User talk:Noloop

Consensus [1]

Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer.

That said, consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole.....

....In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority.

Editor advocacy team (proposal)

I don't trust the admin community to be careful or fair. A few thoughts and a suggestion:

• Consensus is process of communication. Generally judging consensus merely by looking at edit histories is a mistake. It will consistently disadvantage minority views.
• The rule is not "Mass addition of material doesn't require consensus, but mass deletion does." Yet, admins act that way.
• Admins clearly default to a position of supporting each other, and making the accused bear a high burden of proof.
• The admin community values quantity over quality. Maybe that's necessary, because of the size and complexity of Wikipedia. But, it leads to a lot of hurtful mistakes, and to errors like judging consensus just by looking edit histories.

That leads to my suggestion for change: Maybe Wikipedia needs an "Editor Advocacy" team of admins. It would have the narrowly defined mission of looking at conflicts with admins from the editor's point of view, and taking more time than usual.

The idea comes from a dispute I had with my broker. They botched a stock trade. I complained to customer service. It was denied very automatically, like the person handles dozens of such issues a day. Quantity over quality. I complained again, and was told it was being referred to a Customer Advocate. The role seemed to involve examining the issue from the customer's point of view, with a quality-over-quantity approach. The problem was fixed. They've probably found it helps with customer retention.

An Editor Advocacy team of admins could fill a similar niche. It could be by referral, to avoid trolling. It could help retain editors, especially those interested in minority views. It would reassure editors who feel admins are just supporting each other that their concerns are taken seriously. Noloop (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How to destroy your account

Admins won't indef block you by request. You can add a wkibreak enforcer, which is just a script that automatically logs you out on login. Turn off javascript, and it doesn't work. Maybe this will work: Change your password, and type random gibberish into the new password field while looking away. Hit "return". Presto. Gotta delete the email from your profile, tho.

Make sure you click "Save", rather than just closing! Noloop (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia says the non-existence of Jesus is a fringe theory

Statement by Noloop

The basic conduct issue here is editors using the “fringe theory” designation as a basis for excluding views and editors; the designation of “fringe view” is religiously motivated by both editors and sources. In the last week, I’ve been blocked twice and subjected to a proposed topic-ban for inserting an alleged fringe theory into Historical Jesus. All attempts to question the orthodoxy lead to edit warring.

The alleged fringe theory is that there was no definite Historical Jesus. This position has become an excuse to POV-fork Jesus-related articles, by dumping non-historicity theories into an article called the Christ myth theory. It is an excuse to assert in articles that the existence of a historical Jesus is factual.

Virtually all of the sources behind labeling this a fringe theory (and thus behind blocking and excluding editors and views) are Christian theologians.

Sources who think Jesus is the Lord and Savior are not neutral on the existence of Jesus. If you consider X blasphemy, you’re biased on the validity of X. So, the majority of Jesus scholars are biased, since they are Christian theologians. There is also systemic bias.

Zero evidence has been provided that the religiously neutral academic community contains any consensus about the existence of a historical Jesus; there is not even a consensus about the definition of "historical Jesus" (see Pagels below). Wikipedia is bursting with assertions that every major scholar accepts the existence of a historical Jesus. This claim boils down to members of the theological community citing each other.

I considered mediation, because there are many issues of content, but they are intertwined with issues of conduct. It is unlikely that mediation will go anywhere. The religiosity and cultural bias inherent in the topic make consensus problematic. The fringe theory issue is community-wide, spanning multiple articles, It would make no sense for the non-historicity of Jesus to be a fringe theory in one article but not another: Holocaust denial is a fringe theory community-wide. There seems to be a precedent for fringe theory disputes to be addressed by arbitration.

Finally, I note that there doesn't appear to be a formal community-wide consensus to label the nonexistence of Jesus a fringe theory, since it is not listed in Category:Fringe theories. Is arbitration the process for listing articles there? A fringe theory is not the same as a minority view. We don’t exclude minority views; we don’t POV-fork articles or topic-ban editors for adding minority dissent.

These specifics give some background to the issue and the use of Wikipedia to promote Christianity.

Historicity of Jesus contains factual statements essentially characterizing skepticism as a fringe theory.

• The article says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The source is a book by a Christian theologian; not peer-reviewed. Many attempts to attribute it (i.e. treat it as opinion rather than fact) reverted. [2]
• Factual statements in article: "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]

• 105 contains three sources. The first publisher self-describes: "...proudly publishes first-class scholarly works in religion for the academic community...and essential resources for ministry and the life of faith."[3]. The author's Web page says: "As we share our faith stories and listen to the faith stories of others... We come to understand our own experience of God better, and we come to recognize new possibilities for the life of faith"[4]. The 2nd publisher is "Trinity Press" (figure it out) and the third is... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." [5].
• Source 106 is 76 years old, so there's little information. It does contain a chapter called "The Guiding Hand of God in History". [6] It is out of date.
• 107. Published by Eerdman's (see above). Author is a theologian, founder of the Institute for World Christianity [7]
• Source 108 is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, cited in a book called An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. Figure it out.
• 108 is a theologian: James_Dunn_(theologian). Publisher is Eerdman's, Christian press, etc. Not peer-reviewed.

That's a complete summary of the coverage in this article. The reader is told as fact that the non-historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory. Every single source for that claim is a theologian, and one is a bishop; 6/8 sources are from Christian presses. Obviously, no peer review. My attempt to remove the material was reverted.

