Talk:John of Glastonbury

November 24, 2014 Rollback of Scholarly Contribution

It would seem that the rollback of a contribution provided by an editor (November 24, 2014) using scholarly referenced detail would be appropriate for Wikipedia (see below):

In the mid fourteenth century John wrote the Cronica Sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesie (Chronicles or Antiquities of the Glastonbury Church) which is a chronicle of Glastonbury Abbey, from when it was founded, up to the period of John's life. The Cronica survives as a full text over seven manuscripts. The Cronica refers to the Arthurian legends several times, and John drew extensively on De Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie by William of Malmesbury. The legends which tie the Isle of Avalon and Joseph of Arimathea to Glastonbury, provided John with the chance to create his narrative using contemporary romantic sources. The eighteenth chapter of the Cronica deals extensively with Joseph's travels, and refers to "the book which is called the Holy Grail". This chapter of the Cronica refers to later chapters containing short excerpts from other sources, such as the versified Bible and prose romances. Sources used in the eighteenth chapter include Williams De Antiquitate, the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Vulgate Queste.

The above articulation appears to be a perfectly legitimate and desired contribution to Wikipedia. And yet it was removed. Is there a particular reason for its removal, or is it simply the manifestation and consequence of the difficulties Wikipedia has with its administrators acting in their countenanced absolute roles as predators seeking prey? Was the entry deleted simply because of who the editor was who made the contribution? Additionally, detailed dates (which I have not included here in this example) were cited in the rolled back edit that were individually referenced. Is the removal of these dates just a manifestation of the dominance/submission relationship embodied in the administrator's position and role as the supreme and countenanced final dictator, or was there an unknown and unarticulated intelligent reason for its suppression? In both instances, the rollback appears to be utterly arbitrary in its application. The editing contribution should be restored because by any method of rationality it adds value to the proffered method espoused by Wikipedia. Administrators removing content for arbitrary reasons seem to be entirely out-of-character for an encyclopedia seeking intelligent additions to its body of work. Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)