Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE or DELETE. I'm going to make it a redirect to History of Christianity for now; anyone braver than me is invited to merge anything useful. dbenbenn | talk 14:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have moved this to a subpage of History of Christianity. The page is History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism. For those who want to merge, go ahead. Admins: please don't delete the subpage because we need to preserve the edit history to be compliant with GFDL once/if people start the merge. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is an essay that is trying to argue a particular POV. The title itself clearly shows this: it assumes that the three things are linked, though this could be disputed. The article itself is full of weasel words and unsourced opinions and facts. It is irredeemably POV and I would suggest that if there is important information in there that it should be merged into the relevant articles. I am concerned that it is also original research. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, POV essay. Megan1967 22:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the rationale of the submitter and this should be deleted in accordance with established policy. I don't have the time to read this thouroughly right now, but a quick scan gives me the impression that some work was put into the article. We should make sure any valuable information is salvaged. Phils 23:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. It is basically an article presenting the case for an alternative account of the early History of Christianity. It is a point of view, but then so is the more conventional account. There is considerable interesting material which should not just be deleted. In my opinion, it should be merged with History of Christianity. --BM 15:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as delineated above. Borderer 15:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. As BM notes, both this article and the views expressed at History of Christianity are POV. This article does seem to be original research to a certain extent, but it draws heavily on published research. Therefore, I think there is plenty of material that is salvagable. HyperZonk^talk 20:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge including cleanup to a section within History of Christianity, for reasons mentioned by BM and HyperZonk. Given the high age and low verifiability of the sources, and the recurring purging of competing POV-supporting sources over the millenia by church hierarchy or kings or fanatics or armies, virtually all serious discussion on this topic is (arguably) iredeemably POV. Other topics, particularly some religious ones, have shown that POV breakouts lead far more to edit wars than to compilation of verifiable knowledge about significantly influential events and movements. Barno 01:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• What is here that is worth saving is adequately covered elsewhere. Delete. Fire Star 02:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The article must disappear without a redirect because its title is inherently flawed for the reasons noted by TBSDY. I don't know and don't care whether it should be merged or deleted, though. --MarkSweep 12:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the salvageable, delete what can't and shouldn't be saved. This article is an essay. It draws its conclusion from the start - the subjects in the title are related. It doesn't review studies in the field, nor is it written from an expert's view. The article relies on 'some scholars', 'other scholars', and 'many secular scholars' to create the appearance of a solid factual basis. How many scholars are actually named inline? Two? And James Akin is cited as opposing the whole idea. The extensive list of sources is useless for verification, as it doesn't state where the claims originate, and its length makes it a hassle to find out. --Jill St. Crux 10:46, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Just how many articles specify who supports the text as written? It's unreasonable to only hold this expectation upon VFD articles. Borderer 13:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Borderer, all articles should notes who supports the text as written. In the case of this article, even moreso as it's a minority view and highly controversial. Not only this, but it's in the form of an essay that argues a point (which is not encouraged around here - that's not what we are about. If you want that try Kuro5hin) that is in much dispute. As for only holding this expectation on VfD articles: I don't see where Jill wrote that. I think it's fair to say that Jill, from talking to him around the place, expects it on all articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Not many articles really say much of WHO supports them, BUT: This is a debate prone issue, it must hold to a higer standard. Thinking of standards; It's article name is unendycolpedic, it's far too 'fluffy' in it's language and readily takes advantage of inductive clauses (weasel words) and the sources list is it's own POV nightmare. Delete in accordance with policy or move out of the WP namespace untill it's fixed. -- Dbroadwell 15:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The reason I say this, is because the only time I witness a fuss over stating the scholars in the article is when it is on the VFD. I'm only saying it how I have always seen it by my own eyes, for ever otherwise there is no rabid disputation. Just because this is on VFD, does not me it should be deleted. In fact, you should have extended these discussions on the Talk Page much further. VFD votes can be a mob scene, unrighteously so. Borderer 22:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I assume you are responding to me and have changed the levels accordingly. Firstly, I have consistently always asked for sources for just about every article I've ever reviewed. All my articles have sources for their information, in a manner that allows for fact checking. So I don't think this happens only with VfD. You should check out peer review and FAC for other places where this happens. I realise that just because it's on VfD doesn't mean that this article should be deleted. I personally think it should be deleted (and merge that information which is mergable) because the article is an essay that argues for a point and is very poorly referenced (we had pointed this out to the original author many times, but they never fixed this issue). It's very title is POV, and so it is irreedeamble. There is good info in there, but this needs to be merged into another article - I don't dispute this. However, this POV piece should be merged and then deleted. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a POV essay. No one is stepping up to actually connect the claims made with the published research; I suspect that much of the sources that are listed are either outdated, or are primarily based on outdated research. For those who want to merge, are you able to identify the parts worth merging as they are now? Wesley 17:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We I am CheeseDreams.

