User talk:John Carter/Archives/2014/February

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer, whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * and were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
 * scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
 * scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Featured topics/She Wolf.
 * scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
 * has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Added
Hi John, glad to see you join. Somehow the request was in the wrong place, but Sunray has added you diff. I will try and step up if discussion threatens to veer into associated but unrelated Jewish-Christian gospels. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Veering off...
Re RetProf "John I think you are mistaken. Irenaeus, Jerome etc were writing when Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was in circulation" there is presumably a problem for yourself/Ignocrates to address the error in RetProf's comments since it is veering into the no go area of 4th Century heretical groups. I will keep an eye on this and if PiCo and Athnekos do not correct the error will intervene myself to do so. You won't need risk it. Thanks for your clear comments on the main issue, Matthew. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And also, get well soon
In ictu oculi (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

coulda sworn i saw ya active again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jordan/Assessment stuffed how to work out to expand the content of the assessment list to full range... any idea/time/capacity to help? satusuro 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Please dont bother to check - solved - it doesnt list 0/zero content categories. sorry to bother satusuro 15:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Re:
I don't think you really understand how it works here. I'm just a volunteer. I don't have any stake at all in the Gospel of Matthew and don't think too highly of it, no offense intended, and I do not know what insults you claim I've made to you. If at any point any of the parties to mediation decide they don't want to participate, they can go back to editing the article. My job is to help you to compromise. That's going to look like Ret Prof adding some of his stuff to the article. The compromise will not be you saying it's fine the way it is and it will stay that way forever. Articles are fluid and need to be able to change and grow. My job is to help you find a way to do that. If you don't like it you can walk away, and find yourself at AN/I or ArbCom fighting with people who won't help you find a compromise. That's your choice and you can go down the path of disruptive editing, blocks and bans, although I won't be the one doing that. I've been editing here for 10 years and I can tell you that compromise is easier and better for everyone. Andrevan@ 08:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Mediation Committee is a volunteer committee with no actual power or authority whatsoever. Similarly, its representatives are in no way empowered or encumbered. I am not in any way compensated nor bound by any kind of contract, and I have no obligation to even communicate with you right now. The chair of the committee is User:Sunray and the previous chair User:AGK is currently on Arbcom. You are free to contact them, but I think they would more likely observe that you are disruptive than that my mediation style was so aggressive as to be inappropriate. Yes I am blunt, but the fact is that I am simply trying to forge a consensus for the good of the encyclopedia. You appear to be pushing a religious POV that is somehow personal to you, editing tendentiously, and borderline bullying other editors. You're not the only culprit, but I assure you that you will not find a sympathetic ear to your mode of interaction here. Also, when you have 12 parties to a mediation, at least 2 of which are visibly disruptive and calling for Arbcom, you don't wait around for everyone to reply to everything, and consensus is not a vote. Andrevan@ 08:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me be blunt. The only thing I have seen from you is that you are apparently willing to place what you consider consensus "for the good of the encyclopedia" before all else, and, honestly, I cannot believe that a mediator who apparently thinks that as an individual they are uniquely qualified to determine the application of policies and guidelines, despite the fact that your above statement indicates that you both see yourself as being the law unto yourself, and that you apparently place your own interpretation of policy and guidelines before all else. And, if I may say so, your own rush to indicate what you consider to be the apparent actions of others only shows, to be blunt, your own utter ignorance of the topic under discussion. The two reference sources I have mentioned, along with the Anchor Bible Dictionary, are counted in the academic journals relating to religion/Christianity as being among the most neutral and non-biased of them all. I am sorry that you have, in this case, apparently decided your function is not so much mediator as judge, jury, and executioner, and around a subject about which, apparently, you know little or nothing firsthand, but I cannot believe that it is within the guidelines of mediation for someone to, basically, declare personal fiat. resJohn Carter (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mediation is non-binding. I am just a volunteer. I feel we have made progress. Wikipedia does not care what the publishing world things or what you think is unbiased. If a POV is supported with multiple reliable sources, as Ret Prof's is, there is an argument to be made for explaining it in the article. Mediators are supposed to be impartial, like me. Andrevan@ 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Andrevan, I find the above comment by you to provide among the strongest possible evidence for your own removal from this process. I believe a clear reading of the material presented would indicate that pretty much everything Ret.Prof has said supports his position actually can only be shoehorned into apparently doing so through what may well be willful misrepresentation of those sources. I also believe that your statement in which you clearly indicated a belief that it is virtually impossible for any tenured professor to publish a work which almost instantly qualifies as fringe is clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate and even, perhaps, contradicted by such works as professor James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty, which contained original synthetic theories which made at least one reviewer of the book describe it as "irresponsible." This regrettable tendency on your part to have apparently taken this personal, unsupported, belief as being more important than the evidence presented indicates quite clearly to me that while we may have made some progress, we would probably make more with some other mediator who displayed some greater knowledge of the topic and did not make such assertions which are, I believe, clearly demonstrated to be unfounded by instances almost too numerous for me to mention. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I really doubt you'll get another mediator to pick this up. Anyway, you seem to be confusing wrong, stupid, or minority theories with FRINGE theories. From that policy: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." Edwards and possibly Tabor as well aren't FRINGE not because they are tenured university professors, but because they have attracted so much attention (for being wrong) in reliable sources. Therefore it's reasonable to talk about their theories even if only to say they are wrong. Andrevan@ 20:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Andrevan, actually, I think that you are confusing things. Please read the guideines you quoted above, and notice that the word they use is "notable." That word, in our policies and guidelines, applies to notability as per WP:NOTABILITY, regarding the possibility of the topic being significant enough for attention in wikipdia in an article on it. Notability for an independent article and weight for inclusion in a broader article are not, and so far as I know never have been, considered interchangable, although your statements above seem to indicate that you see them as such. The fact that you apparently are willing to actively overlook some of the very content you quoted above in your own apparent, if perhaps unintentional, attempt to try to make circumstances adhere to your own beliefs is in my eyes very serious grounds for thinking that your understanding of the guidelines and policies you quoted above is perhaps insufficient for you to be able to know how they should be applied. If you had actually read some of the comments on the user page, you would notice that I in particular, and I think others, clearly acknowledged that the Edwards book was notable, and that I would be willing to help develop a standalone article on that topic. The fact that you seem not to have seen that, but that you have seen it reasonable to provide quotations which are not demonstrably relevant to this particular circumstance in your comment above, once again leads me to believe that you as an individual, whatever your other positive qualities are, and I do not doubt that there are several of them, are not a person whose neutrality can be necessarily trusted, because, unfortunately, you seem to be have taken personal views rather clearly contrary to fact as being of greater importance than the realities of the situation, and that on that basis your judgment of this matter cannot be considered trustworthy. Before filing yet another apparently almost instantaneous, response to this comment, please make an effort to read the comments on the mediation talk page, in which several editors repeatedly state that the contentions of one of the parties involved about certain sources supporting their particular views do not in fact even remotely support those views. Mediation does not so far as I understand consider OR and SYNTH to be acceptable simply because one party involved either refuses to recognize their own OR/SYNTH involved, and that the mediator apparently is not sufficiently familiar with either the subject or maybe even the material already presented to be able to see that OR/SYNTH for what it rather clearly is. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. In at least one of your comments in the mediation page, you rather clearly expressed or implied that you would be willing to use administrator powers if you saw demonstrable misconduct. The fact that you as an individual have rather clearly indicated that you would be willing to use the powers of adminship to support your own positions rather clearly and obviously contradicts your statement above about how the MedCom has no actual power. It may not, but you seem to have indicated that you might be willing to use your own, personal, administrative power in this instance, apparently with less than adequate knowledge or understanding of the topic, and that can I think be seen as being very seriously problematic, and that the implicit threat of using your powers in this instance perhaps unwisely raises, unfortunately, other concerns about whether you are the appropriate person to attempt to mediate this. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The FRINGE article talks about WEIGHT in the section below on "acceptance." Edwards' theory is not accepted but it is still notable and well-referenced. "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.

Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." So we have to still cover Edwards' theory. We just make clear that it is a minority theory and widely considered to be inaccurate. I'm not going to respond specifically to what I think looks like goading about my admin powers, except to say that I am an adherent of WP:IAR and WP:TINC. If I see misconduct I can always block, regardless of whether currently engaged in a mediation, on the moon, whatever. What you think is my "personal position" is really laughable. It would be impolite if I flatly told you what I personally thought about Christianity, Jesus, and the gospels. The fact that you think I somehow have an axe to grind here is truly silly. Andrevan@ 21:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC) d so should matters which have been documented as being reasonable and appropriate based on their actually being discussed to reasonable degrees in reliable reference works dealing clearly and explicitly with the subject of the article.''' Good God, man, I have to say that this seemingly bull-headed intransigence on your part shows nothing positive regarding you. Or do you somehow believe that matters which have been documented as being directly relevant to the topic on the basis of being included in academic overview articles, such as those in reference works, should take a secondary place to these fringe theories in our articles? Also, I note that you seem to have not done what I clearly requested in my last post above, and actually read some of the mediation page which rather clearly indicates that the documentation to which you refer does not in fact support the contentions they are being used to support without use of OR or SYNTH? So, in the past few minutes, you apparently refused to abide by my clearly stated request above, and to have decided not to actually see if the contentions of one party to the mediation are actually directly supported by the evidence he presented directly, without his OR or SYNTH?


 * I don't see any OR since the sources are Edwards and the Aune book. You'll have to explain your SYNTH claim further. Could you please comment specifically on Atethnekos' version on the page. "A few scholars hold that Papias accurately describes a document by the Apostle Matthew in Hebrew or Aramaic, and some further hold that this document influenced the Gospel of Matthew.(refs) The consensus however is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew and that it has no known Hebrew or Aramaic source document.(refs)" How does that consist of OR or SYNTH? More importantly, how does a few dismissive sentences shift the balance such that you feel now this minority theory is taking precedence over the academic consensus? Andrevan@ 21:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please join us at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Hebrew_Gospel_of_Matthew Andrevan@ 21:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What did you have in mind?
Re What inaccurate statements did you have in mind? Obviously I would want to correct myself for the record. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, no problem; thanks. If I just read the discussion above, I guess I would have been able to infer that it was just the wrong name! And, of course, no need to apologize—I'm sorry for not sorting it out myself!-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)