ARCHIVE 6 (2013)

Thanks for all the help and support over the past year. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC) reply

RfC/U Ret.Prof, how would you feel about participating in an RfC/U, and recusing yourself from further editing until that happens? I left a proposal to do that on Doug's talk page. I think it could really help to clear the air for a number of people you have had encounters with over the last two years. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

That may be a good idea after I figure out [1] without those edits coming from your account. In fact you created the article [2]- Ret.Prof ( talk) 02:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The article Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

complex POV fork/Duplication of several articles

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply

The PROD tag was removed, so this method of deletion has failed, and it can't be repeated. You may want to participate in a discussion of what to do now. Good luck. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply

The Hebrew Gospel (Aramaic) article was merged with a redirect to Hebrew Gospel hypothesis per consensus of the merge discussion on that article's talk page. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC) reply

You might be interested in Talk:Hebrew Gospel hypothesis#Shlomo Pines. Ignocrates ( talk) 19:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ret.Prof. You have new messages at Talk:1906 (novel)#Merger proposal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• MacDonald, Dennis R. (2012). Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia about the Lord. Society of Biblical Lit. ISBN  978-1-58-983691-4.

You might find this interesting reading. Ignocrates ( talk) 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks, it looks like a great read. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply

ARCHIVE

Dear Professor. Firstly many thanks for commenting that the 10ticks article should be kept due to varied and notable articles. As a professor this must carry some significant weight so I thank you. The vote finished in the result of 4 wanting to keep and two wanting to delete. It has come to my attention that it has since been deleted. The article follows all Wikipedia guidelines with several sources, from a variety of notable articles, from a number of different countries. As an expert and a professor I am wondering if you can help me to get the article back on to Wikipedia. I do not understand why there is a voting system if the words of many can be overhauled by one. And I do not understand the point of Wikipedia guidelines if when they are followed an article can be deleted. I really hope that you can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 ( talk) 08:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Noticing how Iggy seems to be trying to caste covert aspersions regarding the "cast of characters," and how he seems to be once again indicating that he has a degree of irrational paranoia, I guess I should say that comments of this type are one of the few things I have recently seen him use other people's talk pages for. You might also be interested in reviewing his own history, including several of the frankly irrational and basically useless comments he made at User talk:Jayjg, and what seemed to at least me to be his clear and almost unavoidable POV pushing for the opinions of the Ebionite Jewish Community, a group which has, despite the best efforts of at least me to find sources for it, nothing remotely resembling a claim to notability, and deal with him with your "eyes open" as well. I think it is worth noting that, as one of the people who was actually less involved in Bruce's Christ myth theory article, it was obvious from several of his comments that he had a clear POV regarding the topic, and one which, honestly, seemed to disagree with the presiding academic consensus. That's fine. However, he also at times used the article talk pages for harangues on his beliefs, and regularly, unfortunately, made irrational and unacceptable claims of expertise on the article. That, coupled with his transparent POV pushing, and conduct in general, led if I remember rightly (I haven't checked) to his being made subject to lesser sanctions, and then later being site banned because he insisted on using sockpuppets in defiance of those sanctions, which results in a more or less automatic site ban.

Honestly, I and I think pretty much all of the other senior editors around here welcome seeing encyclopedic content of any sort developed, provided that that content, unlike certain editors edits to the Ebionites page, actually meets our guidelines. At least partially on the basis of helping to establish what is encyclopedic both in terms of content and articles, I have been creating pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Encyclopedic articles to indicate what is and is not covered in other highly regarded reference books. That particular page is currently being revised to be more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism/Encyclopedic articles and others I have worked on subsequently. But I think most of us would agree that it is probably a bit higher priority for us to create basically good articles about the most notable and significant topics relevant to a subject, and then have a better idea of how to go about creating other articles for the sake of comprehensiveness. Although it will probably be a few weeks before I get the revised Bible article list finished, I and I think everyone else would welcome seeing the missing and poorly-developed articles there worked on, making it easier for everyone to know what is still missing. And, also, by the way, although I can't swear to this, I saw in the recent Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion several separate articles on the "History of study" of various religious thoughts and groups. I can't swear that they necessarily establish notability for similar such articles here, but I can and do think that it would make a good deal of sense to have several articles of that type relating to various Christian topics as well. But, it probably would be more useful for everyone if we worked on the main topics first, and then developed additional "branch" articles later. John Carter ( talk) 18:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

As someone whose major was in the history of religions in general, not Christianity or any specific belief systems, trust me when I say I think just about anybody who edits religious material is more or less over their heads around a lot of topics around here. One of the reasons I haven't touched the Baptism article directly is fear of somehow missing the baptismal traditions of various Christian groups I might not know, or, worse, others I hadn't myself heard of. Honestly, that's one of the reasons I've been working on the various encyclopedic articles lists, because they can help establish matters regarding WP:WEIGHT and the like, particularly if we also have content relating to the academic reception of those works as well. At this point, honestly, I have no reservations in saying you as an individual probably know more about Christianity than I do, but in general at this point, with the current level of article development in some fields, but not in others, there are a few systemic problems in almost all the religion content. God knows I feel I'm over my head on virtually everything relating to religion myself, anyway, but that's why I'm so much in love with the reference books, which are at least supposed to be as neutral as possible, in some cases anyway. So don't worry so much about being over your head, as whether what you're doing seems to meet policies and guidelines, based on the information available to us.

Also, FWIW, I'm not sure if you have access to databanks like JSTOR, ProQuest, Highbeam Research, Questia, NewsBank, and the like, but I do. Over the past few years, I've regularly offered to forward material I can find on databanks to individuals who give me a clear idea of what it is they are looking for. I have to add that qualification because in most cases, even relatively minor topics like the recent Falun Gong group, there are thousands of articles returned. If at any time you would want me to forward what I can find on databanks regarding some comparatively well-defined narrow topics, which don't return hundreds of articles, let me know the topic and an e-mail address and I can forward the material I find to you. Sometimes, the "relevancy" selections are sometimes questionable, based on the individual programs involved, but it doesn't really cost me much time to overload other people with hundreds of articles relating to topics, and in a lot of cases it makes it easier for those others to develop the content they're interested in, which probably helps improve the encyclopedia faster and easier.

