Talk:Gospel of John/2013/June

majority view, per WP:WEIGHT

footnote [2] misquotes itself: The article itself reads "most modern scholars"; however, the citation only reads "modern scholars". At a minimum the citation should be made accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.186.32 (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

We can find the view that Jesus' teaching in John is not authentic in Encyclopedia Britannica. Therefore we can and should state that this is the majority view. RH would like to say that "many argue" this or that, but WP policy is to call this view the majority view. If RH can find prominent scholars in opposition, we can list them as representing a significant minority view. Leadwind (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You misquoted your own citation. The EBO citation simply said scholars prefer the synoptics. You disregard a huge number of scholars, apparently only those who disagree with your own (non)theology. You are unable to refute the views on these matters of people who are more religious than you, thus you simply delete their sources as if the claims don't exist. You are unable to refute them, and your mass-deletion is simply a confirmation of this. You have defined 'scholars' as a narrow band of (largely secular) scholars of the historical Jesus tradition like Vermes and Sanders. In the process you throw out the views of the most common type of scholar: those at seminaries (many of which are very conservative). A scholar is a scholar, and the views of people like Darrell Bock, D. A. Carson, and Craig Blomberg are just as legitimate as those who are more skeptical.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's highly problematic to say that a view found in EBO is "the majority view". In these matters there is no real way to determine the majority view besides a synopsis of literature; some reliable tertiary scholars will come out with such, and say (long list) holds this view while (shorter list) holds this view. Short of that it's a bit misplaced to argue from a single unclear EBO statement when we can (theoretically) array the secondary scholars as well as any other tertiary source. It should be a simple matter on this point to make a list of 20 or 30 scholars and a single clause quote from each indicating their position, while also tagging any that are ambiguous. Why this isn't done on more points where everyone claims a "majority" is beyond me, other than that it's real work. JJB 17:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A scholar is a scholar, and the views of people like Darrell Bock, D. A. Carson, and Craig Blomberg are just as legitimate as those who are more skeptical. It is simply wrong headed to think that Bock, Carson, Blomberg are to be regarded as equal to Sanders and Vermes. They are in altogether different leagues.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right. In areas other than historical Jesus studies, Bock, Carson and Blomberg are superior (Sanders simply refers to himself as "an historian and an exegete"). In any case, a scholar is a scholar. Wikipedia articles reflect the views of scholars, not the views of a narrow set of scholars.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the field of apologetics, I don't see in which field Bock, Carson and Blomberg could be superior to Sanders and Vermes. The difference in academic standing is too great. And as for "a scholar is a scholar", the same can be said about Earl Doherty, Ellegard, Wells, Acharya S, M. M. Mangasarian, etc. You don't know what "skeptic" means until you have been through Mangasarian and Acharya S. Would you still hold "a scholar is a scholar" for them? And Wikipedia strives to be a high quality repository of human knowledge. We don't want trash or substandard or nonsensical or promotional stuff. We want intellectually satisfying stuff. So, we have to be selective. In relation to Jesus, it is even more true because of the sheer amount of material available out there. We can't just include stuff just because it is available out there. We have policies like WP:NOT and WP:QS.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In an above thread, Leadwind has asked for proof that Morna Hooker and Carson are to be regarded equal to Sanders, Vermes, Crossan, etc. Why did you not prove it?-Civilizededucation^talk 10:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly; Sanders was Dean Ireland's Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture; Christopher Rowland is his successor in the same post. Morna Hooker was Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity. Former occupants of that chair include Hort and Erasmus. These two are the most prestigious academic appointments in the field of biblical studies in English universities. Vermes is also a former Oxford professor. Trying to rank their current academic standing would be attempting to make a distinction without a difference. TomHennell (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than chairs, we have to see how their work are received in academia. Going by your analogy, every German top man should be seen as a Hitler!!!!-Civilizededucation^talk 04:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer that CE, the by all means; but as you don't get elected to one of the more prestigious chairs unless your work is highly regarded in academia; so the results will be exactly the same. But you should be more careful in your throwaway lines; your 'Hitler' is in this context particularly offensive. All of the leading German figures in the post-war 'new quest' for the Historical Jesus - Kasemann, Bornkamm - had been heroic anti-Nazis. But that can be seen as part of the problem. They were painfully aware that when Bultmann and Barth (also anti-Nazis) proposed in the 1930s that study should focus on the Christ of Faith, rather than the Jesus of History, that this had left the field clear for a pernicious Nazi antisemitic and anti-Christian reading of the Gospels, in which the Jesus of History was an Aryan anti-semite. Their programme to re-assert a true Jesus of History focussed on 'Q' (and hence on the common teaching matter in Matthew and Luke, which lacks the passages that supported antisemitic readings) and downplayed Mark, John and the singular traditions of Luke and Matthew as essentially non-historical. What unites Sanders, Hooker, Rowland and Vermes, is a conviction that this approach was fatally flawed, as it generated a Jesus who is a 20th century existential philosopher rather than a 1st century eschatological Jewish prophet. These latter figures do differ in how thay evaluate the relative reliabillity of paritucalar Gospel texts; Sanders is strongly pro-Mark; Rowland is on balance pro-John. But that is a secondary issue to their basic common understanding of how Jesus related to the world of his age. TomHennell (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

