Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/SV:SR-Rob

Note: Ive had problems accessing the history for Jesus due to server problems. Theres some beautiful irony there, if I'm not mistaken. -SV|t 21:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediator comments

Issues

Wikipedia:Reverts, Historicity, secularism, NPOV.

1. The use of reverts in article editing is improper. Edit the article - do not revert. There may be more here for Arbitration, if new user RoB's use of reverts is pervasive. Unclear ATP.
2. The term "secular" should not be seen as synonymous with NPOV.
3. The issue of "historicity" regarding Jesus is a complicated one, and not limited to either academic nor "secular" interpretation.
4. The term "existence of Jesus" has a common general meaning, namely that someone named Yehoshua ben Yosef lived a human existence. Barring preserved entombment, the notion of determining the absolute existence of someone in ancient time is not a simple matter, nor does our cultural knowledge spanning thousands of years rest upon an absolute knowledge of people and events in equal manner. Consider the difference between the "historicity" of the legendary first kings of Rome, versus the historicity of nameless African skeletons from 70k years ago, who never knew how to write.

Comments

1. "History" by its time-honored definition meant writing and recording: "an account of one's inquiries." Today, methods of science have added a new dimension to history, "giving voices" to past people and events, and placing them in the context of "our history." The concept of history, and our interpretations of both traditional history" and the meaning of history are changing —that point should be clear.

1. Arising from that view is the notion that scientific history supercedes history, and therefore the scientific method supercedes the deference to "historical" written sources. An uncomfortable narrow interpretation of "scientific method" claims that no evidence means no validity. This view - that points of view not deferential to "mythological" or traditional or historical views, are more correct by default than these other views, is frankly wrong, given that history by its definiion is not science. Similaly, arguments for the narrowest definition of "existence" and "truth" in history, are not well countered by a counteractive selectivity toward academic sources. An appeal to a reasonable understanding that just as myth and history can, given new evidence, become one another, should alone be sufficient. There may never be any definitive view of the "historicity" of Jesus, and the claim that no evidence means not true is likewise indefinite, contrary to the narrow "dont see, dont believe" view.

1. Rev of Bru appears to be making the assumption that "secularism" equates to proper scientific history, and therefore neutrality. This is not a neutral point of view, just as claims of a factual basis of mythological events are not neutral.
2. SR appears to be claiming that inacademic sources are inferior to academic sources in this regard, and to a small extent I agree. Arent there reasonably valid popular treatments on the subject by non-specialists? The point must be understood that even the highest academic disciplines in many respects can be viewed as equally speculative on this and similar matters, where direct evidence is lacking. This is not to confuse equally speculative with all speculation is equal, as there is (should be) an earned aspect of validity for research.

1. The topic is a open one, which various fields seek to claim for their own, and SR seems to be genuine in his approach toward reflecting the current state of the debate. RoB OTOH appears to be expressing an anti-establishment bias. Comments like (RoB) "Your POV is showing. There is no way that an honest scholar should believe in things without any evidence" entirely miss the point that this area of "research" is only partly scientific. This is an honest debate perhaps, because Jesus reflects such a crossroads between myth, theology, and history. Science and skeptics, again, have grown to assume that history belongs to them, and is theirs for the rewriting. This too, should have some "evidence", and the oppsing "evidence" AFAICT, is simply a "where's the beef fallacy". Its a fallacy, and that should be enough said on that matter.

1. RoB would have a legitimate point if he were to argue as above, that much academic research is educated and cautious speculation. RoB appears to be unclear on these particular subtleties, instead choosing to assert the validity of skeptical and "secular" viewpoints over academic ones, based on years of research and communication. Someone like Alan Sokal might say all of this is grist for the mill, for any discipline in the humanities. Indeed, I am finding the assertions of "qualified" academics in other contexts equally faulty and dismissive of reason and logic —which one would hope should have some interest to claimed professionals. But there are well known and thorough enough debunkings of the non-scientific academic humanities in this regard. -SV|t

PS: The edit war at [1] is disturbing, because its so minor. There seems to be no use in this. -SV