Note the editors involved in tag-team edit warring: Ari89, Bill the Cat, ReaverFlash. One editor reverts two or three times, then another takes over. Recently, User:AKMask was subjected to this.

Historical Jesus This article is so proselytizing, it's hard to know where to begin. I began with this paragraph: [8] I converted the factual statements to opinions by attributing them, and identifying sources as Christian theologians. It was immediately reverted. In response to my concern about religious bias in this text, User:Ari89 edited tendentiously, adding a source named John Dickson, "director of the Centre for Public Christianity, a media company that seeks to promote the public understanding of the Christian faith". [9]. My removal of it was immediately reverted.

I've been blocked twice for a total of 6 days out of the last 7, for trying to add skepticism to this article.[10]. In Talk, the reason for removing my skeptical sources was that they advocate a fringe theory: Talk:Historical_Jesus#Identifying_religions_of_sources

• "in these comments Noloop wishes to bring this back to the fringe theory that Jesus did not exist." User:Ari89
• "I notice that authors who hold fringe theories that just happen to coincide with Noloop's own personal views are prefixed with "Nobel Prize winner"...User:Ari89
• "Those who argue that there was no historical Jesus (ie the whole thing was made up later) are definitely into fringe territory.User:Elen of the Roads
• "The text is blatantly false and/or sourced to fringe theorists who have no current backing in the relevant academic fields." User:Bill the Cat 7

And in a section on whether it is a POV fork to move all skepticism to Christ myth theory, Talk:Historical_Jesus#NPOV.2FN_-_is_this_a_non-neutral_fork.3F

• "The problem with your example of the unicorn is that academic consensus is positive on unicorns not existing, and in Jesus existing....Separating fringe views from standard views is not POV forking" User:Cyclopia
• "the Christ Myth theory is tenuous at best and, so, giving it equal status with an article about the historical figure theory (which is quite well expounded/established) is possibly undue." User:Errant

Note the editors tag-team edit-warring: Ari89, Bill the Cat, ReaverFlash. In addition to me, User:MishMich has been subjected to this.

From Christ myth theory (theory that there is no historical Jesus)

• "The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2].” The footnote contains four sources. The first is a theologian [11], not peer-reviewed. The second is a theologian, James H. Charlesworth; the publisher is Eerdmans, a Christian press. The third is interesting, just because the expert self-describes as recently agnostic--after a life of evangelism. Unfortunately, the original publisher is Fortean Times, a popular magazine focused on science fiction and the paranormal.[12]. The 4th source is George Albert Wells; he doesn't support the historical Jesus theory, and so is misrepresented as considering its opposition a fringe theory. [13]
• "The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance.[85]” The source is Craig A. Evans. The publisher is "Theological Studies: A Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology" [14]

The Jesus article has the exact same problems. I examined some of its sources in an ANI: [15] and [16]. All the sources are evangelical or theological, the publishing houses are Christian, and so on. The ANI was immediately transformed into two proposals to ban me for advocating fringe theories. Roughly 99% of the editors involved believe the existence of historical Jesus is a secular, academic consensus, and 1% their sources support it. I am to be banned for demanding something higher than 1%.

These are the edits of people using Wikipedia to promote their religion. I didn’t look at every source, but I looked at a helluva lot. I see no peer-reviewed, secular basis for the fringe theory accusation. I also didn’t see a peer-reviewed, secular source for the existence of a historical Jesus; maybe that’s the real fringe theory. Heavy reliance on poor-quality sources suggests the case can’t be made with high-quality ones.

Desired outcomes:

• Affirm that the standard for reliable historical sources is not suspended for the historicity of Jesus: peer-reviewed, secular academic presses.
• Affirm that declaring the non-historicity of Jesus a fringe theory requires peer-reviewed, secular academic support, and differs from declaring it a minority view. The following policy is not suspended for the sake of Jesus: "The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every reliable source states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim (e.g. a reliable source states, "consensus is that" or "the literature shows that" the sky is blue)." [17]
• Affirm that the existence of an objective, physical Jesus is a question of fact rather than opinion. As such, religious sources are less reliable than secular ones. The topic is analogous to the origin of the species, arrangement of the solar system, etc. Articles on natural selection are 100% scientific and 0% religious for good reason, a reason that applies here.
• Affirm that this is a subject prone to cultural bias. Christians are biased on the existence of Jesus, yet they are much, much more likely to publish on it. The standard policy of weighting views according to their prominence will end up favoring religion, because the most prominent group takes the existence of Jesus on faith.
• Affirm this guiding principle regarding Anglo-American bias applies to all bias, including religious bias: "(editors) should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them."[18]
• Affirm that religious belief, answering to a Higher Authority, etc., do not override Wikipedia's principles. This is not the place to promote Christianity.
• Affirm that the guideline for neutrality in moral and religious topics is not suspended for Christianity: "On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith. We should then list all points of view, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them."[19]
• Affirm that naming consistency is a part of neutrality. For example, if the theory that Jesus never existed is to be named "Christ myth theory" then the theory that Jesus did exist should be named "Historical Christ theory", or something similar.

The scientific, encyclopedic fact is that there is plenty of evidence of a "Jesus movement” and teachings attributed to Christ. But, that’s true of Dionysus and Orpheus too. Elaine Pagels did not get all her degrees at Bible college:

"The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. But what we can investigate historically is how the "Jesus movement" began. What the new research shows is that we have a wide range of teaching attributed to Jesus." [20] --Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)

Conduct issues.

