Talk:Megillat Antiochus

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Megillat Antiochus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528035707/http://customerservant.com/2006/12/16/the-scroll-of-the-hasmoneans/ to http://customerservant.com/2006/12/16/the-scroll-of-the-hasmoneans/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528035707/http://customerservant.com/2006/12/16/the-scroll-of-the-hasmoneans/ to http://customerservant.com/2006/12/16/the-scroll-of-the-hasmoneans/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Biased POV
There's a user who keeps baselessly removing well-sourced factual historical information to push a biased POV about this article.

This starts with very simple basic things -- I clarify that 1 and 2 Maccabees tell the story of the Hasmonean revolt, not the unrelated texts that go by the names 3 and 4 Maccabees and further down the line, but the user keeps insisting that this is incorrect and reverting this change to include the unrelated texts. I'm not sure why the user keeps pushing this misleading idea that 3 and 4 Maccabees tell the same story as Megillat Antiochus, but it's bizarre. It leads to more consequential falsehoods, though.

Academics widely understand that this text was composed centuries after the historical events it describes, in the early medieval period. I initially sourced this claim with the comprehensive academic analysis of the subject. When asked for more sources, I added five more. When the academic sources were deleted again because it apparently wasn't sourced well enough, I added more. I have now demonstrated this with *fourteen* independent sources: 8 academic journal articles, 3 books, and 3 tertiary sources a la encyclopedias. This is not controversial; this is straightforward. It's a basic fact about the subject matter and it is misleading and biased to claim it's not true.

But a user keeps deleting these well-sourced facts. Moreover, the user shamelessly lies about the sourcing, saying there's only one source when there are countless. The user posts lecturing, patronizing and simply false comments, like "learn to reflect sources" while making changes that do NOT reflect the sources on the subject matter. The user posts bullying messages on my talk page, while deleting facts from the article without even discussing why. This user's actions and tone are truly deeply rude. On top of that, in the process, the user keeps forcing into the article a link to a non-academic, unencyclopedic, utterly unsuitable "source" -- CustomerServant.com? What? Moreover, the user keeps misrepresenting another source, a non-peer-reviewed essay written for a religious audience, as having a definitive encyclopedic facts about the dating of the material. In interest in being diplomatic, I've kept this reference as far as can be justified encyclopedically. But it should not be used to push the user's bias, as he currently is doing.

I have no idea *why* the user is pushing this biased POV. To me, it doesn't matter. I just want to article to reflect the facts. But I'm really at a loss. This article is biased as written, and this user's actions are totally out of line. Amplifysound (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The real issue here has nothing to do with 1, 2, 3, or 4 Maccabees, because this is the article of the Megillat Antiochus.
 * The real issue is that you took a source that has a certain opinion, and then changed the article based on the assumption that your source is the only correct one. You must understand that there was a whole and complete article, sources and all, before you showed up with that one source. The correct way to go about multiple sources with difference of opinion, is to mention all of them. You did not do that. As soon as you understand that Wikipedia mustreflect all sourced information and an impartial way, feel free to come back here and propose what you would like to change.
 * By the way, I am not "a user", I am User:Debresser. In addition, you do not need to speculate what my motives are, since Wikipedia discussion should address the issue, not the person. Let's also not use big words, like "falsehoods" etc. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

1) So now you acknowledge that the article as written has a false claim about 3 and 4 Maccabees and you insist on including it? What on earth?

2) You insist on forcing into the article something from CustomerServant. Huh? This is unencyclopedic and totally unsuitable for Wikipedia.

3) You claim that I have "one source" when I actually have fourteen. This is a lie. Please stop lying.

4) You claim that I didn't mention all the sources -- ie the single source making a fringe claim about the dating of the subject matter. *But my changes to the article DO mention that source.* This is another lie. Please stop lying.

5) If you have a dispute about the well-sourced facts presented in the article before you deleted it, you have every right to find legitimate sources yourself. Not CustomerServant.com. But deleting facts to push your biased POV looks like vandalism to me. I am adding sources. You are removing them.

Every single action you have made here bristling with contempt for me, posting harassing messages on my personal page, while pushing a biased, anti-academic point of view. Is this how things work here? FOr shame. Amplifysound (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No way. How on earth did you read that into what I wrote?
 * I don't insist on forcing anything into the article. It is there already. May not be the best of sources. Nevertheless, the article on face value seems to be stating one true statement after the other.
 * "Please stop lying." Cut the drama. You take on source and use it to disqualify all others. That is not how things work.
 * Again, please cut the drama. This is not helpful.
 * Now that was a bod faith personal attack. Please stop that. Again, not helpful.
 * So what is your point? What do you want changed in this article? Please be constructive. I am listening. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So what is your point? What do you want changed in this article? Please be constructive. I am listening. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

1) You have multiple times added it to the article after I removed it! It is currently in the article as we speak!

2) You have multiple times added the CustomerServant.com "source" to the article. I can see this happen with my own two eyes. I am just utterly confused by what you're saying here. How on earth is you adding a non-academic source to an article, multiple times, not forcing it into the article?

3) "One source"? I found FOURTEEN sources. This is now multiple times you're lying by saying that I have one source.

4) "Drama"? I am stating facts. Please stop with this patronizing tone.

Everything about how you have acted with me is just rude, patronizing, and bullying. Saying I "must" do this, "warning" me, all the while I am improving an article by adding well sourced facts while you are hurting an article by removing well sourced facts. You seem to think you have ownership over this page for some reason, that everyone needs deign to your authority. But the authority is the facts. The authority is the academic sources. Not you.

As written, the article is the equivalent of an article about the Gospel of Mark saying it was written by the Apostle Mark. It wasn't. It is a text written by an unknown writer years later, despite what a fringe of scholars claim. Similarly, what I want is for this article to reflect the widespread academic analysis that the text of the scroll was written in the medieval era. It is fine to qualify this lower down that one scholar takes an earlier position, but nothing more than that, any more than an article about gMark would give weight to fringe claims that it was written within a few years of Jesus's death.

I am seeing in the history of the article that you have already unilaterally skewed article, twisting the "Authorship" section into this misleading "History" section. Needless to say, you didn't get consensus on the talk page to push your biased POV. The result is the article forcefully, and wrongly, states that the text was written in antiquity instead of the early medieval era, while casting later medieval religious writers' baseless claims about authorship about as relevant history. No, absolutely not. A better and less biased article would separate Authorship and History, summing up the modern academic analysis of the text's authorship under Authorship, and combining the Use in Ritual section with the medieval writers' references to the work in a new History section.

But can do no more. I've spend enough time on this. When you've asked for more sources, I go from one source to six to fourteen; when I ask you for sources, you write patronizing messages about process. You've made it very clear that you have the power, you have the control, and that you have no interest in an academic approach to the subject matter. Congratulations, you can do with the page what you want. Amplifysound (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "harassing messages on my personal page" Feel free to ask anybody if the two messages I posted on your talkpage constitute harassment.
 * Please stop the rant. If you have any proposals to make, please make them here and now. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I have made proposals multiple times in fine detail. I just responded to your note asking for a proposal with a proposal... and you respond asking for a proposal? This is bottomless bad faith. Skew the page to your heart's content. Goodbye. Amplifysound (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)