When I said "top man", I was referring to the German heads of state, not scholars. Hitler occupied the chair of head of state, and he has nothing to do with scholarship. He is just an analogy that we do not see German heads of state in the light of Hitler. I am trying to say that one occupant of a chair can be completely different from another occupant of the same chair in their thinking and thus in their standing in the world. Let us take another example, if Einstein or Newton occupied some scholarly chair, would it mean that every occupant of that chair must be as great as Einstein? The contrast in this example does not seem to be as striking as that of Hitler with his successive heads of state. That is why I tried the Hitler example. Again, I did not mean to describe him as a scholar of any sort, nor do I want to compare him to any scholars, German, or otherwise. I know that Germany has been historically the greatest seat of academic thinking on Christianity. Clear now?-Civilizededucation^talk 16:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy loses me; since when did we cite heads of state as authorities on Wikipedia? But to return to the main point. Isaac Newton was Lucassian Professor of Mathematics. More recently that post has been held by Stephen Hawking. I take you as arguing that we cannot claim that Stephen Hawking is as great an authority on theoretical physics in this day, as Newton was in his; which is arguable one way or another, but does not turn on their mutual occupancy of the most prestigious academic post in the subject. But the issue here is not whether an academic is 'great' least of all whether one academic is 'greater' than another. The issue is whether an academic is citable, at any particular time, as representative of the academic mainstream of their day. Not every Lucassian professor has been as great as Newton, or inded arguably as great as Hawking; but every Lucassian professor, purely as the current Lucassian professor, is entitled to be cited in Wikipedia as a mainstram authority on theoretical physics. See the quote from Jimmy Wales below. "What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter?" There maybe an argument as to who is or is not on the list of 'prominent physicists', but any such list must necessarily always include the current Lucassian professor. Equally we may argue about who is on the list of those citable as prominent biblical scholars; but such a list must neccessarily always include the current Lady Margaret's professor. Which is the 'greatest' scholar is a subjective judgement; which are the mainstream scholars is an objective fact. Those scholars are the mainstream who occupy the most prestigious chairs, and edit the leading peer-reviewed journals in the subject. TomHennell (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How good a present Lucassian professor could be if he is unable to get his work processed through any academic publisher and has to go somewhere else to get his work published? Would that say something about the quality of his work?-Civilizededucation^talk 01:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

CE, Tom has shown real respect for the majority viewpoint and for WP policy. That means he's on our side even if you disagree with him about this scholar or that one. Let's focus on working together to establish majority viewpoints so we can balance the articles in light of WP:WEIGHT. The big problem with these pages is that too much coverage goes to minority views. Let's fix that big systemic problem. Leadwind (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see Tom is quite fair. I was just trying to stress the importance of looking at academic publishers as a way of determining reliability. Anyway, I also see that it may be redudant to discuss it now.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Undent 1