• The main conduct issue is the tendentious use of low-quality sources to create a “fringe theory” campaign aimed at promoting Christianity and excluding editors who dissent.
• Canvassing and well-poisoning [21] which led to tag-team edit warring.
• Tendentious editing. Everywhere. For example, the previously mentioned John Dickson edit [22]. Or a “discussion” with User talk:Antique Rose about using evangelist Francis Schaeffer as a source. Initial diff: [23] Talk page: [24]
• Hostility. Pretty much everywhere. Excerpted in ANI [25] (kind of old now).
• My Talk page documents my own righteous and pure behavior. Let’s just call it “immaculate conduct."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs)

I'm certainly willing to try content-oriented dispute resolution (although this isn't limited to content), but I'm pretty certain it'll lead nowhere. I feel the Wikipedia community doesn't recognize certain implications of (extreme) systemic bias. The majority of involved editors think it's an objective assertable fact that Jesus existed. Yet, no article has a single source from a peer-reviewed secular journal that says Jesus existed. There is no will to comply with principles on sourcing or the definition of "fringe." Normally, that's a job for persuasion and dispute resolution. So.... is the world's greatest dispute resolution going to persuade Christians that Jesus might not have existed? That it should be open to debate? One has to be sensible. ArbCom does hear cases about fringe theories, even though they are content disputes. What are the guidelines? Noloop (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus sourcing

Jesus#Historical_views Article asserts: "Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.[111][112][113] Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus very different from the common image[vague] found in the gospels.[114]"

• 111 is "Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective."
• 112 is D. G.Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making, Eerdmans Publishing: ""Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." [26]. Dunn is a theologian.
• 113 is William Edward Arnal, Whose historical Jesus? Volume 7, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. This is by far the highest quality source here. However, it's not clear that it supports the text. For example, Arnal writes: "...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus to project contemporary cultural debates". [27] (p. 5) That doesn't sound like a clear assertion that it's all about the historical method.
• 114 is Borg, Marcus J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two visions. New York: HarperCollins. 2007. Marcus Borg says: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life."[28]. NT Wright is a bishop in the Church of England.

Article says: "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[119][120][121][122][123]" (emphasis added)

• 118 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
• 119 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
• 120 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian [29]
• 121 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher [30]
• 122 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"[31]
• 123 is Marcus Borg & NT Wright, same as 114 above. Noloop (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Some quotes

• It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last." --Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)
• The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. But what we can investigate historically is how the "Jesus movement" began. What the new research shows is that we have a wide range of teaching attributed to Jesus. Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)
• Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jesus". . . and that sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence."-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
• I quite agree with Earl Doherty that the most important result of research carried out by writers like Wells, himself, Freke and Gandy, and myself, is the demonstration that the Jesus figure of the New Testament Gospels and Acts is a fiction, without any real evidential support. --Professor Alvar Ellegard,Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Goteburg
• We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world.-Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
• The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
• All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions. -Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)
• The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel. -Bishop John Shelby Spong
• Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it. -Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
• Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. -- Why I Am Not a Christian, philosopher Bertrand Russell
• When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards. -David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)
• The various reports of miracles connected with Jesus' life may be true but a rational person will surely demand better evidence than the conflicting reports of four unknown authors writing decades after the events. --The Case Against Christianity (1991) Michael Martin, professor emeritus at Boston University.
• James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, "is in fact not historical." How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations concerning Jesus' baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other event written about in the Gospels, is historical? -Daniel P. Sullivan (Bible Review, June 1996, Vol. XII, Number 3, p. 5)
• David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus' life, unreliable as sources of historical information. -Bible Review, October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39
• The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts. -Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels
• Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing. -Jeffery L. Sheler, "Who Wrote the Bible," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
• Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars-- from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with Jesus. -Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990
• Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself. -Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
• The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels. -Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
• Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous followers (or their followers' followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus' life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion. -David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" (Time, April 8, 1996)
• So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that "we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus." -Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg,
• The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with fiction. -Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
• The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our using it as a historical record of that year. -Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 54)
• "...the earliest references to the historical Jesus are so vague that it is not necessary to hold that he ever existed; the rise of Christianity can, from the undoubtedly historical antecedents, be explained quite well without him; and reasons can be given to show why, from about A.D. 80 or 90, Christians began to suppose that he had lived in Palestine about fifty years earlier." --Professor G.A Wells. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus)
• The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies. -Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)
• The gospels are not eyewitness accounts -Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
• Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth. -Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141
• Many contemporary scholars have abandoned the ideal of establishing who Jesus was with scientific objectivity on the grounds that the historical project cannot be separated from the author's own convictions. -- William C. Spohn. Professor of Theology , Santa Clara University
• “...a reconstructed Jesus is just that—one scholar's version of Jesus. It is unlikely to convince anyone other than the scholar, his or her students (who more or less feel obligated to agree), and perhaps a few others.” --Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University.