And, yes, given Iggy's history with me, including what I believe qualifies as harrasment at Jayjg's talk page, and elsewhere, I do have his talk page on my watch list. I've got this one on that list too, because I automatically add every page I edit to my watchlist. That makes it about 10,000 pages long, but, sometimes, that's the only way I notice some things. John Carter ( talk) 19:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I am sorry that you have run into so much conflict. I have read your comments and you have some valid points. It is probably true that I have a favorable bias toward Ignocrates. However at Wikipedia our focus must always be on what the reliable sources say, not the editors we like or dislike. It is probably best that I step back from Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

That is a shame. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

You may want to be aware of conversations like this one. I added WP:COIN to my watchlist again. Ignocrates ( talk) 00:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I acknowledge having made the comment. I also notice that good old Iggy seems to be basically engaging in WP:STALK again, whcih seems to be his recent habit of late. Like I more or less indicated on the article talk page, I was operating on the impression that a book which had yet to be released was being discussed, not an old book like that one. I also notice that Iggy made this comment pretty much clearly after my saying as much, which calls into question exactly what sort of purpose this comment of his is supposed to have, other than to perhaps continue to spread the ill will and almost paranoic distrust that he so regularly demonstrates. Like I said on the article talk page, which I have good reason to assume Iggy probably read before his post here, given the time issues, I've grabbed more than a few prepublished books after the fact, as giveaways at church and seminary libraries. While those editions are, clearly, prone to typos, which means they themselves shouldn't be used, I have to say that I have probably been guilty of having more of them than others. This is the sort of mistake I seem to be making a lot on days when I am trying to spend most of my time on checking the various lists of articles in other reference books I've been making. I think I really should maybe decide to let myself work on them more or less exclusively on the days when I add to them, although, unfortunately, that tends to be pretty much every day I edit. I still have one list of articles in a Gale encyclopedia on world religions finished which I haven't even copied into wikispace yet. One of these days, maybe in the next month or so, I will be closer to finishing them. Also, FWIW, anyone with a COI will by definition receive a message to that effect, so the little possible "scare tactic" of needing to watch COIN is uncalled for. I wish he paid a bit more attention to adhering to other policies and guidelinees, of course, but the evidence of his conduct seems to indicate that possibility isn't a real likely one. Trust me, I would notify you if I saw a possibility of a COI, unlike others who have asked third parties to start an RfC/U regarding you, like the comments User talk:Dougweller/Archive 26#Propose an RfC/U for Ret.Prof, where you might be extremely interested to note who requested it, and who seemed to oppose it. John Carter ( talk) 01:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

On the contrary, it is you who are following me all over the pages of Wikipedia and commenting on my edits. Therefore, you are by definition WP:STALKING me. If you want to take that to WP:AN be my guest. I can produce plenty of diffs if needed to show them your systemic pattern of stalking behavior across time, articles, and multiple editors. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Also, I informed Ret.Prof about my proposal for an RFC/U on his talk page here, unlike you who secretly tried to convince User:Cirt - an editor who doesn't even know me - to file a COI against me during mediation. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Ret.Prof, you might want to install a script to detect errors in sfn citations located at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors#Installation and customization. To install the script:

1. Create a new page in your user space by clicking on the Special:MyPage/common.js link.
2. Paste in the following script: importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
3. Save the new page.

This will allow you to see error messages when sfn citations don't match up properly with the sources. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted

Text and/or other creative content from [[]] was copied or moved into [[]]. The former page's [ history] now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.

You copied material from Oral gospel traditions into a new article Christian Oral Tradition. As it is clearly a duplicate of the same topic, I've redirected it. You also seem to have ignored the consensus on the original to stub the article. Please don't try to undo consensus in this way. Dougweller ( talk) 06:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Licensing Breach? Copying? Undo Consensus? Now I am really confused! I never copied material from Oral gospel traditions to the Christian Oral Tradition????? Also, even though my name APPEARS in the edit history, I NEVER edited Oral gospel traditions?????? What is happening????? I truly apologize for any wrongdoing on my part. There is no need to block me as I will voluntary stop editing until things are sorted out. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

There's no way that your name could appear 283 times as an editor in an article [3] without those edits coming from your account. In fact you created the article [4] so if you think you're confused you can imagine how confused I am. That could explain why the same material appeared in Christian Oral Traditions. The problem is that if you look at Talk:Oral gospel traditions it was agreed to remove that material and turn the article into a stub. You then created the new article Christian Oral Traditions despite that decision, using the same material. Could you think again about denying editing Oral Gospel Traditions? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Let's calm things down here a bit and assume some good faith. As there has been at least one page move (see below), it's likely he's not lying. Article history is your friend. ••• 日本穣 ^? • 投稿 • Talk to Nihonjoe • Join WP Japan! 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the links and something is very wrong! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

You just have to click on the history tab here. Ignocrates ( talk) 03:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Licensing Breach, Copying, Undo Consensus. It does look bad. I am recusing myself from further editing. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 05:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Did you ever edit Oral tradition and the historical Jesus? It appears the current Oral gospel traditions was moved from Oral tradition and the historical Jesus at 13:50 on 29 January 2012‎ by User:History2007. ••• 日本穣 ^? • 投稿 • Talk to Nihonjoe • Join WP Japan! 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have cleared my name!! Thanks - Ret.Prof ( talk) 03:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Ignocrates...It has been pointed out that you doubted my word and wanted an RfC/U for Ret.Prof. Do not feel bad! In your shoes I would have done the same. I looked really, really, really guilty!! If bureaucrat Nihonjoe had not figured out that the edit histories for Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and the Christian Oral Traditions had been tampered with, I would have been finished at Wikipedia! Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC) PS In my relationship with you, I have always found you to be fair and honorable! reply

Thank you. That is the nicest thing anyone has said to me in almost 8 years of editing. I proposed an RFC/U for two reasons: (1) it allows other editors to offer constructive criticism - ideally, a constructive dialogue - which may lead to improvements in your editing, and just as importantly, (2) it compels other editors - who may have an axe to grind - to put their cards on the table. If they have an opportunity to express their concerns and they don't take it, that will be mentioned later at ANI or in arbitration. I learned a long time ago in the business world that the best way to deal with snipers is to bring them out into the light. Ignocrates ( talk) 15:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Ret.Prof, I can't afford to expend more time and energy fruitlessly attempting to mediate the dispute on Oral gospel traditions. I have articles of my own that need to be finished before I can take on more responsibilities. Imo, admin Nihonjoe was just passing by and isn't going to do anymore for you. However, the person I contacted this morning, AGK, is an 800-pound Gorilla on this encyclopedia. If he can't take steps to ensure that editing article content is an open and fair process then no one can, and Wikipedia really is an intellectual desert. Best of luck to you. Ignocrates ( talk) 21:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