Sv writes, "SR appears to be claiming that inacademic sources are inferior to academic sources in this regard, and to a small extent I agree." This is a slight oversimplification of my point. I certainly do believe that someone who has spent many years studying the NT — not just the King James version, but someone who has travelled top different archives and libraries to study original third or fourth century manuscripts; someone who can read Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic; someone who understands critical methods in history and comparative literature – I certainly think this person's scholarship is far superior to someone who has read a few books in English, Italian, or whatever modern vernacular. I do believe that someone with a PhD. from a top-flight Department of Religion, History, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, or Bible, and who has achieved the position of professor at a top-flight Department of Religion, History, Ancient Near Eastern Studies, or Bible, almost certainly fulfills the criteria I list above for being a superior scholar. But I certainly admit that someone need not be a professor at Oxford or Harvard to be a superior scholar. I think academic sources are likely to be superior to non-academic sources, but not necessarily.

My main point in this regard is not that I think academic sources are necessarily superior to nonacademic sources. My main point is that Rev of Bru's reduction of all writing on Jesus to two opposing categories, "religious" and "secular," is simply oversimplistic and misleading. A person may be religious (i.e. believes in God, goes to church) and yet still be able to apply critical judgement to historic texts, and reach conclusions independent of his or her faith. Conversely, someone may be "secular" (i.e. doesn't believe in God and doesn't go to church) and yet be incapable of applying critical judgement to historic texts. Erik von Dannekin, for example, makes historical claims about books of the Bible like Ezekiel. He clearly is rejecting orthodox religious claims about the Bible. But no capable historian has any respect whatsoever for Danekin's claims. Being secular is no guarantee to being intelligent, well-informed, or even a critical thinker. Academic scholars whose research, analysis, and writing are entirely independent of religious dogma might nevertheless consider themselves religious or secular. My point is that labels like "religious" or "secular" simply do not allow one to evaluate the quality of their scholarship. One must look at other criteria (like the ones I lay out above).

Rev of Bru seems to have no understanding or appreciation of modern critical (academic) scholarship, period. He sees only two sides to discussions about Jesus and the NT: either you believe in the Nicean creed or you reject it. This is just as simplistic and wrong as someone who thinks that the whole debate over "creationism" and "Darwinism" is between people who love God and who hate God. This may be the view of a narrow band of Creationist fundamentalist extremists, but evolutionary scientists in Anthropology, Biology, or Zoology departments will tell you that the things they debate concerning evolutionary theory and the evolution of specific organisms just has nothing to do with the debate between God-lovers and God-haters. Similarly, there is vigorous debate among scholars of the NT, over how to reconstruct documentary sources, about the meaning of archeological evidence, about Jewish beliefs in the 1st century, about the nature of Hellenism, and so on -- and you will not be able to understand any of these fascinating debates merely by dividing all people into two camps, religious and secular. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Now that the basics have been stated, what now matters (with respect to my role as a mediator) is to somehow find a compromise between the nuanced and the bipolar approaches. Ill be proactive in approaching RoB - to find what areas he feels need changing, wether they are POV, and if not, how to find an appropriate compromise. Regards, SV|t 23:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Page protected, to force debates to this talk. -SV|t 23:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to chip in; I find the conduct of a number of 'editors' to this article quite disturbing. There are about three people (you know who you are) who seem to believe they own this article. They revert each other continuously, and revert most other contributors, in some cases because they don't like a single word. They even invent new words (e.g. undecideable). It is clear that these people are biased against christianity and are using this and other articles to further their own agendas. They also do not understand the concept of NPOV. An example here is the vandalism I've recently reverted whereby one of these editors had replaced many (though not all) references to AD and BC. The editor claims such use is POV; No! POV/NPOV is about ensuring both sides of an argument are represented equally. AD/BC is used extensively in Wikipedia. Its use, together with the alternative CE notation, has been debated at length elsewhere. AD/BC is acceptable according to Wikipedia standards, and in any case, the first contributor to the article used AD/BC. If it can't be used in an article about Jesus, where on earth can it be used?

I've been reading the Britannica article about Jesus. How refeshing compared to Wikipedia's current offering. Britannica does not insult Christians, as the Wikipedia article does, and does not address the subject from the sceptics' point-of-view, as the Wikipedia article does.

In its current form this article brings shame on Wikipedia. I hope those editors who are responsible for this shame call it a day and go and edit elsewhere - preferably some non controversial topic. Arcturus 13:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)