Discussion

• This may be seen as simplistic, because there is an almost universal emotional tendency to denigrate ancient sources, but can we point out that two of the gospel writers, Mark and John, were eye-witnesses of events in Jesus's life? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the fun things about the Path that is Wikipedia is learning about new things. Quite a few theologians of the historical bent agree that we have no contemporaneous evidence of the existence of Jesus. I don't know about Mark and John specifically, or how the writing attributed to them in the Bible are viewed by historians. It's obvious pretty presumptive, from a scientific perspective, to take their wrtiing as a literal eye-witness account. My take on the reconstruction of is as follows. It is vehicle for Christians to interpret Christianity. Those of an apocalyptic view, see Jesus as apocryphal. Reformist Christians see him as I, I dunno, loving? See Elaine Pagels, above. Also, in scrutinizing the sources (mostly really tedious, I must say) I did find Arnal to be a smart, serious scholar. Noloop (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask Noloop a question which may be seen as oof-topic, and for which if so I apologise in advance? Given that your own views are reasonably clear from your editing, why is it so important to you to insert them into wikipedia? I know that you are entitled to - an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - but why do you WANT to?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to insert any views into Wikipedia. I'm trying to prevent the exclusion of views. I'm also trying to get Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and reliable sources applied to Christian articles. It is nearly impossible, since dispute resolution will never make Christian editors acknowledge the possibility of Jesus not existing. The response of ArbCom was basically, "oh well." Noloop (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm really, really curious about this. You keep repeating over and over stuff like Please cite some peer-reviewed, non-Christian sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. But I'd like to turn the question on you. Can you cite any "peer-reviewed, non-Christian source" that discusses Jesus in any way, whether skeptical, JM, or affirmative historicity. Can you cite me a single source that meets your strict criteria yourself? This will give me an idea of the sort of journals that publish such content, and the sort of scholars who are published up to your standards (I've seen you mention 3 names recently, but it doesn't appear any meet the criteria you have asked of others to provide for you).-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Noloop but given the broad guidelines above I can provide a "peer-reviewed, non-Christian source" that discusses Jesus in any way, whether skeptical, JM, or affirmative historicity."" and did so nearly two years ago:

"There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality." Abstract.

Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness Volume 5. Issue 4. December 1994 (Pages 16 - 18)

The anthrosource site use to let you read the first page of the articles and the first page of the above in the main text said "It is not possible to compare the above (several quotes regarding Jesus by several authors) with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." It then talked about the Testimonium Flavianum cutting off the public accessible part of the article just before it got to the part where the forgery statement was cited. Just remember you asked of any "peer-reviewed, non-Christian source" that talked about Jesus in any way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

BG, I think he meant peer-reviewed, non-Christian historian. I think it would be difficult to find any such historian teaching at an accredited university, since they would most likely be scorned and denied tenure. I mean, that would be like a biologist who advocates young-earth creationism. Obviously, you can find a "peer-reviewed, non-Christian source" for anything. Take Dawkins, for example. He is trained in biology. And from what I understand, he an excellent biologist. But on the topic philosophy, he doesn't know what he talking about. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm not going to move the goal posts or anything. I'll start from there to see what else Roland Fischer has published, and what else Anthropology of Consciousness has published, and go from there. Also, you say "Nearly two years ago", but it appears this published over 15 years ago, so I'm a bit confused. Noloop, is this the sort of sourcing you find acceptable? Is this an exception or an exemplar? And is there more of it (i.e. can you cite two "peer-reviewed, non-Christian source"). -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that Fischer rejects the historicity of Jesus. It is simply an odd and confused article. For example, his arguments against Josephus are quite elementary (he is not even aware that there are two refs in Josephus to Jesus!) and he references obscure sources. For example, his arguments against the TF includes citing the opinion of "Hubert van Gtfifen (Giphanius), a Protestant scholar (born 1534)", Tanaquil Faber (1655) and Emil Schurer (1890). When it comes to modern sources, he cites book reviews of them (Times Literary Supplement and New York Review of Books). I would say 500 years behind modern scholarship is a bit of a lag.

It is just as dubious when we note Fischer's source for the information about Christian origins in the article. It is informal unpublished information, the acknowledgement reading: "I am deeply indebted to Professor Michael Whiteman, friend, scholar, and practising mystic, University of Capetown, South Africa, for sharing with me his superb pluridisciplinary knowledge about the origins of Christianity." I believe Whiteman was professor in the field of mathematics at the time.

Fischer does seem to talk of a historical Jesus: ""Who was then "Jesus the Jew". Was he a fiction that became flesh or was he of flesh and bones to become narrative fiction. Jesus, the Galilean Jew, was independent minded, unscholarly (compared with Jerusalem Pharisees), "charismatic," a hasid, exorcist, healer, popular teacher—in short, a remarkable and in many ways admirable representative of a known type of first century Judaism. It was a type not much approved of by official Judaism, and totally ignored by subsequent Christian dogmatism" (p.17)--Ari (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This was originally presented as Fischer summarizing Géza Vermes and I asked then as I do again if Fischer was talking of a historical Jesus why is that "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived" phrase in both the abstract and the main body text? The whole purpose of an abstract is to give you what the contents of an article is especially as in this case it would cost most people to get the entire article. I find it hard to believe that the American Anthropological Association would allow much less create a sensationalized or potentially misleading abstract on a journal article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's a fact Jesus existed, you would expect to find widespread mention in historical journals. Bill and others keep asserting that you don't see it debated because it is widely accepted as fact. That's not the point. Why don't you see widespread, secular mention of the fact, as you do of the Holocaust and moon landings? As for particular journals, Past and Present is considered good [32]. The bottom line is this. The community of Jesus scholars is a community of Christians. Two things follow: 1) The reader should be informed of that, 2) That is not the mainstream, and so not the baseline for deciding whether something is fringe. Noloop (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out long ago that the most logical reason it is not debated is in the end anthropologically, archeologically, and historically it doesn't really matter if the Gospel Jesus existed. History records Christianity appeared as a notable movement by the end of the 1st century CE and there are far more interesting things for the historical anthropologist, archeologist, and historian to debate with far better documentation than if the account of the supposed founder is historically accurate. "Just how fragmented was Christan belief in the 1st through 4th centuries?" and "What were the views of the varies Christian sects that were considered heretical?" are two such questions that one can go and look for information on. You can see this attitude with John Frum. Very few scholarly works on John Frum flat out say he didn't exist though Vittorio Lanternari in his 1965 "The religions of the oppressed: a study of modern messianic cults" gives the earliest account of how the John Frum movement evolved up to that time. In the University of Wollongong Thesis Collection there is "Blackfella armies - kastom and conflict in contemporary Melanesia 1994 - 2007" by Ben Bohane and buried in this thesis is this passage cited as being from Peter Worsley 1957 The trumpet shall sound Paladin pg 365:

"Belief in Christ is no more or less rational than belief in John Frum, and it is worthwhile remembering that Christianity emerged as an anti-colonial movement with strong elements of rebellion, heresy, millenarism and charismatic devotion to a phrophetic Saviour" (sic)

I have searched through the 1968 Schocken Books version and can't find anything even remotely like this passage so does anyone have the 1957 and can anyone tell me just what the full context of the above is in?--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, Noloop. You say Past and Present is considered good. Good for what? Finding articles about the historical Jesus? Because I have been unable to locate any (though I did find one from last May that presents some ideas Jeremy Bentham had about Jesus...) What does it mean that a considered good peer reviewed history journal doesn't have any articles about the historical Jesus? Maybe Past and Present isn't a good example. Got any more?-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think his comment was about over all quality of the journal rather than any articles it may have.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My question still remains. What does it mean when such a high quality journal doesn't discuss Jesus? Maybe the simplest solution is that particular journal was just a bad example, either because such articles are out of scope, or for whatever reason they just haven't published any article on that topic yet. I mean, can we all agree that "historical Jesus" is an encyclopedic topic? or does the lack of articles in this one journal show that the topic isn't notable? Again, either why, is there a reason why this journal doesn't cover this topic, or do we have other examples of journals which DO cover the topic that are peer reviewed and considered "secular" by Noloop's standards... -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that historians don't think it's an answerable question. The history is past. There are some things that can't be known. In the absence of new discoveries of contemporaneous evidence, there's not much for secular historians to do. What the theological community calls "reconstructing Jesus" seems mostly like an act of interpretation of a static historical record. The object seems more like a personal quest for Christians to interpret their faith through what (little) they can know about Jesus. This is a view you find among religion profs, such as Pagels (quoted above). Obviously, just because few details can be known about Jesus doesn't mean he never existed. It just explains why only Christians are very interested. I think there was probably a real basis for the Biblical stories, just as I suspect there was probably a basis for Priam and so on. But the precise defniition of "basis" and whether you can get from that to saying "Jesus existed" as a matter of fact is unclear. You might find this article in a recent edition of Christianity Today interesting: [33] Obviously, the author agrees with you that Jesus existed. But, it does explain why secular, mainstream historical study simply has no topic here. Noloop (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Schweitzer in the 1906 version of The Quest of the Historical Jesus stated "There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another, and in spite of all the artifice, art, artificiality, and violence which was applied to them, refused to be planed down to fit the design on which the Jesus of the theology of the last hundred and thirty years had been constructed, and were no sooner covered over than they appeared again in a new form."

To put it simply most searches for a historical Jesus were through a modern lens with every effort having the risk of turning into something like Miner's "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" where the premise is so strong the researcher only sees things in a way that support his premise. So then as is true now searches for the historical Jesus are more efforts at finding a predetermined version; if you think Jesus was simple teacher who sermons got reworked by his followers inot a grand myth then odds are that is what you find. The same is true if you see Jesus as a sort of 1st century hippy rebelling against the status quo and the list goes on.--216.234.208.17 (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship on historical Jesus is not a Christian endeavor. See, for example works by Geza Vermes (Jewish) and Bart Ehrman (agnostic). Among top-line sources for WP are university-level textbooks. My two, Understanding the Bible by Harris and The Historical Jesus by Theissen & Merz, accept Jesus' existence. Check out Encyclopedia Britannica Online for a look at the mainstream secular view of Jesus. Maybe you're right and mainstream scholarship has been fooled, but WP cites mainstream scholarship, so if it's wrong, WP needs to be wrong in the same way. If you want to argue with mainstream scholarship, WP isn't the place to do it. Leadwind (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass murderer infobox

Present some actual arguments that advance your position and I may refrain from reverting your rather unconstructive edits. So far all you have done was stating your opinion, but without backing it up with anything that might be even close to something beyond a POV statement. That a couple of other people share your opinion doesn't really matter, as long as they, too, find no arguments to back it up. Again, it's a mass murderer-template, so wouldn't it defy logic to omit the information about the actual murders? Of all things, you want to get rid of the one bit that is the reason for their notability. Take a look at Help:Infobox for a sec, it says : "Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts." What facts in a case of mass murder could be more relevant for a quick-check than how many people died and how were they killed? (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC))

The "actual arguments" were presented during the RFC. "That a couple of people share [my] opinion" does matter. Shared opinion is the basis for decision-making on Wikipedia. Noloop (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