AGK informed me that he can't become involved in a dispute until his term is up on the Arbitration Committee. I will try to identify another highly-skilled outside mediator as a final action before I recuse myself as an informal facilitator. After I see the GEbi article through FAC and the GHeb article through GAC (two knocks on wood), I may return to this article as an active editor to improve and expand the content. Cheers. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ret.Prof. You have new messages at Ignocrates's talk page.
Message added Ignocrates ( talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. reply

Ret.Prof, I summarized some of my thoughts on the edit conflicts which occurred on the J-C Gospel articles and why they occurred. In the process, I also created a user talk page archive here which briefly summarizes the history of scholarship on the J-C gospels and the relationships between them. Feel free to comment on my talk page if you feel that I misstated something or left out anything important. Please keep in mind that my soliloquy is about the three J-C gospels as a group and comparisons between them, not the putative existence (or lack thereof) of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Ignocrates ( talk) 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus

Hello,

I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. With a new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name to this list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 20:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Ret.Prof! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello. I find you interesting. Kazuba ( talk) 03:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Is that a Good thing??? - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I am once again both amazed by the Ignocrates' dishonest obsessive misrepresentation of fact. Ovadyah/Ignocrates, I realize your delusional self-aggrandizement and almost paranoic overreaction to your dedicated and obsessive editing of only articles related to the broad topic of the Ebionite Jewish Community, with which you have been obsessed from the beginning of your first account, as per the first edit to your user page, makes it extemeley unlikely that you will ever be able to either acknowledge your own deficiencies, fairly obvious violations of NPOV, and general stupidity. But, bluntly, now that you have determined to continue your own hysterical cries of mistreatment at the talk pages of pretty much everybody you have been in contacted with lately, I will say that there is no reason for those of us who have been called the devil's stupider younger brother and the like to ever go out of their way to try to get you to perhapslearn how to act like a mature, rational adult. You are, apparently, not interested in doing so, and that is the reason an ArbCom request regarding your conduct is on the way in the near future, probably this weekend or early next week, as time permits.

Ret.Prof., as I have already noted there, your own misuse of the Christianity noticeboard for soapboxing is yet another in a comparatively long line of problematic edits you have been warned about in the past repeatedly. Once again, I urge you to actually read the relevant conduct guidelines pages and sourcing pages. I find it nothing less than incredible that you, who say you have a law degree, seem to believe that citations to Ehrman are removed as part of some sort of conspiracy. His popular books are, at this point, about as reliable as newspaper quotations from someone who regularly testifies as an expert witness. The source himself is highly regarded, and no one would say otherwise, but popular literature which does not undergo peer review, like most of his books are, is not academic literature, and WP:RS favors the latter. He is, basically, in his popular literature about on the same basis of reliability as Tom Cruise's sometimes overenthusiastic statements about Scientology - the person is knowledgeable, but the source is questionable.

I sincerely hope that you engage in conduct which more clearly indicates a basic understanding of policies and guidelines in the future. At this point, I see no particular need for any further warnings regarding your sometimes very dubious conduct. Should you continue to engage in such misuse of talk pages and the like, I can't see any reason not to take it to a noticeboard or some other, more formal, place for review of outside editors. John Carter ( talk) 17:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Regarding your serious allegations:

Re User:Ignocrates

• "Ignocrates' dishonest obsessive misrepresentation of fact"
• "learn how to act like a mature, rational adult
• "delusional self-aggrandizement"
• "paranoic overreaction"
• "you have been obsessed"
• "you will ever be able to either acknowledge your own deficiencies"
• "obvious violations of NPOV"
• "hysterical cries of mistreatment"
• "general stupidity"

I feel that at times you have been a bit harsh with Ignocrates. My experience is that he is a fine editor. Now do not get me wrong! Referring to you as the "Devil's stupider younger brother" made me lol but I do not believe he was calling Satanic. I too have experienced his cutting humor during heated debate but have not taken it personally... and I have enjoyed a good laugh. I have found he always responds well to reason and reliable sources... insults, not so much.

Re Bart Ehrman

• "His popular books are, at this point, about as reliable as newspaper quotations from someone who regularly testifies as an expert witness."
• "popular literature which does not undergo peer review"
• "most of his books are, is not academic literature"
• "He is, basically, in his popular literature about on the same basis of reliability as Tom Cruise's sometimes overenthusiastic statements about Scientology - the person is knowledgeable, but the source is questionable.

I respectfully disagree. However User:Smeat75 put it better than I ever could: "There are several editors who feel so very strongly that these scholars are wrong, that they will never allow such scholarship into any article at Wikipedia...ever!" Well in my opinion that is the very opposite of WP:NPOV. It is not for individual WP editors to decide where respected mainstream scholars such as Bart Ehrman are right and where they are wrong and censor the "wrong" views of respected scholars from WP. What they need to do is find opposing views from scholars of equal standing and quote those views as well as the "wrong" ones. This discussion as to where Ehrman's statements are RS and where they are not is ludicrous, that is not for WP editors to decide. His latest book "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" was published by Oxford University Press, as mainstream as it is possible to get, he has had fifteen books published by OUP, others by Harper Collins,Harvard University Press, he is the holder of a Distinguished Professorship, a NYT bestselling author, on and on. Some editors don't like what he says, their opinions do not matter, only WP:RS and OUP and Harvard University Press are as WP:RS as it is possible to be. Smeat75 talk 16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re Ret.Prof and his disruptive editing

• "Once again, I urge you to actually read the relevant conduct guidelines pages and sourcing pages."
• "long line of problematic edits"
• "you have been warned about in the past repeatedly"
• "I find it nothing less than incredible that you, who say you have a law degree"
• "I sincerely hope that you engage in conduct which more clearly indicates a basic understanding of policies and guidelines in the future."
• " your sometimes very dubious conduct"
• "Ret.Prof., as I have already noted there, your own misuse of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard"
• "I believe that certain editors should seriously read WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RS, and other policies and guidelines, and very definitely refrain from making unsupported allegations which might in themselves clearly violate WP:AGF."
• "does not, however, necessarily mean that this noticeboard should be misused"
• "it clearly has been misused in this instance"
• "the woefully illogical"
• "completely irrelevant comments"
• "self-selected can somehow, in their arrogance"
• "I honestly cannot see any rational basis for such a wild jump to conclusions."
• "definitely does seem to be at least a bit of self-aggrandizement"
• " Eusebeus said above that there seems to be good cause to think that this qualifies as Disruptive or Tendentious editing, and, based on the material presented here, I would have to probably agree"