You should note that TBSDY is on a campaign to supress this article completely, having started by re-writing, and removing one of the most major of arguments in this academic debate (i.e. that which the article discusses) wholesale - the most frequently cited potential template - Horus.

This occured because TBSDY was unable to provide any academic counter argument - see its talk page, so rather than let it stand as blatent inarguable truth, TBSDY is on campaign to discredit it by associating it with bad scholars, and removing the strongest part of the case to make it look mergable (by leaving a somewhat stubby and messy survival).

This sort of campaign is typical by fundamentalists -

• (0) try arguments from faith and when that fails
• (1) spin - make it look like the argument of just one or two discredited writers
• (2) ad hominem - imply that the argument is wrong because the author is discredited (even if they are only discredited for seperate reasons concerning other claims)
• (3) focus on the weakest part of the argument and ignore (i.e. delete) the strongest
• (4) try to destroy them by a vote rather than academic counterargument (n.b. votes cannot change the truth - e.g. a vote cannot make PI=3, even if the state of Texas declares it to be so (this happened)).

How interesting. It's not true, and even a cursory glance at a site like snopes would have revealed it to be an urban legend. See [1]. You aren't helping your case any, CheeseDreams! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You should also note that the weasel words were not my choice, but Mpolo's, with whom I worked to try to balance the article; I would have preferred to drop them altogether.

CheeseDreams.

• • Those reading the slanderous comments CheeseDreams has just made should be aware of a few things:
    1. CheeseDreams is not posting from her account because she posted her password to User:Rienzo's account. It was determined by another admin that she used the same password for no less than 5 other sock-puppet accounts. All of these accounts have had the password reset.
    2. CheeseDreams is currently in Arbitratrion over disruptive editing practices and POV pushing for bypassing her previous ArbCom rulings.
    3. CheeseDreams was asked by me several times for sources (before these things happened), however she never provided them and never attempted to add them into the article. See Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_4#Disputed. Whenever I asked for sources, she merely (and absurdly) replied Wikipedia:Assume good faith. To which I was forced to reply Wikipedia:Cite sources! When I asked for where specific facts came from in her 44 books she has placed into references, she said that I should read them! In other words, she wasn't prepared to tell me where she got specific facts. This problem went on for quite a while, when she got blocked and banned from editing articles related to Christianity I gave up and started removing material that was unsourced. CheeseDreams had lots of opportunities to sort these issues out, however she decided not to.
    4. CheeseDreams uses sources like The Two Babylons as scholarly works. See Talk:Historicity of Jesus, she mentions it in the archives. Jill (who speaks Hebrew natively) tells me that there are quite a few inaccuaries in Hislop's text. I have read half of Hislops tract. It's basically a polemic stating that the Roman Catholic church is the new Babylon of Revelation. I don't think so. It's full of absurd conclusions and tenuous links and chock full of inaccuracies. If it was submitted to peer review it would be slaughtered by academics jumping all over it because of its inaccuracies and sheer downright dodginess.
    5. CheeseDreams has been deliberately disruptive when things don't go her way. She is about to be banned from submitting RFCs and RFArs because of her harassment of users. She has harassed me by implying that I am a sock puppet of Rienzo. She never has the guts to send me a message on my talk page when she disagrees about something I do, instead I find (usually by accident) that she is campaigning against me behind my back. I have always been upfront with her, she cannot show me the same courtesy.
    6. CheeseDreams left Historicity of Jesus in a totally unusable state. See [2]. Notice the following: just about all the carefully edited (for consensus) information was largely replaced by what CheeseDreams thought was important, there are no less than 4 tags on the article, there is no lead section, there are sections irrelevant to the article, there are empty sections, the entire article is POV as it comes from the POV that Jesus is the "new syncretism" (a minority viewpoint), the material is unsourced (though there is a huge list of materials in References that CD added, but I doubt most were used - for instance "Dial an Atheist: Greatest Hits from Ohio"? Yeah, right!). She expected us to not make any alterations on that article for an entire week. See [3], where the edit summary is: "SAM, do not remove the "I haven't finished making a major change to this article but will do so by next week", it is distorting. AND until you put why on the talk page, I am removing the dispute notic".
  • That's just a small amount of things CheeseDreams has done. So please, I hope that others will take this into account. I have been very open and tried not to disrupt editing. At one point, when I was very frustrated about the entire way things were going I bowed out of the articles so I wouldn't disrupt the article! Slrubenstein, Wesley and SamSpade have all been frustrated by this editor. They aren't the only ones. Many, many more people have been frustrated by the disruption and POV pushing that was ongoing in these controversial and highly sensitive articles. The article I have just put on VfD is only one of the articles CD has written. I have not placed any others on VfD, however this one is clear POV pushing. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • One last thing: CheeseDreams is under a temporary injunction. Next time I see her post from an anonymous IP address to anything but her ArbCom page or her talk page for User talk:CheeseDreams or User:CheeseDreams, then I block that IP address for 24 hours. If it's not CD, then that person is impersonating her, in which case the block would also be fair. I should note that I didn't get CD into this mess: CD got herself into this mess. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Salvage the salvageable then delete this mess - David Gerard 14:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: essay, nothing to merge, irredeemable title. Bishonen | Talk 13:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, what parts do people want to have merged into History of Christianity? I'll make an attempt, but I can't see anything that is properly referenced in such a way that could be considered mergable into that topic. I could be wrong (and I am biased against the article, after all I did list it on VfD), but it seems that most of it is just original research with none too many source cited. There's whole chunks in there that seem to talk extensively about another culture but doesn't really explicitely detail how it is related to Christianity. For instance, the whole "Osiris-Dionysus" implies, but doesn't state explicitly, that there are similarities between some parts of Christianity and other cultures. The whole section seems to hinge on the text "However, some scholars think that an appropriate version of the tale was made up, inventing the figure of a particularly holy rabbi who was crucified and resurrected, Jesus, syncretising bits of the other localised versions where suitable." - however, this uses a weasel word and doesn't state implicitly which scholars hold this position.

