Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein


 * See also past AfD, MfD

Notability?
It seems to me that there needsto be more than just one person being disgruntled to have a real dispute. I cite from the top of the page: "At least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." Fences and windows have just (reluctantly) provided evidence of mediation of some sort--but does any one besides the initiator have this dispute with this editor? I mean, really, a real dispute over the use of the word "bigot" in this particular case, besides that some of us (many of us, maybe) find it a tad uncivil? I see no evidence of that. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Close this RfC and move on. It's just a waste of time and energy. Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  09:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I believe the initiator was told to open an RfC when he tried to request a case at arbitration. However, I agree that it is a waste of time.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment on comments
I agree, it isn’t likely to be productive. ArbCom insisted that it be tried, so I am trying it.

Slrubenstein’s response is identical to the one he produced in the ANI, despite the criticism raised there. It amounts to an argument that he’s entitled to call editors bigots of he’s right about the content dispute. His analogy to African-American scholars is irrelevant. Even if an editor wrongly advocated identifying a source as African-American, it would be a violation of WP:NPA to say “You’re a racist bigot.” His point would be irrelevant, even if it were valid. It also isn’t valid. Being Black is not a religion. An African-American is not committed by any doctrine of “Blackness” to have any position on any civil rights matter. The topic here is the existence of Jesus. Priests, fundamentalist Evangelicals, and bishops--all sources used for factual claims in these articles--are not neutral on the existence of Jesus. Neither are presses that self-describe as publishing “essential resources for ministry and the life of faith."

Slrubenstein writes as if I want to exclude Christian sources. I’ve never said any such thing. I’ve said we need more secular, peer-reviewed sourcing. I’ve argued that if something is a fact, you can find it mentioned as fact in secular, peer-reviewed sources.If we can’t find such sourcing, we should identify the background of the sources to the reader. I’ve cited WP:RS, which says: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view." When the vast majority of sources for the claim that Jesus existed are professional Christians (theologians and presses), care is not being taken with sources that promote a particular view. Slrubenstein’ description of what I’ve said is wrong.

But, this is irrelevant. Even if my analysis is completely wrong, there is no defense for attacking people. It ends the conversation, alienates editors, and destroys collaboration. More than once, I’ve wondered why I am struggling to maintain my civility (with mixed results), when nobody else is making the effort. If I think Slrubenstein is a Christian bigot, I must be entitled to say so--according to his theory of collaboration. The end result would be that we just sit around calling each other bigots. Whether he is right or wrong about my prejudices is irrelevant. His behavior is a willful violation of WP:NPA. Noloop (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Slrubenstein is not Christian so I'm not sure why you would ever call him a Christian bigot. Furthermore Slrubenstein is reacting to behavior that he's clearly not alone in finding disruptive.  Take a look in the mirror and tell me what you see.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Noloop, do you think that the comment currently showing on your user page ("There is a facaded of certainty in these articles, defended by Christian editors who care more about their religion than truth (not exactly the first time).") fosters collaboration? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The comment on my user page is 1) based mainly on the self-identification of editors; they state they are Christian on their user pages; it is hardly a violation of anything to note what they say about themselves, 2) not an attack, since there is nothing wrong with being Chrsitian; it is not comparable to "bigot." 3) Not part of any discussion with any group; it is my user page; it is not a violation of "discuss edits not editors", 4) written yesterday; I freely admit that after being insulted and abused for three weeks, my patience has eroded; why should I make an effort to be polite to those who are rude to me?
 * As for not being alone, 1) It is irrelevant; popular personal attacks are still personal attacks, 2) I am not alone in expressing these concerns about sourcing, merely the most active about it. Noloop (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So you think it's ok to make a general statement that Christian editors care more about their religion than truth? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think 1) You lost the right to any high ground after you spent three weeks insulting me, 2) It is on my User page, not part of any Talk page discussion and not directed at any editor, 3) True that religion has long track record of self-promotion (and hate) at the expense of the truth: Creationism, an Inquisition or two, burning people at the stake, "God Hates Fags" campaigns  etc. None of this has anything to do with the personal attacks of Slrubenstein and his self-righteous insistence that such attacks are his right. The irony here is that I feel a great deal of hate directed at me in the name of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So, it seems the answer is yes, it is ok to make a general statement that Christian editors care more about their religion than truth. Furthermore, you seem to think that these editors (who are they?) share common ground with creationists, the Inquisition, witch-hunters, and the Westboro Baptist Church, and are now directing hate at you in the name of Jesus? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it is OK to make a statement that some editors promote their own religion, particularly when the statement is on your own User page where it doesn't disrupt discussion of an article, and after you have been subjected to abuse by those editors for weeks. Yes, religion is, by definition, a rejection of proven methods of the pursuit of truth, i.e., a rejection of reason and evidence in preference for faith. Noloop (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's not a general statement: it's about certain editors, who are attacking you, but whom you don't care to name directly. Doesn't matter, really, because your statement that "religion is, by definition, a rejection of proven methods of the pursuit of truth, i.e., a rejection of reason and evidence in preference for faith" is the basic problem here, especially when you apply this attitude to scholars like John P. Meier, Robert Van Voorst, etc. and argue that their scholarship is only representative of the "Christian community", and not mainstream scholarship. You are applying a religious litmus test—not just to sources used in articles, but, it appears, to your fellow editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ... religion is, by definition, a rejection of proven methods of the pursuit of truth, i.e., a rejection of reason and evidence in preference for faith. Wow, this comment displays a complete ignorance of the history of Western thought.  To make such a statement you have to ignore all of European history prior to the Enlightenment and much of the history that followed it.  Of course even in todays age this stark polarity between religion and science is only found in the world views of extremists - conservative religionists and radical atheists.  Where religion and science were intricately connected in previous eras they are quite radically compartmentalized in the experience of many moderns.  Religious faith has become a private matter to many, with nothing to contribute to politics or to our understanding of how the material world functions.  When religion is privatized in this manner there is little opportunity for the type of culture wars conflict that Noloop is clearly immersed in.  Noloop how insular is your understanding of what it means to be religious?  You really need to do some reading my friend.Griswaldo (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Noloop, for concreteness here, what specific published reliable sources do you recommend for the articles that you are attempting to edit? One of the first things I do when wading into articles that might be controversial to edit (which, alas, is quite a few articles on Wikipedia) is to put links to source lists on the user talk pages of those articles, sometimes weeks before I do the first edits on them. I show people what resources are out there, and then I gently wade in to make small edits or large, referring to sources to back up my edits and asking curious, interested questions about sources other people rely on to make edits. I call in the help of experts (or presumed experts) from various WikiProject pages when I feel I need more expertise as a reality check on my opinions. This seems to work reasonably well. So again I ask, what sources do you recommend as good sources on the subjects of the articles that you desire to edit? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're asking. Others are claiming that secular academia accepts the existence of Jesus as fact. Others are claiming that the existence of Jesus is not a primarily Christian POV. Then, they are sourcing that claim primarily to Christian theologians, priests, bishops, fundamentalist Evangelicals, and Christian presses. I am asking them, where are the secular, peer-reviewed sources? Why would I be the one providing such sources? I'm not the one claiming they exist.
 * This is irrelevant. The topic is whether it is OK to attack you for bigotry if I don't like your answer. Noloop (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Noloop, you wrote, "I don't know what you're asking." Allow me to repeat myself: what specific published reliable sources do you recommend for the articles that you are attempting to edit? (I would have expected you to answer with a listhowever shortof published books and articles that you trust on the subjects of the articles that you desire to edit.) Note both how general my question is (it could apply to any attempt to edit any article on any subject) and how specific it is (I'm asking what specific published sources you think today that you can rely on). We're here to edit an encyclopedia based on  reliable sources. If you haven't already found some reliable sources, why are you here? Note that I am giving you an opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to the project and your willingness to work collaboratively with other editors, which I assume in good faith, here while other editors are looking on. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Repeat away. The subject of this page is insults. Would you like to explain how the applicability of WP:NPA hinges on your question? Noloop (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Noloop here's a very simple concrete question for you that you will, undoubtedly avoid answering, but one can always try and try again. What "secular peer-reviewed sources" can you name that do not accept the basic historicity of Jesus?  Does that require more clarity or do you comprehend the question?  Please do answer it.Griswaldo (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't claimed there are any, so the question is irrelevant. Now here's a very simple concrete idea for you. When you are rude to an editor, the editor is likely and entitled to ignore you. So, when the editor "avoids" answering you, the problem is yours. Noloop (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Noloop when you fail to answer a question that is pertinent to a content discussion it is always a reflection on you. Behavioral issues are separate.  If someone is truly uncivil to you there are separate ways to deal with that, like this, a user conduct RfC.  Not answering a question because you claim the person asking it is rude is an obvious cop-out.  Regarding your pseudo-answer, since you don't believe there are any "secular peer-reviewed sources" that assert the basic historicity of Jesus, and you now say that there are no "secular peer-reviewed sources" that question the basic historicity of Jesus, it appears that you're saying there are no secular peer reviewed sources that ever deal with the historicity of Jesus.  Is that correct?  If that is the case then on what grounds could anyone suggest that scholars who are religious and are producing scholarship on this question are biased?  What are you comparing their work to in order to discern their bias?  Apparently nothing.Griswaldo (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relatedly, I asked you (or perhaps one of your defenders) elsewhere if you could name one "secular peer-reviewed source" that asserts the basic historicity of Caesar (since Caesar is your favorite counter example). I have received no answer to this either.  Here's a more general question.  Are there any "secular peer-reviewed sources" that assert the basic historicity of any person from antiquity?  If so can you please name one.Griswaldo (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ed conflict)You are confusing the record of institutional and populist fanaticism with scholarship. Much of modern scepticism about early Christian history comes from believers trained in the critical methods of textual scholarship. What happened was that Renaissance textual analysis of classical literature gradually slipped over into the untouched world of Christian scholarship, and wrought havoc. You seem to think there is no difference between the Jerry Falwells of this world and the Rudolf Bultmanns. Indeed your failure to reply to repeated requests by multiple editors for you to come up with secular scholarship you would approve of appears (perhaps we are wrong)to suggest you are unfamiliar with the history of the scholarship you are so critical of.Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)\


 * What does this have to do with whether I get to spend weeks and weeks calling you an ignorant, fanatical, POV-pushing, bigoted troll? Noloop (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been called worse, and never complained. Look at it from the other side, which has spent weeks and weeks waiting for you to answer a simple question, which you never do? Which RS scholars fit your requirements? If you have them, propose and make edits. If all you have is a generic suspicion about the biases of the scholarly sources used so far, then lay off. Otherwise as here, at least one or two interlocutors will tire of the waste of time and use, as did Slrubenstein, language that is formally deplored. And, instead of resolving article edit issues, we get a further useless distraction, ironing out the score-settling of wiki upmanship rule-leveraging.Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Stick to the topic. If I think someone is an ignorant POV-pushing fanatical bigot, am I entitled to call that person an ignorant POV-pushing fanatical bigot? Noloop (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Noloop, you ask, "If I think someone is an ignorant POV-pushing fanatical bigot, am I entitled to call that person an ignorant POV-pushing fanatical bigot?" That raises a question: what neutral principle are you suggesting be applied to the editor about whom you have asked for comment that you would also like applied to your behavior? How would you express that principle, in your own words? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA Noloop (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved from main page