The allegations are serious and make me look really, really, really, really guilty of disruptive behavior. Therefore, I am recusing myself from further editing at Wikipedia indefinitely. I will also take your advice and do further reading in order to acquire a better a basic understanding of policies and guidelines for the future. I realize that you are an important Admin and appreciate that you did not block me indefinitely from Wikipedia or any other take disciplinary any action. Thanks again. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I believe that you should make a more thorough review of all the material, which indicates that another editor has not only engaged in rather pointed refusal to abide by conduct guidelines, such that he is now having a case prepared for ArbCom against him, specifically, Ovadyah/Ignocrates. I also believe that a thorough review of your own interactions and what some might consider knee-jerk support of Ovadyah regarding Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty, which he himself indicated wasn't even submitted for academic review, Robert Eisenman's theories of James which have been pretty thoroughly rejected by academia, and others indicates that, in general, your own behavior has been far short of optimal, and often disruptive, from the word go. The fact that he has regularly leaned on you in recent days/years as his one ally, even going so far as to say that he will protect you or similar phrasing at some point, indicates that your relationship bordering on dependance on him is itself extremely dubious. I am not an important Admin, and, honestly, have considered more than once turning in the tools because of the fairly regular harassment Ignocrates has indulged in since I helped to to get his fairly ridiculous POV pushing version of the Ebionites article recognized as such. I would not have blocked you for your recent dubious conduct, although I do believe that I could and probably would have brought continued misconduct to the attention of others. They could, as often has happened at ANI and elsewhere, do nothing about them. So, maybe, you might also review the ways in which AN/I and other boards are used, because, honestly, most people wouldn't have overreacted in the same way to such comments as you seem to have done here.

I am however heartened that you will take seriously reading all the conduct guidelines, particularly including those you have regularly displayed problems with in the past. I also once again ask you to perhaps consider working in less problematic and sometimes confrontational ways in the future. As I have said before, a lot of our most important content, both on Christianity and religion in general, is in poor shape, in some cases not even extant yet. Developing the content on significant, if not so wildly important articles, like even the basic articles on several groups we don't have covered at all here yet, would be one way to get a bit better grasp regarding how to start and develop articles. John Carter ( talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I have not looked in at wikipedia for a few months for various reasons but did so today and see this discussion. I must say that in my opinion John Carter's statements about Bart Ehrman do not show a grasp of the policy he quotes, WP:RS, which states at the very beginning "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Ehrman is certainly "authoritative" on his subjects and the information from my edit in April quoted above is now a little out of date as he has two more forthcoming books on the New Testament to be published by Oxford University Press,[ [5]]. It is disturbing to me that a powerful admin such as I believe John Carter to be seems to think he can decide that a respected authority with seventeen books published by OUP is a "questionable" source because he writes "popular books". It seems to me from what John Carter says that his attitude is really a case of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and therefore he thinks it should not be here. Regards, Smeat75 ( talk) 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC) reply

It should also be noted that Ret. Prof. had himself already agreed in a separate discussion thread that Ehrman's popular works do not meet the level of scholarship indicated for WP:RS. And, yes, I also agree with several articles I have seen in academic journals, and even as I remember Ehrman himself in one interview, that popular literature in general is geared for a popular audience, tends to undergo thorough review and suggested changes to make it more appealing to the popular audience, and often winds up being something which, maybe in some cases, the author himself wouldn't necessarily support as being of optimal academic quality. Such popular material has material motivation to some extent as well, and the packaging and sometimes weight of material in such books is sometimes strongly influenced by editors looking for optimal profit. Personally, I read just about everything Ehrman writes, because his material is among the most accessible and easily understood out there. I first encountered him with his lectures from The Teaching Company, honestly, and was very impressed there as well. But popular sources are in general less well regarded than academic sources, and if we can find an academic source which says what Ehrman says, they would be the better sources. If Ehrman says something that academic sources don't say, then there might be a problem, and I think it not unreasonable that such information isn't necessarily acceptable simply on the basis of Ehrman having said it, particularly on central articles whose encyclopedic articles elsewhere sometimes run to over 40 or even 100 pages. However, yes, I believe it not unreasonable to say that a source can be "questionable" for use by us as per WP:RS if the source is not an academic source. Also, FWIW, I think I remember somewhere urging people to read Action Philosophers!, a comic book of all things, because it according to its reviews and my own experience of having read it does a better job of more clearly and straightforwardly presenting the thought of some philosophers, like Wittgenstein, than many or most of the academic sources. The same can be said for Larry Gonick's Cartoon History of the Universe. Now, in general, except for perhaps particularly wonderfully phrased comments expressing a point more clearly and effectively than other sources, I do think that, in general, they shouldn't be used here either. Unlike some other academics, like James Tabor, so far as I can see Ehrman submits his work to academic journals for review, and in general receives good reviews. I believe that it might have been better had Smeat75 actually reviewed the prior discussion on this topic by Ret. Prof. and myself, which he apparently had not done, and also perhaps reviewed the rather inflammatory comments made by Ret. Prof. in which he clearly refused to AGF others regarding their reservations about including this material in an article. John Carter ( talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC) reply

This is probably not the right place,another user's talk page, to continue this discussion, however I cannot help but ask if you think Oxford University Press (publisher of seventeen books by Bart Ehrman) and Harvard University Press (publisher of two) are publishers of "popular books?" If Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press are not "academic sources" then what is? Also as the WP article on Ehrman says: Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, having written and edited over twenty-five books, including three college textbooks and WP:RS says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The "popular books" by Ehrman you refer to are only a small portion of his output and the only difference between them and the academic works is that they do not have scholarly apparatus such as a lot of footnotes and references. Writing NYT best-sellers does not disqualify a recognised authority from being WP:RS. Smeat75 ( talk) 22:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC) reply

You seem to feel obliged to make this comment repeatedly in multiple places, even if you beleive that they might not be the best place to comment. If, as you say, you can't help but discuss this matter, then maybe you require some outside assistance in not going offbase like this? The question is, I guess, whether the books being considered are published by the academic presses or not. I have not reviewed the specific quotes, but, if they aren't, they do not by default qualify as academic just because his other books are published by Harvard or Oxford or whatever. The quote about Ehrman from our article is also, frankly, worthless in this context, And, honestly, your unwarranted assumption in the last sentence of your little The rather completely irrelevant last sentence is also, honestly, worthless in this context. There is also one other, very significant, difference between his popular books and his academic books, the fact that they are written for a general audience and are, basically, "written to sell." Being an academic does not automatically indicate that someone's NYT best-sellers doesn't perhaps disqualify material which is not of a scholarly standard as reliable sources, either. Honestly, in cases like these, like I said above and elsewhere in the previous discussion regarding this topic, which you seem to have ignored, the best sources for an article are those which are cited in reference works (of whatever kind, including high-level textbooks I suppose). If you can indicate that Ehrman is cited in them, by all means do so. John Carter ( talk) 15:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I think you need to read WP:RS, especially noting the sentence "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" and WP:NPOV, paying particular attention to "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Smeat75 ( talk) 16:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply

And I very honestly believe that these comments of yours are themselves almost incoherent. You seem to be taking the opinion that each and every word uttered by someone who is generally regarded as a reliable source on a topic is to be taken as of equal weight. That has never been the case. If you were to review the history of the RSN, you would find that the editors there have rather often taken the position that someone who is in general a reliable source on a topic, but who also promotes a fringe theory related to the topic, is not considered a reliable source for the inclusion of the fringe theory. I also am honestly more than a bit astounded by the apparent inherent assumption in your comments that somehow in some way Ehrman is perhaps the only independent reliable source on any topic out there. Feel free to raise these questions at WT:RSN, where I think you would get perhaps broader response, but consensus is in general that in general your comments above are right, but what we try to do is determine exactly how closely any individual source meets RS standards for the specific usage to which it is being placed. Ehrman has, in recent years I am told, taken a rather stronger position on the theoretical oral traditions of early Christianity than is supported by the bulk of the academic community. While that view might not specifically meet "fringe," it is perhaps a very distinctly minority position which might not, in some cases, meet WEIGHT requirements for a specific article. That is more or less inherent in the "fairly, proportionally (emphasis added), and as far as possible..." quote you used above. Proportinality is, as I think you can see, held to be more important than inclusiveness, at least per the comparative emphasis and weight given it in the sentence you quote. John Carter ( talk) 16:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Fyi, the issue re Ehrman was already raised at RSN as well as FTN. John Carter seems to have a massive problem with WP:I DON'T LIKE IT coupled with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the information. FYI, RSN only deems whether the sources can reasonably be used, not whether they are the best available sources out there. There is a difference, whether you have ever been able to recognize it or not. And your own huge problem with stalking, which I have to believe most people would consider the above edit to be, jumping to clearly prejudicial conclusions for no other apparent reason than to engage in petty personal attacks, which I believe is another long-term habit of yours which can be documented, and your own obvious almost absolute disregard for WP:POV is a much bigger problem, which, depending on the time I have available for this purpose in the next week, I would expect to be raised to ArbCom within the next week or so. I believe their conclusions about who has the most serious stalking and harassment problems will, basically, eliminate the problems you have presented and seemingly continue to present here. John Carter ( talk) 22:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply

My fyi was directed to Smeat75, so keep your accusations of stalking to yourself. Btw, "best available sources out there" is a subjective judgement. Do you have a scholarly review ranking who is "best"? I don't think so. In fact, your "best" is based on nothing but your own bias. Since you are not competent to contribute to article content in this category, by your own admission, there is no reason to take your recommendations about the "best" sources seriously either. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Ignocrates, much as you apparently think otherwise, you are not an all-powerful entity who can make demands such as "keep it to yourself", and such arrogance is one of your long term problems to be addressed. And, FWIW, I think just about any reasonable editor with a substantial history around here would know that the sources which are most relied upon by other sources are among the ones we should most rely on here. As we both know, you yourself had for some time done your best to ignore the RSN comments regarding the reliability of The Jesus Dynasty, so it is amusing that you now seem to rely on it, at least when it doesn't disagree with you. And, however you say after the fact your statements were indicated, the content of it is also relevant, and it seems to not unreasonably be a form of personal attack, which, admittedly, I am more than used to from you at this point. And the issue of your own, fairly obvious bias, which seems to have existed from your very start here, which is itself a matter other editors should take into account when considering anything you say around here, and which will be one of the major considerations in arbitration when the request is filed on Sunday or next Thursday. Given the amount of time it takes to develop the lists of encyclopedic content I am still working on, I tend to concentrate on it. And, FWIW, there is an article on "reference works" in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion which lists some of the most reliable and relied upon sources on the topic of religion. Also, yes, there is at least one I believe book (it might be an article, I haven't checked it recently) on the "best" reference sources out there, but the only one I can remember which dealt with religion is the Coptic Encyclopedia, which isn't relevant to this topic. So, Smeat, take into account the history, rationality or (in the case of the last one above) irrationality of the comments here as well, and the prior history of editors who have displayed a history of POV pushing which is become so bad that they are being taken to ArbCom shortly. John Carter ( talk) 23:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply

"I also am honestly more than a bit astounded by the apparent inherent assumption in your comments that somehow in some way Ehrman is perhaps the only independent reliable source on any topic out there." I do not know how anyone could get that impression from what I said. Here is what needs to happen - "Bart Ehrman says x, citing source, however this other authority, citing source, says y". Not "Bart Ehrman says x but there is a "better" source that says y so we can't use Ehrman." It is really quite simple and I must say it surprises me that you don't know that. Smeat75 ( talk) 01:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply

What I think needs to happen is that someone, probably you and some others, need to read WP:PSTS. Ehrman's books, which are in general highly regarded, admittedly, are also in most cases tertiary sources, much like encyclopedias, as he is most often just repeating the comments of others, from what I have seen, and not really discussing anything which is more or less original to him, much like the two comics I mentioned above. It is really quite simpole and I guess I must say that it surprise me that you apparently haven't paid much attention to policies and guidelines other than RS. It is not the only guideline here. I believe Ret. Prof., who is, as he said, reviewing policies and guidelines, may well know that. I would perhaps also suggest that certain parties perhaps read WP:FORUMSHOP. In general, the best place to ask about matters relating to policies and guidelines is to ask the person directly, probably on their individual talk page, unlike, like I saw, on one of the noticeboards. But, yes, even policies and guidelines do indicate some sources are preferable to others. Like I said, it is, despite the implicit (or in the case of one person fairly explicit) to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines. If you have serious questions, it is rather simple, and something most people get fairly quickly, that probably the best place to raise them is either at RSN or of the individual directly, not on administrators' noticeboards or on the pages of third parties. I very strongly suggest that the thing that most needs to happen is that certain editors familiarize themselves with all guidelines and policies, perhaps, in this case, particularly you. Yes, some of Ehrman's work, including a lot of academic journal articles, are secondary, and we favor them. But, except perhaps in the bibliography sections of articles, we prefer where possible secondary sources, more or less the people who present the ideas under discusssion in the first place, rather than people who repeat them later. John Carter ( talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply

"Like I said, it is, despite the implicit (or in the case of one person fairly explicit) to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines. If you have serious questions " Yes, I have a serious question,. What does that previous sentence mean? It is incoherent.