The parts that are original research are the entirity of the "Osiris-Dionysus" section. It holds no information sourced from external sources and appears to be the POV of the author who wrote the piece. This is clear against our "no original research" policy. If this section were to be merged into any document, we would need to see an external, verifiable source.

The "Mithras Sol Invictus" I think is not such a big problem when it comes to merging. There is much in that that should be merged into the History of Christianity. However, again the proviso is that we source who has the opinions written into the piece.

With the "issues of priority", I notice that the author has written from the presupposition that Christian concepts must have had a parallel with other religions. For instance "For instance, Creation according to Genesis is a negative parallel of the Babylonian creation myth in Enuma Elish." This statement presupposes that the Genesis account must have been a negative parallel of the Babylonian creation myth. Why? Perhaps this should be more clearly stated whose opinion this is and where they are sourcing it from. I don't have a problem with merging this section into the History of Christianity article is sources can be provided. If they can't be, then I have a big problem with it. It's a pity the original author (CheeseDreams) edited in such a way that she effectively stopped information from being added into the article this was split off from (Historicity of Jesus) and has since been so badly disrupted she has had two arbitration requests and several RFCs (since then, this author has posted her password on a known trolls account, forcing an admin to find 6 of her sockpuppet accounts - and her main account - and change her password). The pity is that we now can't find out which of her sources she was using in those sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with TBSDY's comments. Unfortunately I just don't have the expertise (nor the resources without extensive web searches, and probably travel to private archives) to flesh out these points with proper sourcing. I hope we have a few editors who can do it. The topic is substantial but POV issues affect most people who care much about it. Barno 15:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Put a summary of it into the Roots of Christianity; perhaps a whole subsection thereof. If the Zoroastrianism part is included, then so must the Egyptian especially since the Hebrews were long associated with Egypt back to the Hyksos invasion. It would be POV to disclude this factor, considering the trail of monotheism left by Akhenaten and adopted by the Hebrews. I myself don't know much about Zoroaster, but I certainly recognise much of the Egyptian issue and I'm more of a casual researcher. It seems to me that Zoroastrian elements are tied to the Persian background, but it would be prejudiced to say that the Egyptians have no basis when they long dominated Palestine.