 * Noloop's characterisation of Slruberstein's conduct seems to me to be a fair one, although he is not the only editor involved in the discussions who has been at fault. Claims made below that Noloop rightly deserves the label "bigot" are unwarranted, because the position held by Noloop (roughly, that the religious stance of a writer may affect their POV - ie Christian sources may be biased towards the view that Jesus existed), whether right or wrong, is not unreasonable. I think Sluberstein has a tendency to overdramatise in his characterisations of other editors. --FormerIP (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If that were Noloop's position, I would agree with it and simply ask for secondary sources that identify the POV or some other evidence that makes the POV clear. In fact ... I have asked Noloop for this evidence.  He never provides it.  The problem is, "that the religious stance of a writer may affect their POV - ie Christian sources may be biased towards the view that Jesus existed" is not Noloop's position.  Noloop's position is "that the religious stance of a writer necessarily affects their POV - ie Christian sources are always be biased towards the view that Jesus existed."  He consistently ignores any evidence to the contrary, and refuses to provide evidence of his own. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you not see that your modified version of Noloops position (whether it is accurate or not) would also not be unreasonable and would also not justify abuse? --FormerIP (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You and I can slug it out, or we can cordially agree to disagree, because I think that this is a serious problem and one Wikipedia needs to confront.  It is Noloop who is attacking others when he rejects their claims to be historians on the basis of their identity as Christians, without being willing to look at what they actually say.  It is an attack against them (and an attack against academid historians too), and it also degrades the quality of this encyclopedia.  I know that there are people who in the real world have very intense feelings against different groups of people.  Theyhave to put those feelings aside not only as a sign of good faith to other editors, but also because it has no place in an encyclopedia.  If the encyclopedia ends up being about ignorance rather than knowledge, what is the point?  And Noloop has demonstrated not only that he is ignorant about the sources he discusses, he refuses to learn any relevant knowledge fro other editors.  I really am amazed that you even ask me the question.  If you cannot see the difference between "she may have a bias; let me read what she has written and what others have written about her work so I can find out" and "I know she is a Christian and that is all I need to know, I do not need to read the work or anyone else's comments on the work, just from knowing her identity, I know that her work is biased and I will simply ignore anyone who has evidence to the contrary."  Just look up the word "prejudiced" in the library, please.  It is not just ugly wherever it appears, it is corrosive to a project that is based on learning new things. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well said, Slrubenstein. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Poorly said, Slrubenstein. None of your summary is accurate or relevant, and if you had read anything I said to you before I stopped saying anything to you due to your behavior, you would know it. Your comments not only lack precision, they lack logic. You are the one who believes the existence of Jesus is primarily a Christian POV. We know this because you are the one who defends sourcing the claim primarily to priests, evangelicals and Christian presses. If you didn't think the claim was a Christian POV, you would be producing as many non-Christian scholars supporting it as Christian ones. You can’t or won’t, and make personal attacks to dodge the point. The only real question here, which you continually dodge, is how you think calling editors ignorant POV-pushing fanatical bigots helps you work with them. Noloop (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have asked you repoeatedly, at least four or five times, to provide other sources you find accetable. Youhave noever responsed.  I can only iner that you do not know them, ven though I and other endots have given you namese,  This RfC is really about: dhould ditors go tothe library and read books, or not? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I try to ignore people who are insulting. In that case, I also ignored you because the question was irrelevant. I'm not the one claiming secular peer-reviewed sources exist. You are. Noloop (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Slimvirgin and WP:SOAP
I'm a bit perplexed by the outside view given by User:Slimvirgin in that it really does not address the behavioral issues here but instead appears to use the venue as a soapbox to promote Slimvirigin's general view concerning the Jesus articles. Slimvirgin believes we ought to integrate a fringe theory, Christ myth theory into the Jesus articles. I think it's clear why many of us do not agree with this perspective. That's neither here nor there of course. I fail to see how soapboxing about this here is at all appropriate.Griswaldo (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see you you might think Slimvirgin's comments are off-topic, but in fact I think they give an important perspective. Noloop has a perfectly rational view as to how the content in a number of articles should be presented, which is shared, to varying degrees by a number of other editors. Editors, including but not only Sluberstein, who don't like this perspective have labelled Noloop as a bigot (or similar) in order (IMO) to allow themselves licence to reject the concerns raised out-of-hand rather than engage constructively. So I think Slimvirgin is right to outline why the content-based position of Noloop does not constitute bigotry and is shared by other editors.
 * Noloop, I think, doesn't help herself by straying away from discussing content (for example, by making reference above to witch trials etc - Noloop, please take note, this isn't helpful). But I don't think that provocation and abuse of other editors is ever likely to help her stick to the point, particularly when her content-based arguments are responded to with scorn and insults. --FormerIP (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Except a good half of the comment deals with integrating the "Christ myth theory" into Jesus articles and that has no direct connection to the dispute in which Slr has called Noloop a bigot. This dispute involves labeling sources by the religious affiliation of the authors.   She also discusses a general issue at the entry for Christ myth theory which is also not part of this dispute, nor did it involve Slr's behavior.  This is an attempt to further her views more generally on the topic.  It has little relevance to the discussion and is of little to no help in sorting out the problem.Griswaldo (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is directly related because 1) the grounds for minimizing CMT is that it is a fringe theory, comparable to Holocaust denial, 2) the basis for designating it a fringe theory is the claim that its rejection is widespread by mainstream scholars, 3) my criticism that we can't source (2) to secular peer-reviewed academia is the basis for denouncing me as a bigot. Noloop (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The community has been in agreement with mainstream scholars on the status of the CMT for years apparently -- and both consider it a fringe theory. You want to post to the FTN again?  They suggested that the issues comes back there all the time and the answer is always the same -- FRINGE.  But you didn't hear that then and most likely wont hear it again.  That's the real problem here.  It doesn't matter what sources people bring to you, or what answers you get from a variety of content noticeboards you just keep POV pushing as if no one has answered your questions or demands.Griswaldo (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The basis for saying that your arguments involve anti-religious bias is simply that the scholars whose work you object to are mainstream scholars. Your only argument that they're not mainstream is that they're Christians. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't object to their work. You have no idea what I think. Even though I've explained it a million times. Even though I'm not alone in thinking it. Noloop (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You object to us treating their work as if it is mainstream enough to go unattributed into our entries. You object to not attributing religious affiliation.  We can't know what you think but we know what you write.  Please stop being so evasive all the time.Griswaldo (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are saying you would like to remove my views from this page, Griswaldo, just as you removed my attempt to seek help on Talk:Christ myth theory when I was being attacked, just as you remove material from Historicity of Jesus that raises questions or provides context. Perhaps you could make an effort to stop erasing material you disagree with?


 * I can tell you that if these articles are not opened up to other sources, the issue is likely to end up before ArbCom. The articles must be neutral, and that means allowing in voices that you don't like, and maybe even some that you don't feel are highly qualified enough. But the article can't only reflect views that a small group of editors approve of from a tiny circle of sources who agree with each other. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 22:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? I haven't even asked to have your comment here removed I just question its relevance.  What material have a removed from other talk pages or main entries? Please do answer that question with diffs.  I hope this does end up before arbcom.  Its a fringe fiasco that you appear to be a champion of by the way.Griswaldo (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * @Griswaldo: Evasive? I've spent the last month explaining my concern with the articles. Before I was "POV-pushing" and "forum shopping", suddenly I'm "evasive." If I appear evasive, it's because you're trying to attack. You've managed to know my views are bigoted, without knowing my views. Noloop (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide the diff where I called your views bigoted. If you cannot then prepare yourself for understanding the irony of your comment.Griswaldo (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to PeaceLoveHarmony
Peace asks, "There is nothing bigoted about noting that one's religious beliefs have an impact on one's ability to objectively assess data that challenges the truth-claims of that religion. Am I a bigot for having this opinion?" Well, you have just changed the whole issue here! The issue is not "the truth claims of the religion," the question is their ability to be objective historians. Nevertheless, since you asked: the problem here is that Christianity, like most major religions, is fairly divides and heterogeneous. So it depends on how well you know the other person's beliefs. Does just knowing that someone is a Christiam mean you can infer that they are not competent or even expet historians on 1st century Roman occupied Palestine? If your answer is yes, well, then, yes, you are a bigot. If you engage in a dialogue with someone about (1) what they believe about Christianity and (2) what they believe about history and (3) what they believe about the bible, and then you can make unbigoted inferences. But if you make inferences without knowing the specifics of what they believe, yes, of course you are a bigot, that is practically the definition of bigotry! A christian can just as easily study history and come to question their belief in certain elements of Christianity ... and they may still go on being Christiant.

Here is the funniest thing about the bigots' point of view: they demand that anyone who call him or herself a Christian must be a fundamentalist. When I say that a historian can reject the resurrection, for examplke, or the virgin birth, some editors tell me oh well then that person is no longer a Christian. Yup, Wikipedia seems to have its own test for who is a good Christian. But there are actual Christians who will say openly they have come to reject the teachings of the Church, or certain elements of Christianity, yet still consider themselves Christian. There are planty of Hindoos, Jews, Native Americans, Muslims and Christians who go to University or read books and abandon many of the "truth-claims" of their religion, at least in its traditional or orthodox or fundamentalist form, yet continue to identify themselves as Christians.

Which is why, Peace, it IS bigoted to make a judgement about ANYONE's beliefs based just on their identity. You need to find out first what they believe. This is all I have been arguing for and it is still beyond me how any Wikipedian can reject this. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to SlimVirgin
I sympathize with much of what SV writes. I do not think most of it applies to this situation.

I cannot speak about the Historicity of Jesus article. Right now, the article is simply misnamed. It is a summary of all the sources that historians discuss as possible historical sources relevant to Jesus' life. The article seems pretty balanced - for example, it provides a quote from Josephus that includes mention of Jesus, and also states that most scholars consider part of this quote to be a forgery inserted into the text by Christians at a later date. In other words, it is taking a critical view of sources. But the article should be retitled something like "sources relating to Jesus." I would expect an article on the hsitoricity of Jesus to be an article covering debartes as to whether or not Jesus existed. Would that we had such an article! Then we could have a robust argument over which views are significant. But we do not yet even have that article.

Be that as it may, my encounger with Noloop has pretty much been limited to the Jesus article and my accusing him of bigotry is based mostly on what I see as bigoted comments on that article's talk page (but not exclusively). With this in mind I have three comments concerning SV's statement.


 * SV notes that on the Christ Myth Theory page, scholars "outside that circle was not only rejected as a source, but was actively ridiculed in the article or on the talk page, to the point where two editors were posting jokes on talk about a scholarly source they disagreed with (a living person)..." Obviously this is indefensible and any notable scholar's views should be included.  I hope this has been resolved, but this is not (as SV notes) at all an issue between myself and Noloop.  in fact, I have asked Noloop several times to suggest other sources we should include in the Jesus article, and he refuses to propose additional sources.  If SV thinks the problem is that non-Christian views are being excluded from the Jesus article, or that sources Noloop is proposing are being mocked by me, she is dead wrong.  Other views and sources are included at the Jesus article, and I continute to ask Noloop to propose other sources.
 * "Why is G.A. Wells not used? He's a professor of German who has devoted much of his life to studying the historicity of Jesus—the author of 11 books on the subject—and therefore clearly a specialist source." Well, what can I say?  You said it: GA Wells is a professor of German.  he has no training in 1st ce ntury Jewish history, and no evidence of any expertise in 1st century Jewish history, so why should we consider him a significant view on 1st century Jewish history.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must have encyclopedic standards.  The fact that GA Wells has a PhD in German or was a professor in German does not mean he has any authority when it comes to chemistry or quantum mechanics.  Now I know that some scholars actually DO make contributions in fields not there own.  An insurance salesman can be a poet, an engineer can be a philosopher.  But we know them to be poets or philosophers because other poets or philosophers accept them as such.  I do not think bona fide historians of 1st century roman occupied judea have been persuaded that Wells has trained himself or has the insight to make any real contributions to their field.  Now, if we want to say that there is a scholarly theory and a popular theory and list Wells as one of the peopel espousing the popular theory, that is fine by me.  On some topics popular views matter, and I think religion is one of them.  But the 19th century involved a long struggle to establish modern academic disciplines with modern scientific or critical standards, which in many fields involved a move away from dilittentism to a demand for some kind of serious expertise.  Many of these fields of course rest on the work of pioneering dilettents but I insist that an encyclopedia must take scholarship seriously.  11 books to one's name may indeed make one's views significant by WP standards and worthy of inclusion, but they do not make them scholarly.  You need to be accepted by other scholars to be considered scholarly - you can't have it both ways!Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By that criterion, Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, is not a reliable or quotable source on Plato, as opposed to being one on Hegel, hence no to vol.1, and yes to vol.2, because he was not a trained classical scholar or expert on Greek thought. Or Raymond Tallis is not quotable on Derrida (Not Saussure) is written not by a philosopher but a gerontologist. Or Richard Rorty 's fine essay on Nabokov (in Contingency, irony and solidarity) is useless for wiki because Rorty was a philosopher not a trained professor of English or Slavonic studies. Or Michael Mann's multivolumed Sources of Social Power can't be cited on any aspect of history, which it is a structural-economic analysis of, because he is a sociologist. Or Irvin Leigh Matus can't be cited on Shakespeare and those who deny his authorship because he hasn't a tertiary degreem and is untrained in Elizabethan history. Or George Steiner can't be cited on Heidegger because he is trained in Comparative Literature, not in philosophy. I've got to catch a movie, which an excuse for not typing away till midnight. The rules can be used to include or exclude anything on any topic, like excluding, as you did recently, Antonio Saldarini, an expert on Ist century Judaism and Christianity, from the article on Antisemitism in the New Testament on the quibble that the relevant quote 'most early Christians were Jews' (a platitude in the field) is cited on a page which doesn't mention antisemitism. Pal, though I have backed you on Noloop, the fact is, most of us do not behave coherently across articles, and depending on circumstances cite different protocols, according to contextual impressions that have little to do with the final aim of wikipedia, i.e., comprehensive informed neutral articles. We are all guilty here, and experienced editors should wake up to themselves and realize that most of the rules were developed to teach and regulate newcomers who have no idea of what writing an NPOV article according to RS means. After several years, one should recognize that certain editors know the ropes, and proceed with discretion. That is not a waiver, or an affirmation of privileges and exemptions, it's just commonsense. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, I would say that how a scholars work is received in the field they are publishing in is much more important than training at the doctoral level, since some scholars do interdisciplinary work and others simply abandon the fields they are trained in for others. There are various indicators of such a reception, the most obvious being how such scholars are cited by known experts, if and how their works have been reviewed in reliable journals, etc.  I agree with you that the fact that Wells does not have a relevant PhD does not de facto exclude him, but other factors should be evaluated as well.  Also, in Slrubenstein's defense, it is Slim who keeps on bringing up Wells qualifications as a professor of German as if those are supposed to be meaningful here.  They are clearly not meaningful.Griswaldo (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think Wells' qualifications as a professor of German who specializes in the history of ideas are relevant, because his work and training deals with a time and place that gave rise to the critical study of the Bible. On the other hand, I agree with Griswaldo that we have to look at how a person's work is received in the field. Popper, Rorty, and Steiner have had an impact on the study of Plato, Nabokov, and Heidegger, and this could be demonstrated by looking at scholarship in those areas. Wells, on the other hand, hasn't had that kind of reception in biblical studies; his work isn't mentioned often, and when it is, it's to note that it's considered outlandish, unconvincing, however you want to put it. Wells himself notes that his ideas haven't won acceptance in the field. He is mentioned in historicity of Jesus, in a way that echoes his reception. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read this while writing below, where our views overlap on some points. Just for the record, George Steiner is a hopeless guide to Heidegger (his Past Masters' booklet was embarrassing, to say the least), a waffler in short, but no one would be upset if he were cited on Heidegger and to repeat, Popper's work was greeted by considerable hostility, esp. in the United States, by professional classicists specializing on GPhil. I am arguing abstractly, (to do so annoys me) because I am unfamiliar with Wells' work. Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, my point was that being a professor of German is not de facto meaningful, just as it is not de facto meaningless. Slimvirgin has never presented any connection between Wells' specialization and the historicity question as far as I know. I have little competence in this area myself and until you mentioned this particular connection I was oblivious to it.Griswaldo (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bottom line: the editors working on an article (e.g. Heidegger or Plato) have to discuss whether someone's views are significant, and if so, how to identify them. Popper's views may not be significant as a biographer or historian of Plato, for example, but they may be significant as a philosopher.  But surely Popper does not claim to be an expert on plato as such, and to be writing as a philosopher in the Western tradition?  Don't we take seriously how he characterizes his own views?  Surely, we would not just scharaterize is views on Plato as "Popper, presenting a Lutheran's view of Plato, says ..." (because he was brought up Lutheran)?  Would any of you really do that?  Wouldn't you instead ask how he identifies his own views and then see how his views are identified by his interlocutors before deciding whether he is presenting the Lutheran view or some other view?  That is all I have been arguing.  If you think we shoudl decide how to designate his view, then you agree with me, not Noloop. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is not an academic journal. Our readers want to see a broad sweep of opinion." I agree.  But do not mislead our readers by suggesting that Wells's views are "academic" views of Jesus.  That he had a job in academia is irrelevant, if the academic job had nothing to do with 1st century Jewish history. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Germany led the world in historical biblical research, and a large part of the literature, still relevant, on the Bible, Biblicval history, semitic languages, Christology, the historical Jesus was written in that language. G A Wells has an exact understanding of what historical scholarship is, to judge from the books he has written in his own field, and has access, as a Germanist, to a body of historical investigation which many theologians acquire only through translations, and translation only covers a trickle of what has been produced in German on this subject. There is a huge amount of intellectual complacency in most fields, and this area is no exception. Popper's book, when it came out, was greeted with howls of outrage by Platonists, and many stuck the boot in for what they considered to be his erroneous translations of many key words. A whole book lambasted the text. I can still recall my own teachers, genial, erudite and thoroughly accomplished specialists, sneering at my use of it. Wells is not Karl Popper, but I think you all underestimate the problem of systemic bias in Wikipedia, which is actually recognized as one of its major problems. I have little regard for the Swedish gentlemen, on a small acquaintence with sources referring to him, but I think Slim is correct on G A Wells. Strong scholars are not worried by dissidence in the ranks, and to nitpick against him on an article which covers a subject he has worked on intensely, suggests insecurity, an insecurity I doubt redoubtable students of the New Testament need cultivate. Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Popper is a separate matter - some consider him an expert philosopher and the differnce between him and other philosophers on Plato may well me the difference between majority and minority views among scholars. We need more evidence to be sure.  I have not seen any evidence that he is considered an expert on 1st century jewish history.  Are you saying he is an expert on 19th German theologians?  Well, maybe, but I have not see any evidence of this yet.  But look here: many of the leading mathematicians in the world are American.  Does the fact that I am a professor of English language or of American literature mean I am therefore an expert on these American mathematicians?  Your absense of logic is astounding. I honestly do not follow your logic here.  Germany also led the world in research in Chemistry and physics; by your logic Wells is thereforee an expert on Chemistry and Physics.  How am I misunderstanding your line of reasoning?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My 'absence of logic is astounding' here only to those who misread what I wrote. I did not write anything vaguely resembling your inference that I am suggesting Wells 'is an expert on 19th century German theologians'. I am talking about research by formal outsiders to a discipline being acceptable or not, not their ethnicity or nationality, which is Noloop's beef. The problem SV raised, not the hare Noloop started. ('Absence of focus on what each interlocutor is actually saying' etc.)Nishidani (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "We don't allow Scientologists to dominate Scientology articles; we don't allow Mormon historians exclusive rights to be sources in those articles." I agree 100%.  Many of the views presented in the Jesus article are not Christian views.  But I note an odd shift in SV's tactics here.  First, she was criticizing me for saying I want academic views in the article, now she is suggesting I wanted Christian views in the article.  There is some kind of swith-a-roo being played here.  I have never argued that the article should be dominated by Christian views, I have insisted that we respect scholarly views