" Yes, some of Ehrman's work, including a lot of academic journal articles, are secondary, and we favor them. But, except perhaps in the bibliography sections of articles, we prefer where possible secondary sources " That doesn't make any sense either - "A lot of his work is secondary but we prefer secondary sources?" Eh? I note that once again you have compared the work of probably the leading NT scholar of today to comic books and if you think Ehrman just repeats things in his books that he has got out of other books you need to read Ehrman's works.Also I did not "forumshop", I joined discussions you were taking part in in two places. Smeat75 ( talk) 02:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply

P. S. I would also suggest that you might be interested in checking some of the various reviews of reference sources which are generally created. If you were to do so, you would see that, in a number of cases, the reviewers themselves rather clearly state that some sources are better than others. Certainly, several indicate that one or more given articles within reference sources are better, or worse, than those in others, or otherwise speak of the comparative quality, accuracy, and neutrality of the sources. In fact, a few of the databanks I have access to have the content from one such journal, whose title is "Reference and User Services Quarterly or something similar, which generally contain reviews of reference works every issue, most of which generally contain some degree of comment similar to that I indicate above. John Carter ( talk) 00:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply

What other publications or websites may do is a matter for them, of course. This site has its own guidelines and policies, which despite the fact that you hand out admonitions to others about them, it does not seem to me that you understand at all. You must have read WP:NPOV but what you say does not even come close to following it. It is no business of anyone here to sit in judgement on respected scholars and their writings and say "here he is like a comic book, can't use that, here he is like a "tertiary source ", so can't use that,(interesting question, how can the same writer be like a comic book one minute and an encyclopedia the next?), here he is WP:FRINGE,can't use that, here he is OK maybe, but there is a "better" source over here so we will use that instead". It is all quite ridiculous, if there is a gold-plated, copper-bottomed 100% WP:RS source, it is a leading academic, scholar and NYT best-selling author with seventeen books published by OUP. Smeat75 ( talk) 03:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply

There are also a matter as per WP:WEIGHT, which specifically deals with the matter of which sources are to be given more weight in articles, based on the level of acceptance they have in the relevant community. which is yet another guideline we are supposed to follow. I also note how on this page you seem to have regularly given yourself the right to hand out admonitions, on, so far as I can tell. I have read WP:NPOV, several times in fact. Believe it or not. Also, if you could be bothered to follow the links to those articles, which seemingly you have not done, you would note that both those comics sources are also tertiary sources, as per the guideline above, and one of them, Gonick, is one I know to be at least used as a junior college textbook. What I believe is "quite ridiculous" is that you seem to believe that apparently, simply on the basis of an individual's reputation, each and every word he has ever stated must be regarded in some sense as reliable. Nowhere in any policy or guideline is such a remarkably irrational statement made. It seems to me quite clear that you refuse to believe that anything other than WP:RS can be made to apply in instances where you have a clear opinion, and that more than anything seems to indicate to me your own remarkable lack of understanding.

Also, I would call to the attention of anyone reviewing this that, at no point have you ever done anything to indicate where the question you are raising was raised earlier. That is a rather serious question in and of itself. Carl Sagan, who had similar credentials to Bart Ehrman, was actually damned to hell in the Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle novel Escape from Hell because, despite his having similar credentials, he toward the end of his life misused his name to promote the now widely discredited "global cooling" hypothesis, primarily to get media attention, according to that book. Despite those similar qualifications, however, he has been not been given the blind, mindless, total acceptance that you seem to indicate per your comments above must be given to every "leading scholar," even in those cases where he is specifically taken positions which are in sometimes clear contradiction to those of the academic community. I am sorry that you cannot seem to grasp the fairly basic and obvious conclusion that your own remarkably prejudicial assessment of Ehrman as a "gold-plated, copper-bottomed 100% source" in some matters does not mean that he meets the same standard for each and every statement he has ever made. Regarding your threat of RfC/U, please feel free, but also realize that filing unwarranted complaints and accusations is itself a serious violation of conduct guidelines, and WP:BOOMERANG might well apply.

If you are capable of pointing out specific instances where you believe this source has been removed, which you have to date refused to do, vy all means do so. It should be noted that Ret. Prof.'s own complaints were primarily about Ehrman's support of the oral gospel tradition, a belief which he gives much more weight and credibility to than most other "leading scholars," although obviously some cherry-picked supporters of any hypothesis can be found. I also believe it would be very interesting to add yet another instance of possible harassment against Ignocrates, considering that I expect to have a complaint regarding him filed to the Arbitration Committee for review and action within the next week or so. I imagine any complaints about similar conduct from others would be likely addressed as well.

If you do have serious questions about any particular instances of where you think this source has not been given due weight, feel free to provide them, something you have to date seemingly refused to do. If you decline to do perhaps the only useful thing you might do regarding this matter, then, honestly, I believe it would probably be in your own best interests to review the conduct guidelines and content guidelines, which clearly include much more than simply WP:RS, and perhaps try to understand the application of some of the other guidelines as well. Good day. John Carter ( talk) 15:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply

And, to Ret. Prof., seeing how others have pointed out at WP:FTN regarding the Gospel of Matthew that you seem to have used quotes from various sources as support of beliefs/theories that are actually opposed by them, I think that it probably is a very good idea for you to at least take a break, and also read all the guidelines, including those which deal with the correct and incorrect use of sources, as you seem to have done there. Really, I cannot see any excuse for such conduct, and it is very, very hard to believe that such apparently willful misuse of sources to support beliefs that they do not in fact support is something you shouldn't already very clearly know should not be done. There honestly is no acceptable reason for doing so. John Carter ( talk) 20:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply

1. I have found the discussion here and at WP:FTN very helpful. I agree with User:Shii that a "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it, as the question is one of WEIGHT, not FRINGE. (See PiCo, John Carter, Ignocrates and IRWolfie )
2. Secondly, after carefully reading WP:RS and reflecting upon the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that Ehrman is a reliable source per User:Smeat75. Indeed Ehrman is a leading source.
3. Most interesting is accusation that the article goes beyond what is written in Ehrman and the apparent deception and "willful misuse of sources". Although I do not believe there has been any willful deception (it is always important to assume good faith), this is an important issue must be dealt with. (See below)

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins 2012. pp 98-101

• And this is what he says about Matthew: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.
• This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)

Issues

1. Trustworthiness: After reading pp 98-101 carefully, the central theme is that the testimony of Papias is trustworthy for it is testimony that "is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves."
2. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel: It is true that Papias “knows” that there was a "collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew". Nothing is said to challenge this fact.
3. BUT "there is no reason to think that he is referring to the book that we call...Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." Therfore, although Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not the same as the Gospel of Matthew, there was a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew!

