Write text riddled with the most ignorant of errors
 * Add material that has no basis in fact
 * Rely on votes about substance which is inappropriate
 * Do not rely on the historical record, unlike User X
 * Make things up
 * Use speculative arguments
 * Are ignorant of history
 * Have specious reasoning
 * Use inappropriate sources such as Google
 * Has innacurate and ignorant research unlike User X
 * Have no business working on this article as they do not trust User X's argument

User X's opponents think that User X(not all views held by all opponents)
 * Is committing hypocrisy
 * Has double standards - one for themselves, the other for opponents
 * Is unwilling to listen to criticism resulting from votes
 * Ignores valid arguments resorting to Ad Hominem such as "you are ignorant of history" and "your reasoning is specious and ignorant" and "that seems speculative" rather than producing a proper argument.
 * Thinks his view is fundamentally correct, and refuses to consider the possibility of inaccuracy
 * Resorts to criticising sources when they produce citable evidence against his case in an attempt to dismiss it
 * Have suspect accuracy of research based on User X's claim that "most historians do not think Hinduism existed before the 18th century"
 * Has admitted to only using 5/6 sources


 * Mud-slinging occurred

User X and User X's supporters stated to some of the people they see as opposed to them that
 * They are not acting in good faith
 * They are nuts
 * They are masturbating User X
 * They use silly argument
 * They are ignorant
 * They are all partisan and resent criticism
 * Their reasoning is specious and ignorant.
 * They are incompetent at using Wikipedia talk pages properly
 * Their stance is unreasonable
 * Their stance is obstructing User X
 * They are unscholarly and fringe (unlike User X)
 * Their reasoning is smelly poor quality fish
 * They are racist
 * They are rude
 * They start revert wars
 * They are gay atheists
 * They should be banned

Those who were not User X or User X's supporters stated of User X and of some of User X's supporters that
 * Some people think User X is not acting in good faith
 * User X is disrespectful
 * User X is uncivil
 * User X uses personal attacks
 * User X is a hypocrit
 * User X has no interest in consensus
 * User X is vain and arrogant
 * User X's case is so weak that he feels the need to round up supporters from elsewhere in order to win discussions
 * Some of User X's supporters threatened a revert war
 * Some of User X's supporters were referred to as Darling
 * Some of User X's supporters are neither neutral nor reasonable
 * Some of User X's supporters are crassly aggressive
 * Some of User X's supporters stated they would ignore the result of this discussion and revert the article to User X's version

Dispute of summary
CheeseDream's version of the disputed area of the summary
 * (1) -

??????'s version of the disputed area of the summary
 * (1) -

Original text (as per archive 6) of the disputed area of the summary
 * (1) -

This verges on too much
CheeseDreams summarized what I wrote above thusly:
 * Slrubenstein disputes translating "Yohanan" as "Jonathan" rather than "John". FT2 points out how David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew, to which Wesley states that the New Testament is Greek. Slrubenstein states that "Yonatan" is "Jonathan" and "Yohanan" is "John". Slrubenstein states that FT2 is a nut, and questions whether FT2 is masturbating Slrubenstein.

First, it is a compelte misrepresentation of my point; I do not claim that Jonathan is Yohanan. Second, the link seems obnoxious and uncalled for. Slrubenstein

I wondered about that as well, but you did write "Ar eyou yanking my chain?....what you are saying here is a charicature of a nut" User:Tigermoon 11:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Yanking my chain" means, toying with me in order to waste my time and make me angry; it does not mean that he his stoking my penis with the intention of bringing me to orgasm. If CD doesn't understand the idiomatic expression, surely it was clear from context.  Slrubenstein

And Ive just found this at the same place, also written by you "Yonatan is represented in English as Jonathan. Yohanan is represented in English as John." User:Tigermoon 12:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this up -- as you make clear, I had explained to FT2 what his mistake was, and corrected him, long before he (finally) did his research. Slrubenstein


 * My research is not as shoddy as SIrubenstein has at times freely claimed. Specifically:
 * dictionary.com: "John - Middle English, from Old French Jehan, from Late Latin Ioannes, Iohannes, from Greek Ioannes, from Hebrew yôhanan, 'Yahweh has been gracious'..."
 * Nomenology Project: "John - DERIVATION: English, from the Hebrew name, Johanan, meaning, 'God is gracious.'  Found in the New Testament as the name of John the Baptist."
 * Emtymology and History of Biblical 1st names: "JOHN - m English, Biblical English form of Johannes, which was the Latin form of the Greek name Ioannes, itself derived from the Hebrew name Yochanan meaning 'YAHWEH is gracious'..."


 * Thats the derivation of "John". Next time, a little trust and respectful talk beforehand would be in order.
 * Next time, a little research before you write in an article would be in order. Then, you may earn some trust. Slrubenstein
 * More to the point, not making a mountain over a single minor tiny item would also be in order. This is what has characterised the problem with this article all the way - no sense of proportion. The appropriate "fix" would have been to (a) check it yourself, or (b) just edit the one word you didnt think right.  Not make a huge deal of it. I think this happens to be a good example why this article is in dispute. FT2 07:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

FT2 I appreciate that you have finally done some research, and your willingness to accept that John is Yochanan. I wish you had done this research before writing your version of the article. You are right -- in general -- that rather than make a big deal out of such mistakes editors should simply fix them. But you are disingenuous. I explained why this was an error and you mocked me. I wish you did your research then. Be that as it may, you have finally odne reseach, it is not shoddy, and I applaud your effort. But to the reall matter at hand: I didn't think I was making a big deal about this one point. Rather, I was listing this one point along with a dozen or more points that showed sloppy research or writing in your revision of my revision. Rather than go through each of these thirteen or fourteen problems in your version, I though it would just save a whole lot of time to revert to the earlier version, which was not plagued by this and so many other errors. Here is what it comes down to: I have done a lot of research on this period, and wrote a version that is to the best of my knowledge neutral (and which took into account virtually every single previous "vote" and discussion). It was clear to me that you had not done a lot of research. You say "check it yourself" and I say, well, let's do this before writing, it will save a lot of trouble. I did check such things before writing, but you did not. Why start with a very weak, error-prone version and spend a lot of time fixing it, when we can start with a relatively strong version and just improve it from there? Slrubenstein


 * fair points all of these. I think there was a difference, I wasnt aiming for perfect content - I was after 75% ok content.  It had to be that way as so many people had added material.  But poor factual information can be discussed, cited and fixed.  I was after an approach and a broad view to get towards a consensus like "okay, so apart from these sloppy individual facts, and that occasional poor wording, basically we now have a direction to go forward from, and a version not written by either 'side'."  I didnt think it was factually perfect, I was more interested to get reactions in general first. I figured simply saying "please leave it stand a while" would be enough, without a heavily detailed explanation. Hope that explains? FT2 18:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

FT2, I really don't question your intentions and if (in this specific instance) I said anything that questioned your intentions I apologize. Your intentions aside, I just felt there were so many errors and distortions in your version that it would be easier to go back to mine (which I must add was -- in my mind at least! -- built on your earlier work!). I understand that you did your best and did not claim it to be perfect. I just thought the previous version was better and made for a more practical continuation. Although I know your intentions were good, I do admit that it bothers me that you expected people to wait two days before editing work that you had not really researched, when you had just completely rewritten a draft for which I had spent considerable time researching. If anything, the principle should be that the more researched an article, the more time people allow themselves to think about it before editing; the less researched an article, the less time people allow themselves to think about it before editing. Slrubenstein