There IS a switch-a-roo being played here, and it is a big one, and a dangerous one, and it is the slip from someone's views to some one. I wonder if SV is objecting, not to an article dominated by Scientologist views, but rather the fact that most of the sources were written by Scientologists. Ah!! She might cry: Scientiologists always promote Scientology views. If most of the sources are by Scientologists, then most of the views are those of Scientology! Well, from what I know of scientology, this may well be true. Is it always true? I do not know. I would stick to my basic claim: look at the actual view that is being presented. This is my point at the Jesus article too. YES!! SOME of the views forwarded by people who are Christian are explicitly "Christian" views. I have only insisted that someone can have a degree from a Christian seminary, or teach at a Christian seminary, and write a book or an article that does not forward specifically Christian views. This is the point we keep coming down to. SV might even agree with me; she may just emphasize that "but - they could be Christian views." My response has never changed: yes, they could be, so let us look at those views and find out. I do not want to reach a conclusion until I have seen the view. But Noloop won't do that. He does not care what view is being expressed and if asked he will not tell us what the source actually says. He decides what the view is before reading it. He pre-judges. And this is prejudice. It is bigotry.


 * "We would hope they'd do more than most to rise above them, but they can't shake them entirely, and that's especially true when it comes to religious faith" This is just patently false.  I know too many people who were brought up believing Catholics or Protestants who ended up anti-religious atheists, so I know without any doubt that it is possible for someone to shake their religious beliefs entirely.  I know Bible scholars who were brought up to believe according to their religion that the Bible was the revealed word of God who have remained in their religion yet who reject the claim that the bible is the revealed word of God.  SV here seems to think that - unlike any other belief humans have (a belief that the earth is the center of the universe, a belief that you can trust well-bred aristocrats to make those decisions that are in the best interest of their country, a belief that race is biological, or the very similar belief that one's race or ethnic group is "natural" or "real" in some way that other groups are not, a belief that the working class will save the world from opression, a belief that capitalism will enrich everybody, as belief that modern medicine will cure all disease (when the evidence is, it is causing disease) ... I could go on and on, human beings believe in all sorts of things) - is like some kind of especially malignant cancer, that once you have it, you can never "shake it" entirely.  Sorry, but this is bigotry.  religion is a set of beliefs like so many others.  Most people are addicted to some beliefs, whether they be religious, or a narcotic, or the idea that listening to classical music enobles, or some economic belief or political belief - there are all sorts of beliefs and I am pretty sure that for every human, there is some belief that is really really really really hard to shake off.  I have found no evidence that this so sticky belief is always religion, or more religion than a belief that biology explains everything or that the class struggle is the only important one, ore whatever.  There are all sorts of beliefs.  And I have also found people who are pretty good at shaking off any belief given enough time to think about it, and open-minded people to talk to, once that belief is no longer convenient or comforting.  I just have not found religion to be any different.  I have met too many people who have abandoned religion, changed religion, or changed the form of their religion based on new information or self-knowledge.  BUT I will admit I may be wrong.  The thing is, I have no faith!  You will have to prove it to me.  If  you think this historian cannot rise above her religious upbringing or "faith," well, you have to provide me with evidence.  This is all I have been asking for.  And I think anyone who can make such decisions about someone's beliefs without evidence, someone who refuses to examine the evidence, is a bigot.  Sorry, but that is what i call someone whose own dogma or creed blinds them to any, or indeed absolves them of the need for any, evidence.  On a case by case basis.


 * "saying of sources that they may have a conflict of interest, or that an article has been dominated by sources with uniform views, is not an attack of that nature." True, true. true, and irrelevant.  First, you can say "of sources that they may have a conflict of interest" but don't I have the right then to ask you to demonstrate the actual conflict of interest?  Nollp is not saying these sources may have a conflict of interest, he is saying the do have a conflict of interest, but he does not then demonstrate it and when asked to he refuses.  Also, the Jesus article is not characterized uniformly by Christian views.  It presents all views, including the Jesus myth view.  It does however provide summary accounts and leaves it to linked articles to develop all views. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The views of people who say Jesus probably did not exist should be woven throughout the text, not confined to a POV fork. That's a basic rule of neutral editing. The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief asked G.A. Wells to write its entry on the historicity of Jesus because they wanted to make sure they didn't include an entirely religious perspective, and we have to be sure of that too.


 * I think your argument may resolve to tautology. You want to prioritize the views of those who have formally studied 1st century Jewish history. But you ask the rest of us to read those sources, and only once we've read them say whether religious beliefs have infected them. But it's an implication of your argument that we're not in a position to judge that.


 * Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and the more it pretends it is, the faster it will lose readers and writers, and will end up like Nupedia or Citizendium. Nothing has made me want to leave more than these debates in recent weeks (in Jesus and in science articles) with editors who want to narrow the definition of the reliable source. Wikipedia articles must be neutral from the point of view of the man on the Clapham omnibus. I don't want the Jesus articles to be neutral only from the perspective of people who have spent 40 years studying Koine Greek and Aramaic and biblical texts and who almost certainly harbour religious beliefs, because I don't trust them to make that judgment alone. Is it bigotry to argue that animal rights specialists should not alone judge the contents of our AR articles to be neutral? It feels as though you're throwing a protective barrier around religious belief as a special form of belief requiring protection from criticism. But we have to be allowed to say of academics who hold those beliefs that they may have made misjudgments because of them, and therefore we want to hear other views too. And we have to be allowed to do that without spending the next ten years in a theology library reading them all first.


 * User:Absit invidia put it well elsewhere:


 * "The problem is that increasing specialization leads to an increasingly myopic view of the topic under discussion. This can be best illustrated by analogy. The specialist's view of their topic of expertise becomes rather like The World As Seen From New York's 9th Avenue. They see all the minutiae in their immediate vicinity in great detail and as a result their inherent cognitive limits (i.e. the limits of all human cognition) prevent them from seeing all of equally important aspects of the topic that lay just outside their field of vision. Just as there is more to the world than is depicted past the Hudson River in that painting, there is more to just about any topic than is visible through the eyes of a specialist. ... No, increasing specialization is not the road to a neutral point of view.'"


 * The man on the Clapham omnibus would want to know what G.A. Wells and Robert Price say about Jesus, and therefore we must tell him so he can reach his own conclusions. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Slim, you write, "I don't want the Jesus articles to be neutral only from the perspective of people who have spent 40 years studying Koine Greek and Aramaic and biblical texts and who almost certainly harbour religious beliefs, because I don't trust them to make that judgment alone." and yes, this is a bigoted statement. If you do not trust them and believe they "almost certainly" harbor religious beliefs, and you do not care to look at the actual evidence, what they actually have to say in their scholarship, you are a bogit.  I do not think you know much about 1st century historians of the Levant, and you have not provided any evidence that all these historians "harbor" religious beliefs that bias their scholarship.  You are just insulting scholars you perhaps have not taken the time to read.  Why?


 * If you are saying that the Jesus article should have the views of others, well, of course, all significant views. But if we are talking about history articles, isn't it obvious that historians' views are the most significant?  I really do not understand your point.


 * Slim, I will repeat what I wrote above: include the views of Wells and Price. Just do not present Wells as an academic expert on Jesus.  If you want to argue that non-academic views are significant and should be included, well, provide some evidence (actually I believe you have) and we can include them.  But deciding that their views are significant enough to justify inclusion is not the same thing as describing what their views are, what views they represent.  All I am saying is, Wells is not representing academic views and should not be presented as such.  I am also saying there are people who got their degrees at seminaries but who are not representing Christian views, and should not be presented as such.  It really seems to me that we agree: include multiple views, and attribute them correctly, and correctly identify majority, minority, and fringe views.  I have no objction to including Well's views.  But what is this about the man on the Clapham bus?  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is meant to educate.  Maybe the popular belief about gravity is that it is a force.  This is not at all the consensus among physicists.  Should we tell the man on the Clapham bus that many people think gravity is a force?


 * I think you are making a major mistake, confusing form and content. The form of our articles should be accessible to everying, even people who cannot afford to take the bus.  But our contents have to have integrity.  Slim, if a professor of English literature wrote a book on Darwin, pointing out similarities between Darwin's prose and that of other Victorians, and from that deriving a novel interpretation of the theory of evolution.  I would not object to citing such a source in the chapter on Darwin, nor in the article on the history of evolution.  But would you really give this person's views the same weight as professional biologists, in the article on Evolution?  If an autodidact came up with his own views on the theory of relativey, even had a few books published, although they are either ignored or belittled by physicists, would you say we muct give such views prominence in the article on Theory of relativity?  I mean, for the same of the folks on that Clapham bus?  I really want to know if your are fair in your application of this standard.  Since you have not spent 40 years studying math, or physics, or chemistry, do you mistrust the views of mathematicians, physicists, and chemists in our articles on mathematics, physics, and chemistry?  For the sake of the man on the Clapham bus, should we add to these articles the views of German scholars?  After all much research in physics and chemistry was done in German and a professor of German has special access to their papers (to respond again to Nishidani).  Slim, please clarify your views.  Do you consider our relying virtually exclusively on the views of physicists in the article on physics to violate your "man on the bus from Clapham" principle? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I respect the point of view of the generalist, as well as that of the specialist, and I want both to be included. I am not saying let's exclude the physicist. I am saying that when the physicists build nuclear weapons, there are other perspectives I want to hear about that too.