Where conservative scholars (and for that matther user:John Carter and friends) go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about our Gospel of Matthew when he is really talking about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. British historian Maurice Casey comes to the same conclusion.

Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. pp 86-88

• Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)
• It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew. It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)

It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. On the other extreme are those who believe the Gospel of Matthew is a Christian deception as it had nothing to do with Matthew because the Hebrew Gospel spoken of by Papias never existed. Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Back in 2010 you put a nice table into the article on the Gospel of Thomas. However, after you initially put this table in, you modified it a bit, and someone else did also (later). I think the rows called "Disciples-inner circle" and "Disciples-others" are no longer correct. For instance, Simon Peter is mentioned in Saying #13 of the Gospel of Thomas, but he doesn't appear in either category. Can you check this? Thanks. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC) reply

ABEM - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Speaking of his now removed page, he stated he has two Bachelors and one Master's degree. There is no way one can be a professor without a doctorate. I can understand that he was a teacher, but for being a professor one needs a doctorate. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply

That is not true, Tgeorgescu. I know Sociology professors who only have an MA and plenty of Journalism professors who don't even have a Masters. I'm guessing most professors at Business Schools are not Ph.D.s. It's also common among Theology professors to have a Th.D, not a Ph.D. There are thousands of adjunct professors who are still in graduate school (I should know, I did this for six years and I was referred to as "Professor"). Not all universities, colleges and seminaries require faculty to have a Ph.D. It depends on the institution. One who receives a Ph.D. is referred to as "Doctor" but not all Doctors are Professors (which is a job title) and not all Professors are Doctors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I can't believe you brought this up, per WP:TROUT. However, that gate swings both ways. I have a Ph.D. and two Master's degrees. From now on you may address me as Dr. Ignocrates. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply

He proudly stated he has three degrees, but was he ashamed of the fourth? It makes no sense to boast about two Bachelors and one Master but refraining from stating that he is a doctor (that is, if he really is a doctor). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

My aim wasn't being impolite, but such partial boasting makes no sense to me, it raises question marks. It has simply made me wonder if he really was a professor. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Besides his ability to find, evaluate and render the viewpoints of reliable sources make me think that he does not have great scholarly abilities. Again, I do not want to be offensive, but this is my sincere impression when confronted with his edits. There are some things which scholars consider as poor academic performance and one of them is misquoting the viewpoints of other scholars. If one consequently fails to render the viewpoints of the sources he is quoting, it smells either like poor academic performance or as academic fraud (like in trying to game other editors, who are required to assume good faith in citing sources). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I would only add that I have seen it not unusual for someone who has what is historically called a "religious" doctorate to call themselves a doctor, even though that degree, by the standards applied elsewhere in academia, the degree might be called a master's. Doctor Martin Luther King is an example of that. Having said that, I too have noticed that the edits of this individual do not strike me as being those of someone who has a significant academic background. And, as I believe I have already noted on this page, we are already familiar with editors who make exaggerated claims about themselves, as per the Essjay controversy. John Carter ( talk) 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Since you are here, I might as well relay a message: Hahc21 has asked how your preparations for arbitration are coming and if you are ready to work with him to prepare your opening statement. You might want to respond on his talk page. Ignocrates ( talk) 01:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I believe this is all a bit on the boundaries of harassment and doxing. I call myself TParis, short for Tom Paris, and I don't purport to fly Starships 70 light years from Earth. I could call myself professor Kingberry and say I have a GED for all Wikipedia cares about avatars. Discussing a user's username in relation to their assumed real life job is not generally accepted behavior on Wikipedia and I suggest this thread cease.--v/r - T P 20:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, it isn't just about the name the person chose to use. I, certainly, am not married to Dejah Thoris, although, honestly, I probably wouldn't mind being such, at least if the real Dejah (if there were one) looked anything like Frazetta's paintings of her. Ret. Prof.'s self-description in the last previous version of his user page here is what apparently sparked this discussion, and there he does claim to have the credentials being discussed here. John Carter ( talk) 15:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

And that means what, John? We don't give professors special privileges here. We even have an essay about that and after the Essjay controversy, I bet just about everyone here gives serious doubt to most people's claims behind pseudo-anomymous avatars. So what possible purpose can it serve the encyclopedia to go down this road? None. If you have concerns about the real life identity of an editor, take it up in private to Arbcom.--v/r - T P 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

It means I was responding to the question you asked. Now, having received that response, you seem to want to ask further different questions. I acknowledge your point, but, in all honesty, if you want to continue to basically keep the discussion on this page going on your own by posting revisions of the same point, honestly, I think you might want to consider the wisdom of your own actions. John Carter ( talk) 19:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Shalom! I have been trying to bring a more circumspect view of opinions expressed in a WP article entitled "Gospel of Matthew." I have noticed that the editors reject the view that Matthew's Gospel was first written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. I was accused by one editor, "In ictu oculi," of promoting WP:OR, or at best, bringing down "Primary Sources." He/she rejected a "secondary source" that was printed by a Catholic organization, claiming that their view is not consistent with "modern scholarship."

So, my question to you is this: Is there any room for mentioning the "development of traditionally held beliefs" regarding the Gospel of Matthew in the current Wikipedia article, or should we keep this information hidden from the public's view? If we mention the early and so-called outdated "theories" or "thoughts" regarding the origin of the Gospel, we can avert his/her opposition to it. What do you think? Should I take this matter to the DRN?

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

Note that Jerome writes about Matthew's gospel on this wise (De viris inlustribus, ed. C.A. Bernoulli, III):

"Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. But who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected. From the Nazoraeans who use this book in Beroia, a city of Syria, I also received the opportunity to copy it. In this it is to be noted that where the evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two (quotations?) exist: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son,' and 'For he shall be called a Nazarene'…"

Eusebius also wrote (hist. eccles. III. 39.16-17):

"…But concerning Matthew, he (Papias) writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew-language and every one interpreted them as he was able. [vs.17] And he (Papias) related another story of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord which is available in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (i.e. what is now written in John 8:1-11). These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated." Davidbena ( talk) 09:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC) reply

ABEM - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Could I point out that this user is not active on WP and has not been for weeks now. He was very upset by accusations of disruptive editing and disappeared. Discussions on his userpage, when he is not here to participate, seem in poor taste to me. Smeat75 ( talk) 21:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC) reply

We have a saying in Hebrew (translated): "He who is tacit to the charges laid against him, admits to those charges laid against him." = שתיקה כהודאה. What I was trying to do, perhaps prematurely, was to show what reliable Primary Sources have all said unanimously, the import of which (at least to me) was as clear as the morning sky. What I failed to do, however, was to show reliable Secondary Sources, and I admit that this was one of my faults. I am still learning, and we should never be too proud to learn. I have since seen various Secondary Sources in an article entitled Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, which may have already been seen by you. Be well, gentlemen. Davidbena ( talk) 18:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't think you have made your point, in fact. I'm still not clear what your point is. As far as I can see, what you seem to be suggesting is that there has been a major shift in scholarship in recent years. I have not seen any citations that say this - the only citations you have provided have been from individual scholars who have not said they are making, or seeing, a shift in scholarship. So we can't say that.