All that I can see on that RFC is people stating "it's glorifying to mention victims numbers", which is not an argument, it's an opinion, and that is a significant difference. What's even worse, not a single one of those persons bothered to elaborate their opinion beyond a mere statement. I have asked plenty of questions and gave many reasons why the information in question should be retained and not a single Wikipedian, and that includes you yourself, bothered to adress them.
Regarding decision-making on Wikipedia, you may take a look at the first post on your own talk-page, where it says in bold letters: "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments". You had not a single argument on your side, just POV-statements that were at times meandering into the grotesque. Trying to justify your edits by referencing to them is unlikely to build a strong case in your favour. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC))

Nature of comments at Talk:Antisemitism

I have some concern with your comments directed at me at Talk:Antisemitism#Holocaust denial sentence and weasel words?. Since I don't want to distract from the discussion at the talk page, I am raising it here.

• I started the discussion to address whether or not certain additions to a sentence was appropriate in order to avoid an edit war. I believe I accurately stated the history of the addition, and gave my reason why it should not be added (which people are free to disagree with - hence the discussion): [34].

• You responded with your reason why you disagreed. However, in the same response, you seemed to imply that editors who were trying to remove those additional words (such as myself) as "using the encylopedia to promote their worldview" and implied that we were "hate-mongering ideologues who would rather shove their self-glorifying ideologies down the throat of the world than produce a fair and balanced enyclopedia that has has integrity": [35].

• I asked you to comment on the contribution, not the contributer, and that I failed to see what I did to warrant such an attack: [36].

• You replied that you could not "tell the dancer from the dance": [37].

• I asked you among other things to assume good faith: [38].

• You replied that you "don't assume anything, good faith or otherwise, when there is a long and proven track record": [39].

It was at this point I decided to move the conversation elsewhere in order to not distract from the original reason I started the discussion. I am very concerned about your last point. After you made that point, you referred to another of other editors. However, I fail to see what I have done to earn such animus. I am not one of those editors you named. I do not believe I have a track record that should require no assumption of good faith when I participate or start a discussion. In fact, if anything, I believe my track record speaks for my work to foster objective discussions.

The reason I bring this here, is becuase I think you need to tone down the rhetoric. It is hard to convince other objective editors of the mertis of your position if you coach it in rhetoric and imply personal attacks against editors who wish to discuss the issue. I intended to start an objective discussion about my reasons for disputing the changes and was immediately attacked for no reason. It's not exactly a good discussion strategy on your part. Singularity42 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My comments are not directed at you in particular. All these subjects are a lost cause. There has been no progress in such articles in years, and there is no sign of any future progress. Wikipedia is inept at coping with systemic bias and well-organized political agendas. There is no hope, no possibility of anything constructive. The main value of "discussion" in subjects like this is venting. I hate racism. Noloop (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments were, however, directed at me in particular. Please redact this pernicious calumny immediately. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"The main value of "discussion" in subjects like this is venting". Seriously Noloop, pick somewhere else other than Talk:Antisemitism to "vent". You seem to be angling to get banned for disruption. Making pedantic arguments about whether Holocaust denial is antisemitic (and failing to present any sources into the discussion) looks like trolling to me, pure and simple. Fences&Windows 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The places that deserve venting about cultural bias in Wikipedia are the places where that bias is found. Maybe admins should find a less idiotic way to respond to venting than threats of banning and accusation of trolling. Maybe, for example, it ought to pop into your head that the venting originates with a grievance that deserves to be taken seriously. I think there are racist admins on Wikipedia who use their position to push an agenda regarding Israel/Palestine, and our mechanisms of admin accountability are inadequate. I think there is cultural bias affecting our treatment of these topics, and our principles to monitor cultural bias are empty promises (i.e., bullshit). I think there is no chance in Hell that a study of our reliability of any number of political issues would match the widely cited study on our reliability that looked only at technical articles. Our coverage of politicized, controversial topics is worthless, POV-polluted crap and everybody knows it. Maybe you should also refrain from bringing your opinion about a content dispute into your threats. The "pedantic arguments" to which you refer concern some text that currently exists in the article, and which version deserves to prevail. My arguments aren't pedantic to me, and threatening me for making them is exactly the sort admin powertrip admins are sick of me complaining about. Threatening people is disruptive. Noloop (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ancestral home

Hi! I read Talk:Ancestral home. Do you have sources saying that the "ancestral home" custom exists in Indian cultures too? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite remember what led me to that article, but I was working on an article regarding Arabic cultures at the time, so it probably relates to that. Noloop (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Indef block

Considering blatant personal attacks like here, your general disruptive and pointy editing with edits like this and this, and the fact that you (as User:Mindbunny) were only unblocked from an indef block "If Mindbunny pledges to avoid WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE behavior"[40] some month and a half ago, I have now blocked you again indefinitely. Fram (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm indef blocked. I pointed out that racism exists in Wikipedia. That is, by defniiton, an "attack" and a "battle.". I pointed out that it can easily be connected to certain editors, including admins who patrol certain articles. That is, by definition, a personal attack. I pointed that admins are abusive and enjoy a double-standard. Again a personal attack! All the listed grounds for blocking here are judgement calls, so there is no contesting them, and hardly any systemic incentive to unblock when the subject of my complaint is admins. The lone factual claim is wrong: I was not unblocked as Mindbunny for making any agreements. I made no compromises of any sort.