 * Can I ask you to address the first point I made just so it's dealt with? If as you say a person needs to have spent x number of years studying this and that to be able to understand the material well, how are we supposed to judge the extent to which a specialist's religious beliefs have distorted his views? You seem to be arguing that we must all do PhDs in it before we can comment. And that saying "but it's written by the Bishop of Durham, so I don't trust it," is bigotry. Do you see it as bigotry when people decline to take wholly on board the views of the Animal Liberation Front, though they are undoubtedly specialists in the way human beings abuse animals? Is it not fair enough to say "But they are extremists, so let's include their views, but let's have some others too," or are we condemned to accompany them on several years' worth of raids, so we can be absolutely certain we're being fair to them? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, just to clarify, the man on the Clapham omnibus is a legal concept meaning the reasonable person. It assumes some education and being somewhat informed about the issues. I am not arguing that our articles must appeal to the unreasonable and the entirely uninformed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I thought I was clear that I believe that al Wikipedia articles should be written in a way that makes them understandable to a general audience.


 * I agree that one has good reason to ask if the Bishop of Durham is forwarding a Christian point of view. You can even assume it.  But if another editor has reason to think that the particular essay or book in question is actually not forwarding a Christian point of view, but a different kind of view, then I think it is fair and reasonable either to explain why the text should not be characterized as respresenting a Christian POV, or, ask the first editor for evidence that the text is forwarding a Christian POV.  I think this is fair and reasonable, and i think it is even more fair and reasonable when the author is a professor of history at Notre Dame.  Yes, that professor is an employee of the Catholic Church, but Notre Dame is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Universities (which accredits many non-Christian universitis in the US), and I have reason to think that their history professors are teaching the same kind of history as is taught in other universities.  I may be wrong, but I think it is fair and reasonable to ask for evidence.  You are picking a rather extreme example, a Bishop is expected to speak for his or her Church.  If you believe that a history professor is also expected to speak for the Church, well, I simply ask for evidence.


 * I am sorry you think I have not answered your first question. When it comes to string theory, how do I know that a source included in an article is significant?  How do I know that it is a mainstream, majority, or minority view?  Doesn't one have to have a PhD in physics to be able to assess whether or not a given physicist's views on string theory are mainstream or fringe?  Well, maybe we do.  The future of Wikipedia depends on its having a large and diverse population of editors.  I do not claim to have any expertise on string theory and while I might try to edit that article for clarity, I cannot conceive of ever getting involved in a conflict dispute.  Why shouldn't it be the same with history?  Now, I am not saying that one has to have a PhD in history to edit articles on historical topics, but it seems obvious to me that the more one wishes to involve one's self in conent, especially controversial content, the more one needs to know about the topic.  Now, I actually do not know koine Greek or Aramaic.  I do not think one needs to know koine Greek or Aramaic in order to judge a source for a 1st century history article.  But I think the man on the Clapham bus knows that an expert on 1st century Jewish history will have to know Aramaic and probably koine Greek too.  How do I know this?  I ask a historian what books are typically assigned in a history class that covers Jesus or the New Testament. I look at those books and see who they cite, and I read what they say about the historical sources.  If you read any of the books commonly assigned at college classes (at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, not just Notre Dame) all you have to do is read those books and you see that they are discussing the translation of phrases in Aramaic or Koine Greek.  That is how I know.  And Wikipedia ought to have editors who do have PhDs in history, or library science, or some academic field who either know or can find out this stuff.  Wikipedia does not require editors to have PhDs on the topics they edit, but it does depend on editors having some expertise on the content.  We all know it is an embarassment that we have many more experts on Star Wars or Dungeons and Dragons characters than we have on sociology and history.  This is just a fact and it is a shame, it is a weakness of Wikipedia.  But until we have more people with expertise on "everything," we just have to accept that Wikipedia is not going to have great articles on "everything."  I do not think you have to have a PhD in history to edit a history article, or to tell what point of view is being expressed by a particular author.  I think you could read a few books and then read reviews of those books in history journals and you will have a pretty good sense of the state of the field.  That is my basic answer.  But let me turn the question around.  How would you answer your question?  Are you saying that someone can have NO knowledge of academic history in general, or 1st century Jewish history, to be able to assess the significance of a view or to know how to identify the view?


 * I have never been involved in editing any article on animal rights. I am not sure why you ask this question.  You keep implying that I wish to permit only academic views in articles.  This is not true.  I wish to privilege academic views only in academic articles.  An article on the historicity of Jesus should present the views of historians or people who have expertise in adjunct fields.  I'd say the same about an article on the historicity of Hector or Homer.  But if you want to talk about the place of Homer in Greek or popular culture, of course I would include non-academic views, you have just opened it up to be a non-academic topic.  If the article is nuclear fission, I would restrict it to nuclear physicists.  If the article is on the use of nuclear energy or nuclear weapons, both of which are highly politicized topics, I would not restrict it to physicists.  You say that members of ALF are "undoubtedly specialists in the way human beings abuse animals" but you did not say that they are undoubtedly experts on mammalian evolution.  You know what?  I would restrict the article on mammalian evolution to evolutionary biologists and zoologists.  If one of them happens to be a member of ALF too, fine, so what?  But on the evolution of mammels, I would limit it to evolutionary scientists.  If the article is on the fur industry or the meat industry or the use of animals in laboratory experiments, of course I would include ALF.  Can't you tell the difference between an article on a scientific topic and an article on a cultural or political topic?  When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, I would limit it to people who have expertise in history or an adjunct field.  If you want to write an article on the use of Jesus by politicans, or contemporary popular beliefs about Jesus, of course that would mean adding many more views.  Isn't this obvious?


 * But you do recognize that this has nothing to do with my accusing Noloop of bigotry. He has asserted that most of the sources used in the Jesus article are Christian - "most" makes sense, since the most prominent views about Jesus come from within Christianity, but the point is that the article presents non-Christian views including the views of critical historians.  Noloop says that since they are Christian, they are expressing a Christian POV.  Well, as everyone else here has said, maybe.  Maybe.  But Noloop doesn't say "maybe," he says definitely.  And when asked for evidence, he cannot provide any.  He tells us who published the book and where the author teaches or got his PhD - in other words, the invormation you can find out from Amazon.com.  Has he ver taken the time to read the books?  To read reviews of the books?  No.  Never.  There is a saying, "You cannot judge a book by its cover."  But that is all that Noloop does.


 * You ask if I expect someone to have a PhD in history or to follow a member of ALF around for several years before deciding they know something significant about human abuse of animals. I do not know what I ever wrote that would make you think that.  All I have ever done was to ask Noloop to quote a passage of the book that demonstrates that it has a Christian POV, or to quote a reliable secondary source saying the book expresses a Christian point of view.  That is right - all I have done is to ask Noloop if he actually read the books he is talking about.  Is that really too much to ask, Slim?  Are you really equating my "asking noloop to have read the book he is asessing" with "demanding that an editor has to have a PhD in history?"  Is it too much to ask an editor to have read the book he wishes to assess?


 * It is Noloop's making jusgements without having read what the person actuall wrote that makes him a bigot.


 * And it is this idea everyone seems so comfortable with, that we can write articles using sources we have not actually read, that makes me really despondent about the future of this encyclopedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You asked above:


 * "Are you saying that someone can have NO knowledge of academic history in general, or 1st century Jewish history, to be able to assess the significance of a view or to know how to identify the view?"


 * I think no knowledge of academic history is necessary to be concerned about the lead of a Jesus historicity article that compares those who question the existence of Jesus with Holocaust deniers. I think the man on the Clapham omnibus will know it is absurd to compare questioning the existence of a figure from 2,000 years ago for which there is no contemporaneous evidence, with questioning the deaths of six million from 60 years ago for which there is contemporaneous evidence in every library. And I think he will know that the editors who wrote that, and the academic sources they cited, are problematic, that something is very wrong, and that we ought not to trust such people, even if they have Aramaic and Koine Greek coming out of their ears. A less-educated "WTF?" becomes a legitimate and important response. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is very little I can say in response to this. I think you are evading my question, but I think you are doing so because you are hung up on something that sounds like a reasonable point of concern.  I have on this page and the main page generally restricted my comments to issues arising concerning a different article, the Jesus article.  My comments were not directed at this incident, and as you know I did not participate in any ddiscussion concerning this point being made in the lead of this other article.  I do not believe I ever supported including this point in the HoJ lead and, more importantly, I do not believe I ever criticized (let alone attacked) anyone for opposing inclusion of this point in the lead.


 * I think this is my first intervention at that article's talk page:
 * Can we move away from this abstract and generally ideologically-driven (or seeking) debate and talk specifics? Who are the most important historians writing on Jesus? To my knowledge, the leading (most respected by other 1st century historians) scholars are Sanders, Vermes, Meier, Ehrman and Fredricksen, and many would add Crossan. I know others here have mentioned some other names, but in my own readings these are the most commonly and most highly praised. If you think you know a historian who is a bona fide expert (fluent in Aramaic and Koine Greek, knows the sources, well acquainted with archeological and comparative data) who has written something significant about Jesus who is not on the list I just mentioned, who is it? By all means add the name! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I still stand by it. You seem to be challenging Ehrman's reliability (by the way he is not a Christian).  I have no idea in what context he made any comparison to Holocaust denial; I found a link to a you tube page but I couldn't download the video.  So I do not know what he actually said or in what context.  I would not consider the typical you tube video a good source, and I think the man on the bus from Clapham would know by now that he should reserve judgement and read Ehrman's actual scholarly boks, IF he wishes to judge his scholarship.  Remember Shirley Sherrod?  She was the USDA Director of Rural Development in Georgia who resigned from her position after a video showing her telling a story about a white farmer was posted on the web and shown on Fox News - and a great example of why people should be very skeptical of things posted on You Tube.  I do not consider it a reliable source.
 * It often seems to me that there are editors who are religious and editors who are atheists and they wish to use Wikipedia to promote their views. I do not think Wikipedia should be used to promote religion or atheism.  Editors need to learn to bracket their own beliefs.  Now, the media loves to pit fundamentalists against atheists to debate things about the bible, because the media love to stage flashy events.  So UK's channel 4 makes a documentary with Ann Widdecombe debating Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens about the ten commandments.  Okay, this is notable enough to include in some article.  And I do believe atheists and fundamentalists more generally argue about such things, and YES it belongs in an article.  But NONE of these debates are at all illuminating about history.  There really are historians who study Ancient Near Easten history; they learn Akkadian and Ugarritic and maybe even Sumerian and Ancient Egyptian, and you know what?  Some of them are Christian, some are Jewish, and it does not matter: the views they express on the 10 Commandments are not Jewish or Christian views, they are historians views.  Personally, I find them a lot more interesting than anything Richard Dawkins OR Ann Widdicombe has to say.  So I am just pleaing that a space be provided in articles for historians views; that serious scholars be correctly identified as historians and not as "religious" or "atheist."  It is simple blind ignorance if one believes that the only significant conversation about the Ten Commandments going on is the one between atheists and fundamentalists.  I take the same approach to the study of the NT.  If the man on the Clapham bus cannot understand this, then British education is in worse shape than I thought. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Those Holocaust denial comments weren't from YouTube. They really were made, those and flat-earther comparisons, and the moon is made of green cheese, and all kinds of insults. I don't trust academics with such extreme views about this. You're right, of course, that we must include the scholars you mention. I'm only arguing that we must include alternative voices too. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, in essence, if the leading scholars on a subject get irritated by a fringe view, and start making unfortunate comparisons of it to things like Holocaust denial, we can no longer trust that they are the leading scholars on a subject? john k (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the link to the YouTube video can be found here. It is an interview with Bart Ehrman, an atheist/agnostic scholar who is well known and respected.  The context of the Holocaust denial comment is if one is willing to ignore evidence, then even the Holocaust can be denied.  And that's how crazy the Christ myth theory (CMT) is.  The relevant comment by Ehrman can be heard at the two minute mark through the three minute mark.  I recommend listening to the entire interview, however, to get an idea of what the vast majority of scholars think of the CMT as well as an idea of how historians work.  There is a second part to the video |here, for anyone who is interested.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Listing at Requests for comment/User conduct?
I just noticed that this RfC is not listed at Requests for comment/User conduct. Isn't it supposed to be there? Or is it listed somewhere else? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone know how to remedy that?Griswaldo (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it needs to be added to the list here. I'm not going to do that, because I'm sure that my summary wouldn't be perceived as accurate; ideally it should be done by Noloop. I'l alert him on his talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Akhilleus
Since “Outside view by User:Akhilleus” has netted the most endorsements, it seems fair that I respond to it. It is extremely misleading, to the point that I struggle to comment on the view, rather than the editor. It suggests a false history. It suggests something like the following sequence: 1) I made many dismissive comments about editors because they are Christians. 2) As a result of my incivility toward editors, Slrubenstein called me an ignorant fanatical POV-pushing troll and bigot (etcetera). That’s wrong. I made one of the edits Akhilleus mentions less than 24 hours before his comment, and the other a few days prior. My comments reflect Slrubenstein's mudslinging, which has been going on for weeks. Akhilleus says “Editors who don't want to be called bigoted should probably refrain from alleging religious bias in other editors, such as Noloop did with this edit summary” That’s misinformation. The edit summary was a reference to Andrew, and Andrew’s history of “discussion” with me includes remarks like “Good thing the Wikipedia world does not revolve around Noloop's bigotry.…Please take your bigotry elsewhere.; “I don't want to continue discussing such matters with people who hold such vile religious prejudice.”; “Noloop didn't consider the journal secular enough because it didn't ban authors based on their religion or some other bigotry.”; “I'm not sure if your prejudice goes against Jewish individuals as well….You have no evidence, outside of your despicable personal prejudices,”; “Let's see how long it takes for the bigots to come up with their own sourcing rules …” ; “This is nothing short of bigotry…. please stop trying to discount sources based on your personal prejudices” (edit comment: “more bigotry”) ; “...it angers me to see such repeating ignorance and bigotry spouted over and over on Wikipedia.” . (To his credit, Andrew has stopped calling me a bigot, although he continues to be rude in other ways.)