The Greek Pharaoh himself patroned the Septuagint in Alexandria. I find the bigotry towards an Egyptian root of Christianity to be entirely unfounded when so much of Egyptian culture was adopted by all peoples in a certain radius outwards. Perhaps this lies in traditional ideas about race; that the Hamites of Africa have not contributed anything and that the Persians supposedly were/are White or considered Japhethic as opposed to the Semites. Seriously, this Noahidic classification thing is ridiculous because these Afro-Asiatic people are undoubtedly very much alike and most uninvolved observers would say they are less White than the Greeks and Romans. I consider Persians to be Semites because they are Asian, in this context.

Give it as much credence as the Persian foundations and you will make this NPOV. I seriously suggest expounding upon both roots of Christianity and also delineating the Greek root which provided Roman impetus for adoption and proliferation. For instance, if the Greeks hadn't patroned that religious culture as their relation to Philistines, Rome would have dismissed it as everything else in their cultural relationship with Greece. Rome even rebuilt Greek Philistia as Palestine and during the Catholic Crusades, it became the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Christianity has so many dimensions, that it would be haughty to overlook its far ranging origins which even has pagan influences from Europe and Buddhist ties in Southwest Asia.

I myself used to be atheist or Odinist not wanting to deal with what I percieved to be other peoples' culture and now I look in wonder at the historical background of the Sea Peoples and the subsequent Graeco-Roman expansion in the Mediterranean Sea. There are European roots throughout the region now considered Islamic or Arab, but if we don't provide the means for people to see it we will forget it as much as the terrible destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Just think of the term Indo-European and you will understand Alexander the Great's empire. See the connection between the European fylfot and Indian swastika or the Cross and the Ankh? Please don't demolish this magnificent research, for it has been a great boon in my life to know these things. Borderer 16:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment Borderer, your comments appear to be just original research attempting to convince us, your fellow editors, of a particular POV. That's not what this is about. If you want to justify this article's existence, or its merge elsewhere, why not provide some of the missing, published sources instead? Wesley 17:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aha; I am only stating things as I commonly have studied and heard of them. I do not propose to limit and debar other positions on this issue, therefore I am not endorsing POV. I actually requested a balanced edition of said issue, if you'd be so kind as to reread my previous statement here. The various sources I have seen via Google search appear legitimate and/or sometimes biased(as anything!), but it is not my position to judge the appropriateness of the topic. We are not to cast a POV on the issue in favour or against, just to deliver as any messenger does. The existing article on the History of Christianity provides the Persian background but does not give adequate coverage of the Egyptian or Hellenic origins, which are quite prominent. After all, Christianity had most of its evolution in non-Persian areas of the Mediterranean Sea. Tell me, how many Persian people are prominent in the Christian world throughout its history? What fractionary comparison can you draw that factually examines the amount and shows a majority of Persian elements in Christianity, compared to the vast amount of Greek specialty(as written, verified and generally known amongst the entire Christian populace) and the nursery of Christianity itself in Egypt via the Old Testament(even Jesus's infancy was spent in Egypt, in safety from Herod!)? Please, where is the background of Christianity in Persia besides 19th century racial studies? Like I've said, the Noahide classification thing has been similarly discredited and its density in weight grew most during that era for racist Indo-Aryan theories. Borderer 22:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It used to contain detail about Horus - the most frequently cited source, but TBSDY just deleted it out of inability to provide a counter argument and unwillingness to face truth. --supposedly by User:CheeseDreams