The fact is Islamophobia began with a 8 paragraph section undermining the concept of Isalmophobia. Antisemitism has a few scattered sentences criticising the concept. We all know damn well that there is no chance that Antisemitism would ever look like Islamophobia, and that the systemic resistance to making them EQUAL is substantial. That's "systemic bias," which is a euphemism for prejudice. It doesn't happen invisibly. Certain editors can be tied to it, and we all know some of them. We all know it is self-reinforcing: the bias alienates Muslims, Indonesians, Arabs, and other groups who are demographically non-English-speaking and have significant headwinds in gaining consensus on ideological subjects related to their ethnicity. Those who stick around get pissed, and get blocked, further reinforcing the bias. It makes an encycolpedia into a stupid power game to see whose prejudice will prevail. One minorities rarely win.

This community is plagued by systemic bias, i.e. racism, and it is plagued by a lack of accountability for admins. Communities that want respect from minorities need to give it. Noloop (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

you can be unblocked, just say you are sorry, ask for a mentor, presto, back in biz. if you were really blocked, the talk page wouldn't be here. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sorry for pointing out problems that exist and need to be addressed. Besides, I looked at the ANI which was concluded before I even had a chance to look at it. There was virtually no balanced summary of any aspect of the dispute, but nobody was interested enough to get both sides before procaliming an indef block. That tells me trying to be unblocked isn's worth the time or toll on my integrity. Noloop (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia article vs. Antisemitism article

The first section in the Islamophobia article dedicated to in-depth development of the concept...

The concept of Islamophobia has been criticized on several grounds.[24][25][26] Some critics argue that it is real, but is just another form of racism and does not require its own category,[27] while others argue that it is used to censor criticism, that its use threatens free speech,[25][28] or is used to silence issues relating to Muslim populations in Western countries.[29]

Novelist Salman Rushdie and others signed a manifesto entitled Together facing the new totalitarianism in March 2006 which denounced Islamophobia as "a wretched concept."[23] British academic Michael Burleigh argues that the term 'spares anyone the need to examine what has gone wrong within [Europe's Muslim] communities'.[29] Others, such as Edward Said, consider Islamophobia as it is evinced in Orientalism to be a 'secret sharer' in a more general antisemitic Western tradition.[30][31][32] However, Daniel Pipes says that "'Islamophobia' deceptively conflates two distinct phenomena: fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam."[33]

The concept of Islamophobia as formulated by Runnymede is criticized by professor Fred Halliday on several levels. He writes that the target of hostility in the modern era is not Islam and its tenets as much as it is Muslims and their actions, suggesting that a more accurate term would be "Anti-Muslimism."[34] Poole responds by noting that many Islamophobic discourses attack what they perceive to be Islam's tenets, while Miles and Brown write that Islamophobia is usually based upon negative stereotypes about Islam which are then translated into attacks on Muslims.[35][36] Halliday also states that strains and types of prejudice against Islam and Muslims vary across different nations and cultures, which is not recognized in the Runnymede analysis. Miles and Brown respond by arguing that "the existence of different ‘Islamophobias’ does not invalidate the concept of Islamophobia any more than the existence of different racisms invalidates the concept of racism."[35] Halliday argues that the concept of Islamophobia unwittingly plays into the hands of extremists.[34] British writer and academic Kenan Malik believes that the charge of Islamophobia confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and that it is used to silence critics and Muslim reformers. He writes that the extent to which Muslims are more vulnerable to social exclusion and attacks than other groups is frequently and allows for a culture of victimhood, where all failings are attributed to Islamophobia. Islamophobia is not a form of racism, in his view, because Islam is a belief system.[37] This analysis is criticized by Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain and Abdul Wahid from the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.[38] Bunglawala writes that Malik's argument is limited to overt acts of violence against Muslims, without recognizing less overt forms of prejudice or discrimination. By ignoring non-violent examples of Islamophobia, Malik's commentary "makes a mockery of victims of prejudice by pretending they have not been discriminated against," according to Bunglawala.[38]

In the wake of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, a group of 12 writers signed a statement in the French weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in March 2006, warning against the use of the term Islamophobia to prevent criticism of "Islamic totalitarianism". The novelist Salman Rushdie was among these signatories.[39] These views are shared by Dutch law professor Afshin Ellian.[40] Critics cite the case of British journalist Polly Toynbee, who was nominated in May 2003 for the title of "Most Islamophobic Media Personality of the Year" at the 'Annual Islamophobia Awards' overseen by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, for claiming that Islam "... imposes harsh regimes that deny the most basic human rights."[41]

In an article called "Fighting Islamophobia: A Response to Critics", Assistant Professor Deepa Kumar writes that the modern-day demonization of Arabs and Muslims by US politicians and others is racist and Islamophobic, and employed in support of an unjust war. About the public impact of this rhetoric, she says that "One of the consequences of the relentless attacks on Islam and Muslims by politicians and the media is that Islamophobic sentiment is on the rise." She also chides some "people on the left" for using the same "Islamophobic logic as the Bush regime". She concludes with the statement "At times like this, people of conscience need to organize and speak out against Islamophobia."[42] Johann Hari of The Independent has criticized the use of the term by organizations like Islamophobia Watch, arguing that liberal Muslims interested in reform are left unsupported because people fear being accused of Islamophobia.[43] Writing in the New Humanist, philosopher Piers Benn suggests that people who fear the rise of Islamophobia foster an environment "not intellectually or morally healthy", to the point that what he calls "Islamophobia-phobia" can undermine "critical scrutiny of Islam as somehow impolite, or ignorant of the religion's true nature."[44] The New Criterion editor Roger Kimball argues that the word "Islamophobia" is a misnomer. "A phobia describes an irrational fear, and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but on the contrary very well-founded indeed, so that if you want to speak of a legitimate phobia... ...we should speak instead of Islamophobia-phobia, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia."[45]

Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris has openly criticized the term Islamophobia in an article stating:[46] There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe.