A fair way to summarize that sequence would have been: “Editors who don’t want to be accused of religious bias shouldn’t call people bigots for questioning the existence of Jesus.” The reverse of what Akhilleus actually said.

Akhilleus’s comment suffers from irrelevancy as well. “Undo religiously motivated edit” (my comment) is not remotely comparable to calling people ignorant despicable bigots. (typical of what has been said to me). The other diff Akhilleus provides is a personal statement from my user page, and not comparable to what has been said to me. It was also made long after all this other shit was dumped on me. To suggest it was a causal factor in the behavior of Slrubenstein is fraudulent.

Needless to say, the summary of the content dispute is a distorted strawman. Little of what they say about my views reminds me of my views. Little of what I’ve said is unique to me. Many editors have expressed concern with heavy reliance on religious sourcing.

So, yeah. I’m not, shall we say, Jesus. After endless goading, my patience will end. Call me vile, ignorant, despicable, fanatical, trolling and bigoted—repeatedly and for weeks--and I will suggest you are biased.

What angers me as much as the behavior of Slrubenstein and Andrew in particular is the admin status. There is no way in Hell I could have gotten away with a tenth as much rudeness without a block. Noloop (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, this has nothing to do with my being an admin. I never brought up my being a sysop and I have never used any of my sysop abilities in this conflict.


 * You want to make this about rudeness. you think that what makes a person a good or bad editor is whether or not they are rude?  Well, first of all, you can call me bigoted (or "having a religious bias"), and you can accuse me of being a POV-pusher.  I do not care whether anyone considers that rude.  I would not consider it rude; I am sure you would be accusing me of these things because you believed them, not because you wished to harm me.  What I would care about is, is it true?  Have I been pushing one POV?  Am I bigoted?  Am I pushing a religious bias?  I'd reexamine my behavior.


 * Be that as it may, I think there is something more important at an encyclopedia: that we actually read the books we use when writing or revising articles; that we actually read a book before assessing it or identifying its POV.  If I did this - if I did even a tenth less of this than you did, a tenth less using books I hadn't read, not caring about the content of the sources we use in an article - then I would hope I would have the good sense to leave a project I obviously do not take seriously, before being banned for being a disruptive editor. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Admin status matters because hypocrisy matters. Others have been blocked for less. I was blocked for a week on an admin's judgement call about the "spirit" of edit warring (I didn't violate 3RR). So, I am treated strictly and you are treated leniently, and I am not an admin and you are.... And, yes, rudeness makes you a bad editor. Good editing is not about your scholarship. It's about your collaboration. You've been complaining I don't respond to your questions. I don't respond to your questions because you are rude; I think you're just going to attack me no matter how much thought and effort I put into answering you. So why would I make the effort? Why would anyone? Noloop (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to slatersteven's endorsement of Maunus view

 * That is not part of my view at all, and it seems you may have misunderstood the degree of gravity I see in SlRubensteins behaviour. It merits an admonition to use civil language, nothing more. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was, you will notice that I say its an addition.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is an addition which is not in line with the original statement so it is difficult for me to see how you can agree with it.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your statement that Sluber actions and justification are not acceptable, and that noloop is not innocent. That both are to blame and both should be be punished. My addendum was because I feel that to give Sluber a lesser (or even equal) sanction ignores the fact he is supposed to uphold Wiki cores values, not ignore them. It makes it difficult for me to believe that an addmin that seeks to justify breaches of policy in respect to himself renders his ability to judge them in others questionable (unless it can be demonstrated that he indeed does apply the same standards to all cases. It also implies (given the situation and language) that his neutrality in this area is in question, and that then raised the same question in other pages. Can an admin operate when they clearly have very strongly held views on certain mater, and when that affects their judgements.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "the fact he is supposed to uphold Wiki cores values, not ignore them" is either true of all Wikipedians, or no Wikipedian. Being an admin has nothing to do with upholding core Wikipedia values.  Admins are neither police, judge, or jury - if there is anything analogous at wikipedia, then all editors are police, judges and juries.  Admins at most are the bailifs.  We have the technological tools to enact whatever the community decides.  to suggest otherwise is to go against our traditions, and the spirit of Wikipedia.  I must continue to point out that I never presented myself as admin; I never claimed that I had any special authority or privilege as an admin; and I have never used my admin technical abilities with regard to Noloop.  I have not abused the admin tools, so my being an admin is irrelevant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the community generally expect administrators to demonstrate a higher than average standard adherence to policies and good behaviour than non-administrator editors. That is why "getting the mop" passes through an RFA, where people generally voted based on their faith in the administrators ability to uphold and enforce rules and policies AND set a good example while doing so. It is a guy with a mop telling people not to throw dirt on the floor will not be taken seriously while he's doing the same thing himself. ·Maunus· ƛ · 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we may just have to disagree. I do not think it is the roll of the guy with the mop to tell anyone not to throw dirt on the floor.  The "boss" is everyone else.  Anytime we let newbies think admins are in any way above any other editor we have betrayed what I consider a core element of the wiki community.The guy with the mops make messes sometimes, which is why we have lots of guys with mops.  Personally, I would have it as policy that all editors who have completed a minimum of 1 year and 1,000 edits is automaticaly admin for a month, and after another year and 1,000 edits they have to do another month of admin service, and just have it rotate, for everyone. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The why are there so many criteria (such as proving you have not done the sort of thing you have done with noloop) that an edd must meet to become and admin? It seems to me that Wiki does expect admins to demonstrate traits not held by most Edds?Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just BTW this belongs on the talk page not here. And FYI Slatersteven being an admin is not an honourary position (like it is on other sites) when the position was created it was specifically described as being "not a big deal" (there isn't actually that much 'criteria' - just judgement, understanding and knowledge of policies and non-disruptive editing). All editors abide by the same rule-set: ordinary editors don't have a lesser standard - it's just that if they don't meet that standard or have enough experience they don't get sysoped (and in some cases peple who then behaved well and got more experience became sysops later)  But like all fora on WP there is a bit of internets dramahz associated with RFA (and indeed RFC/U). Also being desysoped is ONLY appropriate where abuse of tools occured (ie inapropriate use of block/delete/protect functions) which is not the case here. If nobody objects I (or someone else) should move this to the talk page-- Cailil   talk 12:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An admin can "may be sanctioned or have their access removed" for among other things "2.Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc)" though this must be reapeated breaches. So yes an adim can have his status revoked for engagning in the kinds of activites that Sluber has engadged in. Also Admins are expected to lead by example, Slubers example being PA. in addition sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. So again I would say that Slubers actions could well have fited into consistently or egregiously poor judgment in the sense of trying to defend his PA against Noloop despite wide spread disagreement with his assertions that he was justified. Also only admins are judges and Juries. Only they can find someone guilty or inocent only they can impose sactions (and indead enforce them). We usrs may be police (or indeed grotty thing) we may be council, we may even be witneses but we have no actualy power to enforce, only admins have that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about closing
(first two comments moved from the RfC page)

I wonder if it's time to close this RfC. Slrubenstein is one of Wikipedia's most thoughtful and intelligent editors. When he says he sees bigotry he means it as a point of information. He said it to me recently too ("if you think X, it is bigotry"). When some other editors say it, they may mean it purely as an insult with the intention of making the person it's directed at look or feel bad. But SLR doesn't intend it that way; he is trying to educate when he says it. We can agree or disagree with that approach, but for someone to suggest a desysopping signals to me that it's time to call it a day here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would just like to clarify that I didn't have anyone here in mind when I wrote the above (that when some editors say these things they may intend them differently). I should probably have expressed myself differently so as not to make people wonder if I meant someone in particular. My apologies for being clumsy with my words. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with your post, SlimVirgin, but I just noticed yesterday that this RfC was never listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, so from a process-wonkery point of view this RfC hasn't even gotten started—most of the people who have contributed are already involved in the dispute at the Jesus articles or in the Race/Intelligence dispute, and the RfC hasn't been publicized to the community at large. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should let process-wonkery get in the way of sorting this out. I'm finding the discussion here about sourcing interesting and helpful, but the focus on SLR is wrong-headed, and we can talk about sourcing somewhere else. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I thinik some outside input would prove very benificial and do not think that close this yet is a good idea. Lets have some new blood here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Says the guy who now wants SLR beheaded. It would be good to have this done properly if only because others will inevitably bring this RfC up in the future as people do, and when something was not handled properly that will also be brought up.  Well ... nothing came of this because it wasn't handled properly ... etc. etc.  Best to do things by the book to prevent future drama if you ask me.Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling with the temptation to come up with a colourful characterisation of Slruberstein's behaviour and then to try to pass it off as an attempt to "educate" ...

(EDIT: To be clear in light of comments about this below, I am not acually struggling with such a temptation - this was meant rhetorically, in repsonse to SlimVirgin's comments above).