It got removed because no sources were cited. Perhaps had you given your sources I would not have been able to remove it as original research. If someone would like to provide sources and write from a neutral POV, then this would no longer be a problem. Incidently: that's what happens when sources aren't cited in controversial articles. The material gets removed after a certain period of time when it becomes clear that the authors won't provide their reference material. That you were banned from directly editing the article should not have stopped you providing us your sources on the talk page, and had you edited to form consensus you would not have been banned by the ArbCom from editing articles related to Christianity now, hmmm? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Horus Krst, Jesus Christ and Hare Krishna seem to be the most up and current issues regarding syncretism. It's not a neologism, but an analysis of the issues as they overlap eachother. Borderer 15:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, it's not too late to provide real references via this page or the Talk pages of the related articles. That would be a strong argument in favor of keeping this material; their absence is a strong reason to delete it. In the meantime, please restrain yourself from personal attacks. Wesley 01:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are a fine tool. Thank God for your thuggery! Borderer 15:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're getting dangerously close to making personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're close to suppression of protests. I suppose you make your move right now, before the protests draw in other supporters and threaten your stranglehold on the situation. You've got a divine mission to control the flow of information and keep it molded to your content. I've got full confidence that you have it in you to be a "Master of Reality". I'm a real fan, oh and I'm a Quaker too. I hope you find that offensive as well, so much that you boil with the utmost prejudice and seek to ban me as well. Good luck and uh, sleep tight with one eye open. I'm sure the boogeyman is out to get you and disturb your sense of control over legitimate content, since you appear to have a PhD. in Nazism. Borderer 15:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In what way am I suppressing protests? What, because I don't like to be insulted to my face? So far I haven't blocked you, nor have I locked this page, nor have I deleted any text in the talk pages! So how am I suppressing protests? And exactly what are you protesting? It's not clear to me. As for saying I have a PhD. in Nazism: that's a vile and disgusting thing for you to say. I'd also like to know where you get off that I've "banned" people. CD is currently not editing from her account because - well, because of her own behaviour. It might interest you that she won't be able to get back into her account, but not because of anything that admins have done (like block her), but because she posted her user password to a known troll's account! An admin found this, got into the account before the troll could and changed that password. He has a standing offer of giving her the new password for ONE of her accounts (she had 5 with the same password!) if she can verify she is who she says she is. So who's fault is it that CheeseDreams can no longer edit on Wikipedia? Mine? I don't think so. So why don't you get a clue and do some basic research before you a) make personal attacks against myself, and b) accuse me of admin abuse? Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regretably, at this moment she cannot. Because of her bad faith editing, she is now under a temporary injunction. She can only edit her own userpages. She is not allowed to edit any other pages. Also, I am asking whether this really is CheeseDreams, as the editor is posting from an anonymous IP address. Is it fair to assume that this editor really is CheeseDreams? I cannot be certain that it isn't someone trying to impersonate her and cause her problems. I am also aware that it may well be CheeseDreams, however we have no way of knowing now that she has released her password to the general public and forced us to change it. Really though, this isn't our problem. This was a problem that was caused by CheeseDreams when she revealed her password for all the world to see! I'd personally like to see her only edit from one account, and until she grabs her new password from (I think) Slrubenstein, there is no way of knowing who she is. It is unfortunate that she has caused herself these problems, but that's what happens when you try to be deliberately disruptive! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look at you gloat so obnoxiously. I bet you've been dogging her for so long now and that your plans for complete destruction of her work is at a nigh close. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! I salute your efforts to discredit and diminish the editorial faculties of this nice individual. All she has to do is look at Wikipedia's disclaimer about editing: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." Thank you for your fundementalist(or skeptic) tirade TBSDY! Any time I need your help suppressing uncomfortable knowledge that will threaten Wikipedia, I'll just holler! That's right, you'll probably have this article deleted before she gets back! Wondrous friend, I do agree that the title should be definitely changed but to really make amends in this situation; you need to demolish and erase all records of this, which includes getting CD permanently banned! I'm sure it'll be a marvelous day when this is all over! You'll have saved us all from the crackpots and only appropriate knowledge will be be acknowledged! Send her to the Gulag! Off to Bedlam! Off with her head! If you haven't noticed, it is only YOU persecuting this body of work and its chief architect. Now that I've said this, you'll probably get your hopeful buddies to sic her(and/or me) too. Being a vigilante is only necessary when somebody has broken the law and there are no policemen around. If CD has done anything so harmful that is not commonly seen on Wikipedia as an inherent flaw in editing, then please say so now. From what I have seen, CD has done no better or worse than the majority of Wikipedians. Everybody has put up articles without sources at one time or another. Every once in a while, somebody develops an obsession with the apparent mistakes of another user and goes witchfynding. They burn Joan of Arc at the stake because her inspiration frightens them. SO, Joan hears these voices and liberates France in the meanwhile but her countrymen dispose of her as she makes them feel uncomfortable by her eccentricity. Well, CheeseDreams! I fucking hate your guts! You know that? You offer no fucking benefit to this website! You have no decency to boot! I want to institute der Nacht und Nebel Erlass upon you for treason to Wikipedia's purpose! Borderer 15:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, whatever. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are a holy roller on a high moral ground. I hope you win; so very, very much! Borderer 15:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Borderer, Ta bu shi da yu is an admin who has a solid history of responsible editing and consensus building here on Wikipedia and has the respect and support of many of his fellow admins. Religion is a subject that attracts editors with highly charged and often eccentric opinions on differing POVs. A conscientious admin's job isn't to suppress notable POV but rather to allow it to be reported as such, the operative word being "report." Editors on such contentious articles have to be prepared to cite their sources exhaustively when challenged to do so, as per established policy. Fire Star 15:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just because an admin has people who agree, does not make him/her more important in the way of legitimate content than a simple editor who also has agreeable supporters. Truth is not a democracy! Your supposition that his experience gives him infallibility is inherently ad hominem towards us lesser Wikipedian peons. Make it NPOV, but do NOT delete the article. Do NOT abuse your powers to appease your own perceptions and thereby push POV. Wait for CD to come back. When she does, I am more than willing to discuss with her about the sources and work with her to streamline the article. I actually care about the content of this article, even if the lot of you do not. Borderer 16:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's an arrogant attitude for you. "I know best about the content and none of the rest of you know anything, so clearly you are attacking me for being a peon". Now would you care to show me where I'm "abusing my admin powers" on this article? I haven't locked it, I haven't deleted it and I haven't blocked anyone associated with it other than CheeseDreams, and then only because of ArbCom decisions. I'm not holding my breath for CheeseDreams. She's already shown that she can't work well with others. I would have been more than happy to come to consensus and to help her verify her material. If I had better material and sources I'd even try to balance the article! A good example of how I've done this is to actually start an article on The Two Babylons (a very dodgy piece of text, I might say) by Alexander Hislop. After investigation by several Wikipedians, several misconceptions have been cleared up (like for instance stating that Hislop was a "scholar" - he wasn't. He was an Anglican minister who had studied basic Hebrew and Greek and had many misconceptions about ancient history). So I actually started to research the material and attempted to balance it up with (gasp!) facts. Like I've already said: you seem to have dived in here with a misconception that we are being unfair to CheeseDreams because she supports your POV. Nothing could be further from the truth. I suggest you investigate what really happened here before accusing others of nasty things like Nazism. Oh, and as for me being over the common rank and file: that's crap. If I step out of line too much then I'll get hauled back into line: probably by Jimbo himself. And I'd welcome feedback! I'm pretty much an open book when it comes to admin decisions. I tell people honestly why I did something, and if I make a mistake I try to fix the problem and apologise to the affected parties. I also try very hard not to make personal attacks. I suggest you do the same, because it's hard to debate facts with people who are attacking your personally (like you've done to me in our current conversation several times). - Ta bu shi da yu 16:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I never said I knew everything. I already stated that CD has opened my eyes to what info I've been looking for. I have said that I don't like POV and in truth, her POV pisses me off because it seems that has gotten you to almost throw the article out. I don't box people in to their failures to communicate. I know that online, people often act differently. Some forget that online communique demands the same level of decency as in person. When I used to edit a lot from my personal studies online and from what I learned in schoolbooks, I gave people most likely the same attitude as CD. When I'd get challenged, I'd smirk and write something obnoxious. I've changed my attitude somewhat to be more responsible and I've intervened because I think I know what her problem is. Your or anybody elses' perception of who is a scholar based on modern standards flys right in the face of historical ideas regarding such a status. Back in those days, any learned man was a scholar but today we have higher expectations before we "give" a person an "important" label. I think you know why I defended CD and attacked your assault of this article, so I'm not going to reargue the issue. Borderer 19:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My. I didn't say anyone was above anyone else, I said that someone was respected becuse they have shown themselves to be reasonable and conscientious, at least to me. That implies a burden of proof that someone else will have to meet to convince my colleagues and myself otherwise. "Consensus" applies to a willingness to compromise and adapt in the light of new evidence (if such is provided). I don't want to exacerbate any arguments here, we all want the best articles possible, but we also have to learn to share our toys. That being said, while the Truth is a fine subject for contemplation in a monastery, the encyclopaedia known as Wikipedia is a democracy, with rough guidelines set out by Jimbo Wales. That means that a majority does decide content, not any individual (hence the VfD debate in the first place) except possibly Jimbo because its his playground. As I've said to others, if that doesn't suit you, and there is no reason why it should, you are quite free to start your own website and decide on its content for yourself. Fire Star 16:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FireStar, the comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed at Borderer. I'm flattered that you leapt to my defense in such a nice way! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I realised that, I'm sorry it may have seemed otherwise. I just wanted Borderer to know that it doesn't seem to outsiders like they (that pesky indeterminate gender third person pronoun again!) are being picked on arbitrarily, but rather that your concerns are indeed justified AFAIC as there are policies and procedures in place that should be followed if one's contributions here are to be realistically expected to stand for any length of time, especially under the glare of a VfD spotlight. Cheers, Fire Star 16:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I will not allow article content to be decided by democracy if it is untrue. Reinforcing ignorant POV by casual observers only considerate towards policy, really sets my hair on end. Arbitrary administration is what pisses off Democrats about Bush's tenure and I voted for him, not against him. I still stand by him, which is how I see you standing by Jimbo and what would aggravate people who rather care for true Democracy instead of political machinery. Yeah, you've said the "start your own website" mantra, which I take as verification of a gang up on CD and my Devil's Advocacy. In the interests of INFORMATION, I trust rule by force less than I do rule by intellectual direction, which is different with childrearing and public service of course. Look at what you're doing when you shout policy, in order to be NPOV. Somebody who catches onesself in the middle of hypocrisy and are able to admit it freely are those I trust most to administer, as they have it in their best interest to make sure they are entirely honest. Sometimes the mechanics of a system only serves to hold down the good intent of simple people who recognise simple real things than contrived acculturations in bureaucracy. Borderer 19:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You do not have the ability to allow or disallow anything. If anyone continues to edit in opposition to a consensus after having been warned not to, then they can be temporarily blocked by an admin or permanently blocked by the Arbitration Committee as a troll or a vandal. An ultimatum by you is not convincing evidence of "intellectual direction," and you should know that your "Truth" is only as you and those who agree with you see it. Others' mileage will certainly vary, and you have to respect that. So that you know, I'm not a "casual observer," I am well versed in the documentary hypothesis and the history and theology of ancient and modern Israel as well as Christianity. As such, you should know that I find your present argumentive style as unbalanced and unconvincing as that of the aforementioned CD. You obviously care about the subject, your position can be presented and your energies be appreciated as long as you maintain civility and adhere to general NPOV policy. It isn't difficult to make people happy here, you just have to be scholarly, balanced and thorough in your presentation. Isn't that what we all want anyway? Fire Star 19:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope you know more than you claim. You apparently know not enough about this article besides how CD's POV is wrong. If you know so much, then add and subtract the specific points rather than destroy the article. Consensus will be achieved if you truly care for the content. Borderer 00:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now why would FireStar do that? They've already voted that the article should be deleted. Why would you spend time on something you don't want to have exist on Wikipedia in the first place? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the article as requested by Borderer, to show what I mean. I still think the article is redundant and should be deleted, but now it will be much easier to merge if that is what is ultimately decided by the consensus. Fire Star 21:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, that's nice work Fire Star! Good job. It might have taken me longer to flesh that out, since I'm a slow editor. Why not call it Christian Syncretism? I still disagree with some actions taken for the No Original Research rule, but I don't care to debate over these details that people will inevitably reedit back into the article in the future. The formatting is shite and the article looks horrible, but the subject matter is just as important as similar pages talking about facets in other religions. The article has a shitty title and should be Wikified. It is salvageable, if labourious to undertake. Just because it's not Wikified, doesn't mean it deserves to be destroyed. That's because several pages sit like this on Wikipedia and they might deserve to be deleted as personal fluff for the nerds that I haven't heard of nor thought important enough to know. We need a balance by adding serious academic topics and nonsense issues should be removed. Thank you for your earnest work and you deserve something for it! Borderer 22:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You want people to be able to get to the background of an article. Some people will want to verify if the content is indeed correct or at least notable, other people will want to know where to find out more if the subject interests them. So solid, dispassionate documentation is the key to keeping an article on Wikipedia. Even if it is on an emotional or distasteful subject a neutral presentation keeps it encyclopaedic and lessens the chance that someone will object. Even when things don't go your way, remember that this is just a hobby for most of us, not life or death. A cool head, listening to your fellow editors and professional manners will go a long way towards defusing arguments and a good final result for everyone. Fire Star 03:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.