It's unclear, to me at least, what you think this major shift is. You seem to be saying that some scholars now accept that Papias was right to claim that the disciple Matthew compiled a list of sayings of Jesus in Aramaic or Hebrew. Here you have provided citations, but they don't exactly back this claim up. You've quoted James Edwards, who does indeed appear to think this is likely; and Casey and Ehrman, who think it's possible. It's not strong but it might support the statement that "some modern scholars believe the Papias reference, preserved by Eusebius to be fairly trustworthy and usually interpret it to mean Jesus' disciple Matthew had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew or Aramaic." But even if that were true, it does not necessarily belong in the article, because that would depend on the implications drawn from this.

What is unclear is which of the following possible implications you are supporting - it would be really helpful if you would explain which you agree with, and which scholars you cite in support of it:

This document, translated into Greek, is our modern Gospel of Matthew. [Craig supports this, Casey thinks it’s nonsense, as do most modern scholars]

This document, translated into Greek, is the Q source used by Matthew and Luke.

This document, translated into Greek, is one source for Q. [Casey thinks this is possible]

This document, translated into Greek, is the basis of the material in the Matthew Gospel that does not come from the Mark Gospel or Q (sometimes called ‘M’)

This document, translated into Greek, is the basis of the material in the Luke Gospel that does not come from the Mark Gospel or Q (sometimes called ‘L’) [Edwards thinks this is likely]

This document has been lost and bears no close relationship to anything in the New Testament. [Ehrman thinks this is possible]

This document, translated into Greek, is the one known as the Gospel of the Hebrews.

If you could indicate which view you want to include in the article, and why you think it should be included, that would be helfpful. Thanks. -- Rbreen ( talk) 16:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

At this point, I would like to say to Davidbena something I said to Ret.Prof. before, and to a few other people at various times. The number of highly regarded reference works which deal with the topic of religion in a broad sense and with Christianity in particular is staggering. I remember seeing in the past few months that there were then about one or two per month being produced. And some of them, like the recent Coogan "Oxford Encyclopedia of the Book of the Bible" are both very highly regarded and contain really long articles, even in compared to our own, on major topics. That being the case, honestly, I really can't see any reason why the main articles on major topics like the Gospel of Matthew and others which regularly receive articles of major length in these reference works, should contain anything that isn't included in at least one of them. So far as I can tell, for such major topics, I could even say that I think that is one of the obvious conclusions to be drawn from WP:PILLARS. Now, there is a great deal of room for expansion and development of subtopical articles, and I am actually trying to get together lists of them for the purposes of making spinout easier where indicated. But, I think most senior editors around here would probably agree that, if something can't be found in any of the reference books which cover topics like this at greater length than our own article does, we probably shouldn't include that material in our main articles either. So, honestly, David, if you wish to get such material included, I think the most effective way to do that is to hit the reference books to try to find where and to what extent they cover the topic you are interested in. John Carter ( talk) 17:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to see you blanked your User Page. I found the content there very helpful and interesting and I hope you rollback and restore it one day soon. Cheers! Newjerseyliz ( talk) 18:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Me too! Please come back Ret. Prof! Smeat75 ( talk) 01:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC) reply

You can access the content thru the page history. But please honor this user's intentions, & do not restore it from an earlier version. -- llywrch ( talk) 05:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm aware of this, llywrch, and I was just expressing a wish for Ret.Prof to return, not an intention to restore or touch his User Page. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Ret.Prof, your name was mentioned here User_talk:Newjerseyliz#Commentary in case you return and care to respond. Ignocrates ( talk) 22:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Smeat75, I saw on an article talk page that another editor suggested David get in touch with Ret.Prof. I'm sure he's not aware of the circumstances of Ret.Prof's absence from Wikipedia. I think we all hope that he returns soon! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the help, kind words and emails. It has been good to have independent confirmation that my edit history over the past year or so does not support the allegations of rude or disruptive editing; that my "only sin has been to be calm and reasonable in the face of negativity."; and my "edits based upon existing policy/guideline are sound. Stepping back from areas of drama is to be applauded." I will continue to AGF re John Carter et al. and will take their concerns seriously as I now resume editing, confident that the Admins and Bureaucrats patrolling this topic will see to my protection. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 13:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC) . . . PS@ User:Smeat75 & User:Liz My user page has been restored. reply

No need for a topic ban. I have made my point and will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic indefinitely. I just witnessed what has been done to David Benn by the "Cast of Characters" (see above) and have no desire to be humilated in that fashion. I think both David & I have got the message Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is taboo! - Ret.Prof ( talk) 15:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

It isn't taboo, it's fringe. User:Davidbena has done original research and refused to quote scholarly sources, saying he knows the truth and therefore does not need rely on scholarship. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC) reply

I am leaving Wikipedia for an indefinite period of time. Sorry for any problems I have caused. Ret.Prof ( talk) 12:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, Ret.Prof. If you drop by (and I am sorry for your frustrations), I just wanted to let you know that I merged Lucian on Jesus into Passing of Peregrinus, the work that contains Lucian's references to Christians. The target was a more developed article, even and especially in terms of its significance as an early reference to (the unnamed) Jesus. In general, I think that these references need to be assessed in context, and in this case particularly so, since it's a short work with a satiric purpose. I'm not lauding the quality of the target article. Just saying it's more developed, and there's no reason for a separate exegetical article on the Jesus passage. Cynwolfe ( talk) 17:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I have resumed editing with a view to working out a compromise. I believe Dunn addresses many concerns that have been raised. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 04:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Ret.Prof, please stop rearranging article talk pages, as you did on Talk:Oral gospel traditions diff. You are free to do that on your own talk page as you wish, but not on article or community talk pages. Thank you. Ignocrates ( talk) 13:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for providing a proposed outline for the Oral gospel traditions article. My advice going forward is to do your best to respond to constructive criticism that is specific and actionable, and ignore all the rest. I have learned from experience that some editors here will never be satisfied because their principal objection is that you exist on Wikipedia. Don't take any of that bilge personally. Ignocrates ( talk) 23:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC) reply