The problem I'm seeing here is that Slruberstein seems to be intent on continuing (and, indeed, has continued in spite of advice from ArbCom) what a number of editors see as uncivil behaviour. I don't see how the RfC can be closed under those circumstances, and the positive qualities of the editor do not give him licence. SlimVirgin, you make it sound like Slrubertein is some sort of wizened professor of judging character. His supposed thoughtfulness and intelligence is not, I think, well demonstrated by his apparent inability grasp the implications of WP:NPA. --FormerIP (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What we could be seing here is in itslef a kind of bigotry, Intelecutalism. If you are well educated or elequent enough you can use language or make statments that those who do not belong to accademia cannot make. I thought that such attitudes (its tghe quality not the activity that count) were fact wnet against polciy that states that being a 'valued' eds does not give you carte blanche (or any other characters from a street car named desire) to ride rough shod over policy. As I have said I thuink both sides are to blaim, but Sluber is an admin and he is supposed to be able to rasie above such petty bickering, if he can't then that must raise boudts about his ability to be nuetral.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He is a little bit of a wizened professor (though not actually wizened I hasten to add), and I think we should give him a break&mdash;listen to the good things he says, and not focus on what we can take as insults if we want to. I don't feel insulted that he said it to me. I feel he was just telling me something, something I disagree with, and that's fine. I accept that others may say it in a different tone, with different intent, and when editors don't know you, they don't know how to take it, and it leads to talk-page unpleasantness, so I'm not recommending it. I'm just saying it's not a hanging offence either, and there's only so many times we can keep saying that. And so it's starting to feel like beating a dead horse.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, your comments above about the Clapham omnibus are correct, I think, and I also think the articles in question suffer form a marked NPOV deficit. This is partly held in place, I think, because an uncivil environment is maintained on the talkpages. This needs addressing. Slruberstein, I think, could easily help to move this RfC towards closure himself by agreeing to modify his behaviour, rather than insiting on his right to use what language he sees fit. --FormerIP (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree Noloop has made it plain he found the statment offensive, Sluber did not offer an appology but a justification (normaly when someone says you have insluted them it is considerd polite to say sorry), and continues to do so despite the fact that a number of edds have expressed concearn as to his choice of language.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec to FormerIP) As I see it, the problem is in part that SLR is perhaps not fully taking into account the context. There have been other editors on these articles at various times who want to create a bad environment, because they want people with their alternative sources to go away. So editors are insulted, sources ridiculed. SLR's posts are being read as part of that environment. He is not like that; in fact, he's the furthest you could imagine from it. But our speech acts don't exist in a vacuum, and it's legitimate to ask him to consider that. But we don't need to keep an RfC open for that. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He has been asked to consider it and he considers it justified .Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sluber has now appoligised and addmited his actions were wrong. lets end it now. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Continuing with it serves no purpose now. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree, but I think it would be good practice to get Noloop's reponse to this as the filing party (it will not help the editing environment if Noloop feels this RfC has been closed behind her back, regardless of whether the closure is justified). Her desired outcome is "Slrubenstein needs to cease all personal attacks", which the comment made by Slrubenstein appears to promise. It would be nice if Slrubenstein would also consider not standing by his earlier comments, but I suppose nothing can force him to do that. --FormerIP (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Caveat: The way Slrubenstein has worded his comment might be taken as meaning Slrubenstein thinks it is still be okay to call someone names by the proxy of referring to their edits as "bigoted", "ignorant", "turdish" etc. I hope that's just my unwarranted over-cautiousness, but it would be good to get that clarification from Slrubenstein. --FormerIP (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At th8is stage (and assuming that the comments about this being out of character are true) I would AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If I think someone makes a bigoted comment, I will say "That was a bigoted comment." If someone made an inaccurate comment, I would say "that is an inaccurate comment."  If someone made a comment expressing a fringe point of view, I would say "that comment is expressing a fringe point of view."  I do not think I have ever called someone's comment "turdish" and i hope I never will.  I meant exactly what I wrote: I stand by my view that certain comments were bigoted.  This is important to me because it is a form of attack against others, and damages the integrity of the encyclopedia.  But we should address one another's comments, and not comment on one another personally.  I regret having done that and will strive not to do that in the future.  I thought all of this was clear.  I do not believe I can get any clearer. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think its more then clear what you are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's absurd. If I think you made an idiotic edit, I don't get to say "Your edit was idiotic" on the grounds that I'm commenting on the edit not the editor. This is textbook wikilawyering. If I acted like Slrubenstein, I would be blocked. Nobody would discuss whether I'm "wizened" or whether calling somebody an ignorant fanatical bigot is "what we can take as insults if we want to." Slrubenstein is abusive, and he's getting a free pass because he's an admin. Noloop (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While I don't think he's being given a free pass because he's an admin it is true that people build social capital here and that doing so ends up working in ones favor in situations like this. That said people have been giving you way more than a free pass for your own disruption so count your blessings my friend.Griswaldo (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that Sluber's last comment was a dishonest comment designed to mis-lead?Slatersteven (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SLR's above comment is 100% inline with "comment on edits not editors" - it's exactly what we're supposed to do, along with AGFing. *hint hint* Noloop-- Cailil  talk 21:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Noloop, your suggesting that I am getting a free ride because I am an admin is kind of an insult to everyone here and shows and absense of good faith in the RfC process. LOTS of Wikipedians are admins, most of them I do not know and they do not know me and they probably don't even know I am a sysop (I never brought it up, it is you who keep making a point of this).  Of the sysops who know me, plenty of them don't like me and if they thought I should be blocked they would block me - as indeed I have been blocked in the past.  So obviously being an admin provides no immunity.  If you want to know why I have not been blocked yet I would just ask you please to read people's comments.  I would also humbly suggest that if anything is credited to me, it is that I have done real research on most of the articles I have edited and have added quality content from major sourcs.  So I repeat a request I have made of you before - at the Jesus and historicity oif Jesus articles that you think fail to comply with NPOV, please please please, suggest to us other sources that you think should be used. Tell us about thse sources and what makes you think they ar reliable and express significant views.  As for the sources you find troubling, could we solve the problem by identifying them as providing Christian points of view in the article?  But first, can you tell us what those sources are saying that you consider a Christian POV, or can you tell us if the authors thesmelves identify the POV thy are expressing, or if a reliable secondary source has identified the POV?  I think it would help a lot if you could contribute productively. Please, I really am asking you, why not try contributing to these articles? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification above, Slrubenstein, but I think it makes your recent post on the Jesus talk page seem a little empty. I just don't think there is any way around the basic fact that it is not acceptable to reserve the right to be uncivil to other editors to any extent, and it is hard to see why you think reserving this right serves any constructive purpose. The normal maxim is "comment on the content, not the editor" (not, incidentally, "comment on the edits not the editor", which would be tautological for practical purposes). "Your behaviour is bigoted" is not significantly different from "you are a bigot". I think you should reflect on this, because it is difficult to see what is in your mind other than "I want the right to continue to be rude".

(Incidentally, my reference to "turdish" was based on the comment you made here: . If you are distancing yourself from this type of behaviour, then all well and good).

To everyone: whatever Slrubernstein's social capital here and however well-earned it is, I don't think we can contemplate ending this RfC with a green light to an editor to continue with personal attacks. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)@ Slrubenstein. The most obvious ones are those whose business is the promotion of Christianity. The priests, bishops, and pastors. Also, the presses that have a Christian POV as their mission statements, e.g. "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." I've said this repeatedly. I've also repeatedly said that my main concern is with the pattern of sourcing, not any particular one. The articles tell the reader the existence of historical Jesus is an accepted fact, but the vast majority of sources have a Christian background or are popular books (typically, published by Eerdmans). So, I've objected, on the grounds that a widely accepted fact is something you can find in secular, peer-reviewed sources, yet we can't. I've said all this repeatedly. I have repeatedly said I'm not proposing a litmus test. I've repeatedly said I don't question the scholarship or integrity of historians who happen to be Christian. I've repeatedly said my concern is with the balance of sources. Editors have declared skepticism about historical Jesus to be a fringe theory, comparable to skepticism about the Holocaust or moon landings, and used that as a basis for excluding skeptical views from the articles. I've objected to that. I've repeatedly given analogies to show that I'm not questioning any individual's scholarship based on religion. For example, I compared the topic to an article on public education which only cited liberals. Objecting to that doesn't mean I think liberals are incompetent scholars. It is not proposing a litmus test. It is not a proposal to exclude liberals. It is nothing like anything you've said about me. Yet you continue to misrepresent what I've said, what I believe, and use your misrepresentations to justify calling me an ignorant bigot. Noloop (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think christian/atheist/ X$ talking on Christianity, is enough to attribute the POV. We know that all sources are biased. Why try arguing that some are above bias when we already know that all sources are biased? They may be the best per RS, but they are still biased per NPOV.-- Civilized education talk  02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * About Slrubenstein's (IMO)(non)-apology, if he gets to use the b-word, so do I, and everyone else.-- Civilized education talk  03:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether he apologizes or not, or if an apology is even necessary, I think that all of us should be able to use the "b-word" when another editor makes remarks that fit that description. Of course, in order to determine if the word is applicable, there must be some history of the potentially bigoted editor making bigoted remarks.  In other words, we must AGF until the evidence makes a mockery of that rule.  See also  calling a spade a spade.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The most important sentence of which is "...one can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks".--FormerIP (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I look for an uninvolved admin to close this? Noloops, you misunderstand my posts about SLR. Defending him has nothing to do with him being an admin, but with knowing his editing. You're welcome to disagree, but I just want to clarify that his being an admin is a red herring. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 09:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the conditions for closing apply, though. --FormerIP (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We'd have to know why we were keeping it open. The issue is there was a complaint that SRL had called someone a bigot and similar terms. SLR apologized for that and said he won't do it again. But he reserves the right to say when he thinks a post or edit is an example of bigotry, focusing on the content and not on the person. Others object to that, saying it's not a real apology and not a satisfactory way forward. SLR has said it's the best he's willing to offer.