The majority view is, per Wales, what we find in generally accepted reference texts. EBO is a generally accepted reference text. This is the issue that Wales's distinction is there to resolve. Until Roman can find a generally accepted reference text that disputes EBO, WP policy is to call EBO's viewpoint the majority viewpoint. Those who disagree get their views described as well, as minority views. It's right there in black and white on WP:WEIGHT. Roman can't find support for his views in EBO or in university level textbooks because they are minority views. Leadwind (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please link me to the Wikipedia policy that calls EBO's viewpoint the majority viewpoint.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be the source of the statement to which Leadwind refers, discussing an issue within the discipline of physics;

What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream scientific community on this point?

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

So there is no explicit privilege to the EBO; no indeed (if I understand it correctly, a Wikipedia rule that general works of reference (such as encyclopedias) are to be considered automatically as valid reference texts. The general point is clear, I suggest. Specific works of reference on the subject in hand, are to be preferred to general works of reference; mainstream scholars (i.e. those occupying prestigious academic positions, or editorships of the main peer reviewed journals) are to be preferred to sholars in niche institutions; the views of the authors of authoritative texts for the current major standpoints of academic debate are to be preferred to those of popularisers. All of which criteria confirm Vermes, Sanders, Crossan, Carson, Hooker, and Rowland as equally authoritative. TomHennell (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur that Leadwind has misread the policy. It does not say that tertiary references are automatically accorded majoritarian status, in lieu of well-footnoted literature reviews such as I've alluded. Further, I'm not convinced Leadwind correctly represents EBO as saying "Jesus' teaching in John is not authentic", because tertiary sources rarely make such partisan determinations. JJB 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom and JJB, could you two take a look at Gospel of Luke, as Leadwind has been causing similar disruptions there. Leadwind seems to have a habit of doing this: he claims that sources that make a point represent the "majority" even when they make no such claim. He takes a claim on EBO that an author is ultimately unknown (this is of course true of all gospel authors) and turns it into "the majority of critical scholars conclude the apostle did not write the gospel". He does this with other sources as well. I am sure he genuinely does not see the nuance. As you can see from his recent edits, Carson and Blomberg were mentioned and he qualified them by changing the article to say they were "Christian scholars" which of course is simply meant to marginalize these well-regarded scholars. His explanation was strange, as he said of Carson and Blomberg: "non-mainstream sources describe only their own field, not the field in general, thus "Christian" scholars". The scholars are not "non-mainstream". I don't know what "their own field" means, maybe "Christian" biblical scholarship (which is somewhat redundant). He has done this elsewhere on this article and on others.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You may also note, among numerous other things, RH has been warned against canvassing RECENTLY. More than one editor has identified RH as disruptive, RH is scandalized that Leadwind should think of Geza Vermes as an ideal source. And RH think that Vermes, among a long list of others, is anti christian. RH has also identified more than one IP editor as a vandal, on this very article, without any good reason. It is uncivil to do so. He has been pursuing a vendetta campaign against Leadwind and his above post is also part of the canvassing. RH has also tried to make out that I am an atheist. Which I may, or may not be, but I definitely do not want my personal convictions to be guessed by RH or anyone else .........-Civilizededucation^talk 01:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is crazy, we are not citing the opinions of Vermes and Sanders and saying they represent the majority, we are citing sources on what the opinions are in Johnanne scholarship. Paul Anderson, Collen Conway and Barnabas Lindars are top Johnanne scholars and are reliable sources on this matter. We already have a paragrah on what conservative scholars say. Isn't that enough? 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Roman does need to learn that proper WP:CANVASSING is nonpartisan in audience and unbiased in tone; I'm not working Luke right now. It would also be wise for him to find other words than WP:VANDALISM such as (to speak hypothetically) unsourced, weasely, ungrammatical, redundant, controverted, misweighted, synthetic. It is also true that these words are good for using in lieu words like fringe, insignificant, leagued, prominent, majority, mainstream, ideal, and so on. I see no "vendetta campaign" nor original research about other editors' beliefs, but those would be inapropos as well.