Meanwhile, coverage of "criticism of the concept" in the Antisemitism article is...

[empty ... there is a single-sentence allusion to criticism of something called "The New Anti-Semitism" and that's it.]

If that were an isolated incident, it wouldn't be upsetting. It is not an isolated incident. It's part of a pervasive systemic bias in Wikipedia, that you even find in odd articles like Lara Logan. The encyclopedia is bigoted, and the bigotry is well-known. It has been well-known for years (under the name "systemic bias"), and tolerated, even reinforced by witting and unwitting admin actions. The article on Islamophobia is Islamophobic. That's pathetic. Noloop (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The "-phobia" suffix has been altered in modern society to mean "bigotry towards" instead of what it really means, which is "fear of". I recall having this debate with gay advocates awhile back. They use "homophobia" to mean "bigotry towards gays", even though that's not what the root word means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ban enacted

Persuant to a discussion at ANI, located here: [41] you have been banned from Wikipedia by the community. If, in the future, you wish to edit again, you need to request a review of your ban as explained at WP:BASC. --Jayron32 01:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I respect procedure. I believe this sums it up:

1. Bypass dispute resolution such as RFC/U.
2. Propose community ban.
3. Block me before I know the ban has been proposed.
4. Consider accusations I can't respond to, since I am blocked.
5. Don't consider points that are important to me, since I am blocked and can't offer them.
6. Ban.

It violates just about every principle of procedural fairness employed by every respected community I've ever heard of. It makes me look good, since the anger that led to this was based on the belief that.... Wikipedia violates many principles of fairness employed in respected communities.

Doesn't it seem like the way to prevent disruption is to make editors respect Wikipedia more, not less? Noloop (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, I don't know the ins and outs of all this, or the history in any detail, but on the basis of what was filed on that page - as I said there - it's all pretty shoddy. And, as you say, you had no chance to respond. Unfortunately, once you get marked as trouble and accumulate a few people who, rightly or wrongly, are pissed off with you, that's the way this place is going to work. N-HH talk/edits 15:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Between the Noloop account and the Mindbunny account, this user accumulated an extensive history of warnings and literally dozens of blocks over 2 years. And by the evidence above is completely unrepentant and unrecognizing of the extensive complaints and community feedback over those two years.

If Noloop did not see this coming, that is their problem. They got all the warnings and incrementally more significant blocks up to the point that they've exhausted community patience. Wikipedia is tolerant of nearly any fundamental belief, but chronic disruption or other improper behavior eventually reach the limit of tolerance, and people are shown the door.

This type of activity was not what Wikipedia is here for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Humility is a virtue. No matter what you think you know, you should recognize that there is much you don't know. You should follow a fair procedure for what you do. You cannot fairly evaluate 2.5 years of editing in a 24-hour ANI thread--in which the editor isn't allowed to defend himself. Particularly not if the goal is to meet the presumably high bar of a ban.

For example, you claim I have "literally dozens of blocks." I see 7 legitimate blocks, not counting the current one. Four for Noloop, and 3 for Mindbunny. The first 2 for Mindbunny were undone on the blocking admin's own initiative when he realized he made a mistake. Another was a reinstatement of a block that was temporarily lifted for the purpose of discussion. So you claim approximately 24 where the truth is approximately 7-8....

Another aspect of fairness is balance. You don't add evidence only to one side of the scale. Has the editor made any contributions the community considers constructive? Maybe, maybe not. In this case, there is no evidence the community bothered to look.

Self-confident admins don't try to stop people from defending themselves. Noloop (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume the banning admin is supposed to be neutral. I would assume that if assumed Wikipedia is fair. Are we supposed to have faith that the banning admin was neutral when his edit summary was "na na na na, na na na na, ya ya ya ya" ? [42] Noloop (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

By "dozens" I meant more than 12, and your criterion for "legitimate" is different than mine.

If you pose the question "Is the community acting much faster and perhaps too fast on bans now?" I would answer "Yes, and perhaps too fast"

If you make the statements you're making here and now, that you appear to assert not to have done anything wrong, the answer is "Sorry, if you fail to even reasonably discuss your own behavior and errors, there's nothing to talk about here".

You can appeal to arbcom. But I don't think the community did wrong here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about whether I've done anything wrong. I haven't addressed that topic at all, mainly because I was blocked from the discussion of it. Duh. What I've discussed here is the fairness of the procedure. The banning of someone after denying him the ability to defend himself. The evaluation of 2.5 years of editing in 1 day of an ANI discussion. The evaluation of an editor based entirely on a search for negatives with no equal effort to weight the positives. The banning of an editor based on multiple errors of fact (I have no suspected sockpuppets and I have never been sanctioned by ArbCom). The neutrality of the admin who taunts the editor he is banning in the edit summary. Etcetera. Noloop (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)