 * Seems to me the best thing is to find a neutral admin to offer a suggestion on the basis of that, and move on. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 10:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein appears only to be offering to alter his grammar slightly: "If I think someone makes a bigoted comment, I will say 'That was a bigoted comment.'". It is not clear why Slrubenstein thinks this would be a constuctive thing to do. Per the guideline: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Allowing Slubenstein the privelege to beahve differently would serve no useful purpose but would sanctify the negative atcmosphere on the talk pages affected. Given the history behind this and the fact that Slrubenstein's attacks on Noloop have been frequent, this would not be a satisfactory conclusion, IMO. Plus, I think is is reasonably possible that Slrubenstein would not be the only editor to seek to take advantage of the new situation, so there would potentially be a minor nightmare being created.
 * Just on a technical point, I don't think we need to know why we are keeping the RfC open in order to do so. It works the other way around - we need a reason to close it. --FormerIP (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason to close is that we've run out of constructive things to say. What further purpose could the RfC serve, do you think? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with SV) There's also a whole question of definition here. 'Bigot' is a strong word, calling to mind all sorts of things - Eugene Terreblanche, the KKK, that church group that disrupts US soldiers' funerals because of its prejudice against homosexuals. SLR perceives Noloop as a bigot, but Noloop's starting point is not bigoted - saying that Christian authors have a bias where the existence of Jesus is concerned is NOT a bigoted statement, but it's one that SLR has several times accused Noloop of bigotry over. Asking if non-christian sources say the same thing is not bigotry, but again it's something that SLR has several times referred to as bigotry against Christians. If SLR could try to stop seeing Noloop's querying of bias in sources as bigotry against certain groups, this discussion could go forward in a much better manner.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree wholheartedly. Slim Virgin: I think the most satisfactory outcome to this RfC would be for Slrubenstein to agree to agree to stop his practice of "insulting or disparaging" editors he disagrees with and to acknowledge that he is not entitled to do so, "regardless of the manner in which it is done". This is only asking him to acknoweldge his responsibility to uphold WP policy, which ought not to be seen as a difficult or unreasonable request, particularly if made to an experienced editor and an admin. --FormerIP (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Realistically I think the chances of anyone who's watched this RfC referring to bigotry on the Jesus pages is minimal. I just worry that trying to drag these commitments out of people is a bit counter-productive. But as I'm in a minority (of one, perhaps) in wanting to see this closed, I won't mention it again unless others do. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only objective of my last post was to demonstrate that the situation is still unresolved. If we close it now, we would have to do it again soon. Civilized education talk  11:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin: To be clear, I am not looking for sanctions or to embarrass any editors and I can understand your wish to defend someone you repsect as an editor (and, for what it's worth, I think your respect is in many ways merited). But my perception is that there is a real problem with incivility in the dicussions we are talking about, which is getting in the way of normal discussion. If we can just arrive at a clear understanding that Slrubentein will follow policy in future I don't think that would be at all counterproductive. --FormerIP (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At lesast one otehr edd jas now said tey will use Slubers tactic of just caling comments bad names, not the person making them. This could represents slippery slope (and I have said at that start of this RFC that this type of indlugence is a problom) of users just putting Comment before their PA. It will not diffuse the tension but just start a whole new slaging match off ("your comments eats out of bins" "well your comment licks dead cats" ect). Politness costs nothing, rudness cost bad felling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven you're missing the point completely. If somebody makes a disrubtive edit (what ever kind of disruption that is) it is appropriate to call that edit out. Saying that an edit is trolling or abusive or racist is not the same as saying the editor is a troll or an abuser or a racist. It is an actual fact. Such a remark deals with edits not editors. It is not ad hominem as it is not about a person. Also I would counsel the petitioners here that it is also very possible to make civil sounding ad hominem remarks that worsen a poisonous atmosphere. Reflect if you will on how many of your remarks are about SLR the person rather than his edits - it would behove you to remember that these are ad hominem and even if polite are inappropriate by your own criticism of SLR-- Cailil   talk 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but as I understood it this was about Sluber, so how can we discuse his actions without discusing him or his motivations? I also feel that any comments I have made about Sluber here are well within any concept of fair discusion given that this is an RFC about his conduct.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afriad the logic of the point you've just made is rather circular. If it's not ok for him to make comments about an editor it's not ok for you to either. Not even at Rfc/U do we discuss the motivations of a good faith editor and the fact that this has been at this Rfc raises a red flag. Yes, at an Rfc we discuss behaviour but that means edits not people. And again ad hominem remarks whether framed politely or not are never appropriate - there is no clause in AGF or NPA that excludes Ani, Rfa, Rfc or RfAr. BTW it's not good enough that many or most of the comments aren't ad hominem-- Cailil  talk 14:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So can you point out werhe I assume bad faith or discuse Sluber in a way that it out of keepoing with the spirti of an RFC?
 * Well first of all and just so you know I didn't accuse YOu of doing so. If you reread my posts you'll see i said that ad hominem commenst had been made.  But by way of illsutartion - the fist edit I just replied to here is a bit ad hominem becuase it speculates on my motivations for agreeing with SLR. Andthis one is a bit dodgy because it acuses SLR of using 'intellectual language' to disguise bad faith. These aren't bad by the standard of comment here and I'm not really making this point at you personally Slatersteven - I don't think you assume bad faith of SLR - in fact your points are generally very good and I tend to agree with you, except in the case of these two edit which I think could be reworded to be less ad hominem. My notes here are really for those exclusively critical of SLR (most especially FormerIp and Noloop) - who don't seem to hear the point that they must apply their standards to themselves-- Cailil   talk 16:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one has directed that point at me, Calil, and I honestly don't see why they would. Have you observed me engaging in any personal attacks here? --FormerIP (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well for example these 3 contain infers and remarks that are speculative, ad hominem and about SLR’s motives and opinions rather than his edits. The third begins with what is an outright assumption of bad faith. Whatever the issue is that you have with SLR I suggest trying to AGF.  And by the way, if you expect another editor to take on board the opinions of others about their conduct it behoves you to do the same about yours-- Cailil   talk 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Calil, this is an RfC about the conduct of a user, so I don't think merely remarking on the conduct of the user in question can be taken as a personal attack (ie ad hominem is appropriate where the subject of the discussion is a person). Also, the last diff you show is directed at SlimVirgin's previous comment, not at Slruberstein. In any event, I'll be perfectly happy to listen to your comments on my conduct if you think that would be worthwhile, although I would suggest that would be better on my talkpage rather than clogging things up here. --FormerIP (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the point about circular logic that I addressed above. If you complain about SLR for making ad hominem remarks then by your own standards you must not make them when complaining. There is no way around this. And no there is never an appropriate time on wikipedia to discuss a good faith editor in ad hominem terms. There is no policy or guideline allowing this. If you want to object to an editor's behaviour do so with diffs of edits, not opinions about motives. And about the 3rd diff above, although you were talk to SV you were talking about SLR. That's why WP:NPA recommends not discussing people at all - just the edits-- Cailil  talk 19:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Calil, I'm really not sure I understand your point here. If you believe I have engaged in personal attacks, then I would invite you to explain to me where and how, but please do so on my talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I mis-understood, it seemed your comments were addressed to me. As to my post, I thought it was clear (I appoligise if it was not) that it was about the defence being used (especialy by Slubbers suporters) not directed at Slubber.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - I should have been clearer-- Cailil  talk 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I'd support this RfC being closed by an uninvolved admin. The outcome won't satisfy many people, especially the editor who started the RfC, but realistically I don't think keeping the RfC open is going to change anyone's position. There doesn't seem to be a lot of support for closing, though... --Akhilleus (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 4 (one with caveat) for closure (ignoreing the accused) 2 Against and a couple of non commitals.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RfCs don't get closed by voting. Plus I'm not sure who you're counting, but if you have me down as being in favour of closure, you shouldn't because the conversation has moved on since then. --FormerIP (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not susgesting i twas a vote, just pointing out tnat the claim that there is not a lot of support for closing was not that accurate (its still about 50% support for closure). I appoliigise for assuming that you still supported a close (with caveat).Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cailil, does your idea apply to other words? For instance, I think your idea is kind of idiotic. Is it OK for me to refer to "Cailil's idiotic suggestion" since I'm talking about the suggestion not the suggestor? Do you really think that is in the spirit of our civility rules? Noloop (talk)
 * Well first off it aint a suggestion that's policy. BTW making tendentious edits to prove a point is pointy and disruptive - disrupting an Rfc you opened aint smart. Also it'd be good if you are clear about your own arguments - if you can't stay on topic and away from ad hominem remarks, by your own standards you should be blocked-- Cailil  talk 19:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't dodge the point by calling it "pointy." I think "bigot" has the same level of invective as "idiot." You seem to think otherwise. Why? Noloop (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly where did I say that Noloop? Oh and btw you've just speculated on another user's motives again after being warned to stop-- Cailil  talk 11:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying "Noloop's comment is bigoted" is OK, because it is about the comment not the commentator? That is Slrubenstein's proposed "compromise," and you seem to agree. Noloop (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been very clear Noloop. If a comment is racist/abusive/disruptive then it should be called out as such and dealt with appropriately - that's site policy and that IS what we're supposed to do. It's nothing new and nothing extraordinary hence nobody else has a problem with it. Also as above you should be AGFing about it-- Cailil  talk 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you have been clear, nonetheless, I don't know what you're saying. Are you endorsing the idea that a comment like "Cailil's comment is bigoted" is civil? If so, I'm not alone in disagreeing. Your dialog on my Talk page and with FormerIP (above) also indicate some confusion. AGFing applies equally to all (hint). Noloop (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for both
Proposal: One month topic ban for Slrubenstein and myself. I don't for a minute think I'm guilty of anything deserving a topic ban. Whatever incivility I've produced resulted from weeks of goading and strawman distortions of my views. Many have raised neutrality issues in having predominantly Christian sourcing in these articles. Nonetheless, I have become a lightning rod for the more uncivil tendencies in the collaborative process. My presence is disruptive no matter what I say or do. Due to social climate or more experience with controversial articles or simply being fresh "faces", other editors can advance the points more constructively than I. I realize RFC/U has no enforcement power, but maybe we can just vote on it anyway, and agree to honor it. Noloop (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Im would have thought a that a simple this is naugthy you naughty things would suffice. Sluber has aknowledged he was wrong and promised not to do it again. You I think do also need to aknowledge that your actions contributed to this situation, and perhaps mentoring is what is needed in your case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think talk of sanctions is premature. What I think would be good would be for the parties to both agree to refrain from personal attacks. In spite of what you say, Steven, Slrubenstein has not promised not to do it again - you seem to agree with this in your comments elsewhere, so I am bit confused. --FormerIP (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take it that he understands that he is not expected to do it again. SV has already said something similar. No need for any bans for anyone and let's all AGF and proceed to the articles leaving this episode behind. Civilized education talk  23:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not clear that he does understand that. He thinks "Noloop's views are bigoted" is not a personal attack (because it's about views, not editors), and has reserved the right to make such comments. Cailill seems to agree. Noloop (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're just not getting WP:TPG are you Noloop - if you can't stay on-topic and away from speculating about other people you will be blocked. You were corrected already if you keep misrepresenting people you will be blocked for disruption.  And as I said if an edit is racist it is appropriate to call it so and deal with it as such. I did not say that it is appropriate to call people's edits names becuase you don't like them (either the person or the edit)-- Cailil   talk 11:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein makes constructive edits while Noloop wastes people's time arguing for the inclusion of fringe theories. Noloop should be blocked because he wastes people's time.  TFD (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am AGF. if Sluber says he will not do it I will accept that. My point is that I think there is a wider problom (not with in the scope of this RFC) of civility rules that almost seem to give cleaver or experianced users 'alledged' get outs (I did not say you had a bad dress sence your clothes do). My porblom (as I hope my example demonstrates, and the point noloop is noloop making) is that you cannot call someones edits indiotic with out implying they are (note I said edits not edit). Once maybe (we all make mistakes) but repeatedly implies indead you are callin g the user an idiot. I think that this laxity may well enbd up very damaging.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had meant that "what is expected of him is clear". That's enough (IMO).- Civilized education talk  11:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So, it turns out Cailil is an admin, now threatening to block me because...what? I think a comment like "That's a bigotted edit" is a personal attack...? Or what? Admins do get special license around here. Cailil, my point is very straightforward. I am sorry if I presented it in a way that offended you. I think we are on common ground that a word like "idiot" is personal attack, regardless of whether it is said about an edit, an editor's opinion, or an editor. It seems to me "bigot" is the same. Others have said so too. You and Slrubenstein  seem to feel differently. You've cited guidelines for civility; those guidelines, applied the way you want, make "idiotic" civil when applied to an editor's opinion. So, can you explain your position in more detail? Noloop (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Bigot" and "idiot" are hardly the same. Bigotry is not tolerated here, while idiocy, however unfortunate it may be, is.  If I have acted in a bigoted way then someone calling me a bigot is not simply a personal attack.  If I have not it is.  Idiot, is an insult and a personal attack no matter how you cut it because it has no practical benefit to the project when it's used.  We should be identifying bone fide bigotry and we should be putting a stop to it.  Idiocy is a whole other matter ...Griswaldo (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What Griswaldosaid is correct and is common sense. If you want to understand what's being said Noloop just read WP:NPA, WP:TPG and use that common sense. Also you have yet again speculated on the motivations of another editor in direct breach of policy. You are also continuing to misrepresent me and what SLR has agreed to. That behaviour is tendentious and I will remind you that that is disruptive. Step back and reconsider your behaviour-- Cailil  talk 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be threatening me. Noloop (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He isn't really. He is indicating that you have violated policies and guidelines on this page, in addition to the other pages in question. Repetition of such behavior can result in a block, although you evidently haven't gotten any specific warnings to that effect.
 * Also, I should point out that the proper place to discuss a topic ban, or any sort of ban, is one of the administrator noticeboards, not a User RfC. Any such proposals made here have no weight whatsoever. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Calil, I think you need to be clearer where you think Noloop has "speculated on the motivations of another editor in direct breach of policy" (I may be missing something, but I can't see it), and also why her "tendentious" behaviour is problematic - she opened this RfC about an editor, so it would seem reasonable that she might tend towards a particular view within the RfC. --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think most people here do not know the background of this RFC. I'm done here.There's no point continuing. Close the RFC. - Civilized education talk  03:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bigot is a subjective term. How (or who) do we determine if an editors edits are indeed bigoted? It bseemks in truth all Noloop did was to ask about neutrailty of sources, and then got rather carried away. That does not indicate bigotry but pig stubourn single mindeness (even you Sluber admit his origional post had merit), which is where I think Noloops probloms may lie. So is it PA if you think he's a bigot and call him it and I diagree? Who has the right to say what is and is'nt fair comment.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bigot is no more or less subjective than any other term that can be used to characterize some aspect of another human being. You cannot escape the fact that in making such a judgement a human subject must apply some criteria (e.g. what is bigotry) to another individual (e.g. Noloop).  Your argument is not meaningful.  By the way I do not know how Slrubenstein feels about your constant use of "Sluber" but it sounds obnoxiously close to "slobber" in my ears.  You might want to reconsider how using this inaccurate abbreviation makes you come off to others (whether or not he's OK with the usage).  Slrubenstein was OK with Noloops original comment because it seemed innocently mistaken.  When he was refuted with multiple explanations about why he was making a problematic request, but stuck to his demands anyway, Slrubenstein changed his mind about this "innocence", instead realizing that Noloop was rather consciously prejudiced against Christian scholars.  That should be abundantly clear to anyone, so your remaining argument is also off the mark.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And not everyone agreed, so who determines it. If I beleive you are a flibblefiger can I call you one? Or do need evidance (what evidacne would that be?). This is the problom not everyone agree's (and I do not agree) that Noloops edits were anti-chrisitan, ill thought out yes, confrontational yes, but not bigoted. Why should your (or indead anyone else's) opinion hold more sway then mine? No one (as far as I can see (Civedd aside)) disagress that Noloop has some issues with his attitude, but that does not justify name calling.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You refuse to get it -- WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT perhaps? It is not name calling when someone truly does believe that someone is a bigot.  We do not all agree that Noloop is a bigot, yes.  I advised Slr to not use this term as it is bound to inflame things, but I agree with his assessment personally.  He believes that since he thinks Noloop is a bigot that it would be insincere for him to retract his comment.  Once again, that is not "name calling".  Maybe Noloop is not a bigot, but Slr was not simply calling him names.  Can we stop this absurd convestaion?Griswaldo (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not absurd) its vital that users like Noloop unbderstand what is and is not PA. You have said that its bleife that matrers (I was not aware that such exsited in policy, but you may know more then me in that respect please provide the policy that says i can inslut some one if I blewive the inslut to be justifed). Indead this goes to the very heart oif noloops assumption of bad faith (and indeed IP's) about Rubbers statment that he will stoop PA, the idea that he (and otehrs) have not acceopted that his actions were in fact in breach of policy. Which seems to be ehat you (and otehrs) are saying, that he was justified to call Noloop a bigot, is this true? this in turn leads to noloops belife (not wholey unjustified it would seem) that thre is in fact something of a doulble standerd in operation (based perhaps in part on elequence) based not on policy but on whether you agree with the sentiment (it might perhpas be wothwhile to point out that Noloop has also benifited form the attitude in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven, I would rather you not call me "Rubbers," unless you are referring to another editor who so far has not commented on this page or been involved in this RfC. Are you referring to another editor, or to me?  If you are referring to me, please tell me why you call me Rubbers.  Thank you. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets clear something up
Is Bigot abusive in the same way that racist would be? Example your edit was bigoted' 'your edit was racist'? Is is a abusive as idiotic?Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, common sense: if somebody makes a disruptive edit and it's called 'disruptive' then NO it's not a personal attack - it's just a fact. If however they didn't then it is a breach of WP:CIVIL. There is nothing complicated about that and it has been explained again and again. As I have said to you elsewhere context is important. Saying somebody is trolling can be a personal attack if they are not trolling, BUT it is not a personal attack when they are in fact trolling-- Cailil  talk 12:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But we have rules for what are disruptive edits, what we are talking about is the use of subjective labels that have no clear criteria on wiki. Bigotry is not clear cut. If I say murdering christian scum am I a bigot (not in 1190 jeursalem i'm not I saying it as it is, what about if I am talking about it today is it bigotry then?). How about if my family have been killed in an Amercian done attack on a weddng I am bigoted if I say child killing USAF? What if I say that someones views are invlaid becasue they are not qulified is that bigotry?Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo has already answered this-- Cailil  talk 13:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So I take it then that yes non of these are breached of incivility?Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is that your questions are not relevant to this discussion. If you cannot discuss the actual issue, bringing in hypothetical examples that are further and further removed from the case serves no purpose, except to sidetrack discussion.  You seem to want to know how to tell the difference between calling a comment bigoted in good faith versus calling a comment bigoted as a personal attack.  In my response to Noloop I provided my own answer to the question.  Griswaldo has provided another answer, and Cailil another answer.  If you are not satisfied by these answers, I suggest - courteously - that you either give up and just admit that you do not understand the situation, or conclude that you disagree with me, Griswaldo, and Cailil.  one can reach either conclusion in good faith and with honor.  But hypotheticals are not constructive - logically, they are relevant only if they are congruent with the case at hand, but if so, why not just discuss the case at hand?  And obviously, the less congruent they are, the less relevant, and thus the less constructive. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No I was not talking about calling a comment bigoted, that is allowed. Its calling a user bigoted which seems to be what some (not you) are defending. Based upon the idea that if they are bigoted you can call them that. but (as this case demonstrates) bigotry is a matter of perception (not common sense) and what one user may consider bigotry another user may see as fair comment (and a number of uninviloved edss seem to have said that noloop does have a point, his fault is to much pushing). that is my issue what is and is not fair comment who determines it(it can't be inviolved Admins, thier involved)? So you get situations like this, that could be eaislly avoided by just saying never call anotehr user a name, no mater how justified you think it is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