Back to the subject, it is unclear to me that any source is more respected than any other, and so I attribute most everybody and give them equal weight unless and until sources indicate otherwise. We seem to have critical mass though for a mediation on the many points of dispute, and I have one open already with Dylan's name on it that will fit the current debates in no time. Would anyone like to continue there? JJB 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Civilizededucation keeps reverting to a version that says Stephen Harris (yes, the member of the Jesus Seminar) represents the mainstream. It is amazing that a Jesus Seminar member would be used for this claim, especially given their dismissal by most scholars and the fact that one of their rules was to discount John's legitimacy from the start. It would be too easy to find sources that back me up on this, so I will let him provide evidence that Harris represents the scholarly consensus. If anything Harris represents a fringe view on John, certainly not the "mainstream".RomanHistorian (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will show you that Harris is mainstream.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Technically, Civil's version, which reverts my original edit that has I think been otherwise undisturbed, changes "Harris argues" to "They also argue", with "they" referring back to "Scholars like Bart Ehrman". The sentence is sourced to Harris 1985, pp. 302–10. I sincerely doubt that Harris attributes the view to "scholars like Ehrman", so (some time back) I removed what appeared to be an unconscious WP:SYNTHESIS, replacing it with safe attribution to Harris. Roman is quite correct that the WP:BURDEN remains on the inserter of "They also argue" (our own burden having been met for "Harris argues"), and so the budding edit war should stop. Now. There are several other phrasings involved in this revert set, but they all have similar attribution problems; they could be accommodated if inserters were willing to defend them from sources, but what I see instead is circular appeal to authority. JJB 18:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

An editor who might be Leadwind (the IP's history and this suggests it is) is deleting sources I added that he apparently doesn't like. The main source is, again, Stephen Harris of the Jesus Seminar. Harris, whose view of John's dubiousness is a presumption of his (not a conclusion after research) is probably fringe on anything John-related. He cites the sources on the article, then when I add good sources he deletes them.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This user should be reported for 3RR violation.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this user is taking up an aggressive edit war.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources are still there. My sources state what the scholarly opinions are. You're mostly just state the opinions of the authors themselves. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User 24.180.173.157 are you Leadwind?RomanHistorian (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Do the other subjects I edit match those of him?24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You sure act a lot like him, and seem to be bothered by the same things.RomanHistorian (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to take a postion on the whole authorship question; it is obvious to me that Harris is a populariser and summariser, rather than a mainstream scholar. Membership of the Jesus Seminar does not disqualify him from having citable views of his own (as it does not for Crossan etc). But the fact thatHarris appears never to have published a study of John; never contributed to a major biblical reference series, nor edited a peer-reviewed journal, all count against his being citable. TomHennell (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put him there, someone else did. I put in Anderson, Conway and Lindars. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Undent 2

Roman, it's not helpful to guess IDs on this page, try a sock report or a checkuser when you have evidence, very educational. IP, you'd do best to say things like "my source [name] page [number] in this diff [diff] says 'scholars agree [what]'". Without an easy pointer to that kind of info it is nearly impossible for someone to judge the nuances of an edit war, rather than simply stick with WP:PRESERVE. JJB 00:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My sources state the page numbers and the exact quotes. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that requires us to carry your burden by digging them out ourselves, if you're not going to take the time to cut-and-paste the links you think are relevant. But look, you've gotten the article semiprotected against you now (at my report), and there are several editors here without any consensus on how to solve the basic content issue. I'm not taking time to review the details right now, I'm stepping in only to stabilize matters so the details can be reviewed. See next graf. JJB 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I repropose that we take this issue to the [mediation case] that has my and Dylan's name already on it. I count about eight editors including IP that can hash it all out there. If not, what? JJB 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? There's no mediator on it and there doesn't seem to be anyone interested in it anymore, other than you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)