On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:59 PM, S <owl(a)spaz.org> wrote:
I understand your concern. But your understanding of
what happened is not
accurate. The edits in question today - the object of the reverts - was
never dealt with in substance on talk. SLR's response today dealt with the
issue I raised yesterday, namely the issue of Yeshua as Jesus' actual
Hebrew name in life. This issue is certainly debatable, and I give
thoughtful consideration to everything SLR has to say on that subject. But
it was not the subject of the edits I made today.
The issue today had to do with how the lede paragraph dealt largely with
the concept of Jesus being an "incarnation of God". Not all Christians
agree with this, and in reality this needs qualification, as being a
Nicene Creed concept not a concept belonging to all of Christianity. I
simply clarified this issue. I also separated Islam from the lede to the
second paragraph. As Islam does not regard Jesus as the object of its
religion, it needs separate treatment.
SLR responded to neither of these issues, and gave no explanation for his
reverts. I don't know why? Did he just assume that I was re-adding the
material we were dealing with yesterday? Reverting without explanation - I
think this kind of action to be ninja behavior, not wikipedian behavior.
Stevertigo
This is an article that has had -- literally -- tens of thousands of
edits on it. It has 106 talk-page archives. On the talk-page, I count
a full browser-page of templates informing me of the controversial
nature of the article (one of which says "Discussions here have
repeatedly involved the same arguments and views. Please review the
archives").
And you suppose there's never been a thorough discussion of the
divinity of Jesus and his role in Islam?
If you choose to edit an article like that in that way, *you're going
to get reverted*. That's just how it is. If you want to make a
substantive change to the lede, you're going to have to battle it out
in the talk-page. You cannot expect people just to listen to your side
and be convinced. If you want to make such a change, you have to find
consensus among your fellow editors. Maybe work together to get a
compromise. Or maybe you'll find that the consensus disagrees with
you, and want to keep it the way it is. It's tough cookies, but then
you'll have to swallow the edits as they stand.
In my (admittedly cursory) overview of the situation, I don't see any
improper behaviour. I just see several people editing a high-profile
article, and the behaviour that is to be expected when that happens.
--Oskar