On the shouting
The lure of being "open" and of being the top search engine result makes Wikipedia the target of choice for the self-promoters, hate-mongers, and extremists. The quest for discussion at the center is lost in the din as even the thoughtful resort to shouting just to be heard. The rush to judge at face value (using the "bigot" word) those who would defend the integrity of WP against the true guilty (those deserving of the "bigot" word) is an indictment of everyone who eagerly chimes in to attack Slrubenstein for using a "bad" word while being too lazy to go read the article talk page and looking at other editor's comments and the diffs to see if the word applies. I already commented at Noloop's prior attack on Slrubenstein after reviewing the article and talk at the source of the so-called conflict in detail. That Slrubenstein is the lightning rod for Noloop's disruptive actions points to Slrubenstien's integrity, not to justification for Noloop's accusations. This should be closed. Period. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 13:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of those attacking Rubbers and defending Nollop were in fact involved on the talk pages and articles. Also some of us have said that noloops actions may need closer examination. this is not some anti-Rubberism, this is about a user being uncivil and launchihng PA's. No matter what the provercatio there is no justification for that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the commentary here creates (IMHO) an artificial line between it not being OK to use the label "bigot" versus stating someone is a proponent of "a position which can be perceived as bigoted." This is wordsmithing. Bigotry, racism, et al. are in the eye of the offended. Noloop was confronted for his views and chose to escalate the conflict; Slrubenstein has apologized for calling Noloop a bigot directly as opposed to using the more convoluted, equivalent, but for some reason more acceptable WP:BALLET form. As far as I can see we are done here. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. The appropriate response to provocation is the appropriate response, which 10 times out of 10 needs be firmer than milquetoast. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that given the fact that a number of Edds seem to be saying that SLR did not commite any offence and that his actions were justified that this should not now be closed as a wider issue has been raised. Does Duck apply to ad-homoni attacks? Does it apply to subjective terms applied to otehr users (a simple yes or no would suffice) becasue a user bleive the attack to be justified?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as with a good deal of the commentary here, one cannot talk about these things as generalities. They can only be discussed as to the specifics of each case in question. A simple yes or no would do a grave disservice to the issue. Your very question has already presented a pre-judged set of circumstances which can only be determined on a case by case basis. Your (IMHO) endless berating of Slrubentein on his talk page without consideration of the specifics rather confirms you're convicting first, then interrogating the convicted. P ЄTЄRS  J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK
 * To my earlier "yet again" at this RFC, I was the only editor to investigate and comment on Noloop's prior request before it was rightfully declined. As far as I'm concerned, this is Noloop throwing mud until it sticks. (I should mention I have the arbitration case request page on my watchlist, I don't follow either Noloop's or Slrubenstein's edits.) P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that NPA does not allow for any 'justification' and duck says you should still be polite then yes in a way I had pre-judged. He had made a comment about a user that I felt was unjust and designed just to denegrate his contributions in a way that was not needed (or to be more ccurate in a way that would not have led to this). The easivness of the replies to a simple question  essentialy sum up what some edds have stated is goin on, The right to complain or defend an action based upon agreemnt with the offence, not policy. That can only lead to confusion bad feeling and deteriorating behaviure, that is what common sense when you apply differing standers to the same offence. In adition I resent the implication that the rest of us have not looked into the case. I have  a long history of conflict with noloop (so certainly have no interest in defending him) and have seen this same attitude and behaviure from him on pages unrealted to christianity but over the same issue of NPOV. In fact reading some of SLR's reponses (espeicaly elsewhere) they read very much like some of noloops (a catalogue of self justification based upon no one wanting to improve Wiki in the right way, his way).Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have moved away from your original statement: "Whilst I do not agree with calling users bigots, and think that Sluber could display greater diplomacy Nollops attitude is hardly designed to engender good relations. I think this whole affair (from both sides) represents the slow degrading of wiki's civility based upon over tolerance of bad attitude" Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, the above does not in any way contradict the above. In fact I would argue it compliments it rather nicley. That you are both to blame, that your statements (at least on the surface) look very similar in attitude. Moreover this is part of the same concearn I have expressed both on this RFC a number of talk pages and ANI's (involving Noloop, but not always as the accused) that the kind of 'it OK for those I agree with or who are just plain super can do it but those dam Noobs and those I disagree with can't' attitude is the cause of this kind of situation. Now this RFC woudl hace closed (and I supported its closure untill an attmept was made to exonerate your actions by saying 'but he can say what he likes'). I do not bleive any of us have the right to belittle other users with Epithets designed to imply bias (yes Noloop I am also looking at you), no matter how justified we think we are (and I doubt most of us ever use such names without beliving them). Nor do I( belive that such an attitude is supported by policy, politness is not circumvented by Duck (and it does not claim it does). You have appoligsed and said you will ot do it again, thats fine with me I wuld also like some kind of unedtaking from Noloop to indicate he will moderate his actions, but as he is not the subject of the RFC that is not really somethihng I can refuse to allow it to close for. One of my probloms with htis sittuation is that I can see some value in Noloop, as I have said i see much of him in you but he is developing (or retaing) some bad habbits that are affecting his ability to contribute as effectivly as I belive he could do. I am not trying to get either of you blocked, quite the opposite. I have stated that I bleive Noloop would benifit frok mentoring, but thnat will be worthless if he feels (as I have said not without some justification) that there is a double standerd (perhpas inconsistancy might be better) in the application of policys.Slatersteven (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven: Regarding "that your statements (at least on the surface) look very similar in attitude", well, either they are or not similar in attitude. The duty of the observer is to investigate beneath the surface. A large cause of the drama on WP is editors unfamiliar with editors, circumstances, and subjects barging in upon their proverbial high horses spewing uninformed judgements based on accepting statements from POV pushers at face value. Universities gave rise to the professional student; WP gave rise to the professional opiner. Sorry to have to be so blunt. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 21:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. On "resenting" I only stated that I was the only editor to show up to comment. Perhaps it's a sad statement that I have case requests on my watchlist; on the other hand, if you are interested in addressing conflicts before they spiral further (as here), then there's unfortunately no other option. That I watch the page, and perhaps you don't, would point more to my despair over the general state of WP than to any lack of diligence on your part. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 22:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been active with noloop for over a year so am familiar with his attitudes and behaviure, to be that familair with SLR I would have to read a years worth of edits and conflicts (at least). I am not sure that is really practicle (I have afterall a life outsode wiki). But they both see a weakness in wiki that others do not seem to see in the same way. With noloop is NPOV (this boarders on obbsesion) with SLR it is bigotry (but seems to have accepted its not to be, but with a tone of resigned regret). That is why I say on the surface they look familiar. I cannot tell how Noloop will devolope and whether or not he will moderate his views in the same way that SLR seems to have done. Perhaps I should have said that SLR's past behaviure looks very much like Noloops curretn activites in that area (a bellife that there is an inherant weakness at the heart of wiki that needs fixing whatever the effort needed). For my mind it is that attitude that makes them similar, and the unreolved nature of noloops future may make them different. I am also dubious (and see some similarity between it and noloops obbsesion with NPOV) of the rather Neitschian overtones of your last (but one) comment. You may have a point, but then so does Noloop.Slatersteven (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I do not know either of them from Adam. I do not know what their real motivations are. I can only make assumptions. Perhpas noloop is just a very clever troll (he trolls but makes sure that his opening gambit is valid). Or he may just wnat to make Wiki NPOV. SLR is new to me (as are you) but I have looked at his activited and he also seems to want wiki to be better (or maybe he just likes to play at baiting the thicko's) I do not know. I can only judge them based upon what I read. What I read looks very similar, and tells me they have the same personalities but difering interlectual abilities (it might be fairer to say accademic qualifications). But as I have said Im cannot be sure (as I do not know them) and so have to allow for the possibiltiy I am wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Close before this degenerates further?
Really, I don't know if this is turning into watching a train wreck in slow motion or picking at scabs to see if they bleed. @Civilizededucation: "Slrubenstien appears to have got away with much more incivility than any other user. Our expected standards of civility seem to slacken for him. (I am thinking about changing my username to x$rubenstien. Maybe I too could indulge....)" What WP would that be? Slrubenstein hardly ranks with the WP's attack dog icons of editorial disparagement. I've had my exchanges with Slrubenstein, but none of them have been in bad faith, which is far more than I can say for a crop of other editors (my perception). P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 02:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Closing
There are still a few days before this can be closed due to inactivity (as we haven't reached 30 days yet). I just want to clarify whether participants (particularly the certifying parties and the subject) are now of the view that the dispute is resolved? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The dispute is not resolved. As I understand it, there is the view that it is OK to call the behavior of editors bigoted. In this view, it is OK to say "Noloop's edits are ignorant and bigoted." Slrubenstein has asserted that making such comments is within the civility guidelines, and perfectly appropriate if the shoes fits. I don't agree. There is no such activity in the discourse right now. But, there's no agreement about what is appropriate. Noloop (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all disputes are resolveable through the means of mediation offered by the comnmunity - In any case the resolution of a dispute depends entirely on the willingness of the parties to reconcile and compromise. If a participant simply refuses to end the dispute untill she gets a certain result there is simply not going to be any resolution. This was a request for comment, you have received many many comments, what you should do now is read them, contemplate them and find out how you can avoid disputes like these in the future by adjusting your own behaviour to better achieve the kinds of behaviour that you want to see in others. Other possibilities you could consider are simply agreeing to disagree, or agreeing to avoid eachothers editing areas or ignore eachother. If after contemplating the issue you conclude that further process on the issue is the only way for you to move forward it should be through other of wikipedias dispute resolution channels, and not though an rfc. Closing at this point is thoroughly appropriate and nothing further will come from this rfc. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said Maunus-- Cailil  talk 21:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to closing the RFC. Ncmvocalist asked if the dispute is resolved, and the answer is that it is not. For the record, a great many people here seem to have a factually incorrect impression of the history of the dispute--understandable, since it spans two months and several articles. As for the suggestion that I find out how to "avoid disputes like these in the future," it is not helpful. The way to avoid these disputes in the future seems to be to avoid expressing certain concerns about neutrality (namely, the idea that worshippers of Jesus aren't neutral about the existence of Jesus). Censorship is not an acceptable outcome. The view of some seems to be that I should avoid these disputes by not suggesting that editors are religiously motivated; that view shows ignorance of sequence of events and general history of the dispute. The fact of the matter is that Slrubenstein (and Andrew c) were insulting and abusive for weeks, based entirely on my concerns about how to edit the articles. The behavior of these two administrators was brought to the attention of administrators who mostly did nothing. It was misrepresented here by Akhilleus (another admin), and actually supported by other admins (such as you). Slrubenstein asserted an intention to continue calling edits ignorant and bigoted if he deemed it accurate. Another admin, Cailil, seemed to agree with that and went on a powertrip, implying sanctions merely because I questioned him. The messages in this RFC are 1) Sometimes you deserve to be insulted for your sincere ideas about editing, 2) Don't expect dispute resolution to involve much research by uninvolved editors, and 3) The rules don't apply equally to all, and normal editors sometimes have to kiss admin ass. Noloop (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Noloop this is a Request for Comment - that's what happened people commented. You don't agree with what a number of people said, but then they don't agree with what you said. Also, I warned you not to be tendentious and I will ask you to rephrase the above mischaracterization of what I said and what people agree with. If anything surely the one lesson that can be learned from this is to avoid attributing views or characterizing other users at all-- Cailil  talk 23:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Noloop, if you read my statement as expressing support for Slrubenstein's behaviour towards you then that could explain why you seem to be forming conclusions from this RfC experience that are also very different from that most other particpants. Secondly, you are making it quite clear that you are noctually seeking dispute resolution but some sort of punitive measure. That is not within the scope of an RfC. Furthermore, inlooking at nly part of the dispute that you actuhad any control over (your own behaviour) you are doggedly seeking to justify your own behaviour in a way every bit as selfrigtheous as what you are accusing Slrubenstein of being. I don't see how such a behaviour could lead to a result that is going to please you in any of wikipedias venues of dispute resolution, as they are all built on a willingness to listen from the involved parties, and as they all base their level of punitive measures on the degree to which they will improve the editing environment for other editors. You should learn to sometimes just drop it, step back and have a cup of tea.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your general stance was clear when you said you thought Slrubenstein should be admonished, while I might need a block. (Now, you complain that I seek a punitive measure....). The rest of your comment, like much of what has been written here, is just accusation without specifics or evidence. I can only speculate that you think I made disruptive comments, and that caused Slrubenstein to call me a bigot. You have given no examples of such comments, and I don't believe anything I said relates in any way to Slrubenstein behavior. In fact, the things I said (sources that worship Jesus aren't neutral on the existence of Jesus) were said by many others. If you want to provide specifics of my behavior that you think I should reconsider, do so. So far, you have just asserted there is such behavior in the history of this dispute; you are making unsupported accusations and complaining that I don't take them to heart. Noloop (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Evidently, nothing further is going to become of this RfC/U (which is a process of coming to voluntary agreements) - it doesn't appear likely that points of agreement or disagreement are going to change either within the next two days. Have closed/delisted accordingly. Hopefully the parties will find a way to move forward and will not escalate the dispute(s) where unnecessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)