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
Oscar wrote:
Listen, I'm very sympathetic to your desire to be able to edit Wikipedia freely, but this isn't just any article. This is the article on *Jesus*. As in, half the world thinks he saved humanity. As in, probably one of the articles that get the most attention from the most committed users, who ruthlessly guards the article. Every single word, sentence and comma probably have fifteen different sources and have been hammered out to conform to some sort of consensus. You can't expect to go in and change the lede of an article like this without discussing it first. It's just not gonna happen!
I'm not familiar with the article in question, but from looking at the talk page, the issue you raised had indeed been discussed at length before (according to Slrubenstein, at least).
If you want to edit articles like [[Jesus]] (or [[George W. Bush]], or whatever controversial subject you can think of), you have to expect to be frequently reverted, especially if the issue has been dealt with previously. Every single edit that makes some substantive change should be discussed. Seriously, this is *Jesus* we're talking about, you can't just go in and expect your edits to be accepted. Hash it out on the talk-page, that's the right place for it, not the mailing-list.
--Oskar
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:59 PM, S owl@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
Even people with similar general understanding and the utmost good will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a creed, or a lede paragraph.
In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now, and many of the nastier of the debates have involved single words--in one case, a single letter. As this is what the intellectual and spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is no reason to expect anything other than that here, unless we are all too ignorant to know about the controversies or totally indifferent to the issues. The main advantage we have over the RW is that it is not possible to spill real blood over the internet.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:59 PM, S owl@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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:42 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Even people with similar general understanding and the utmost good will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a creed, or a lede paragraph.
In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now, and many of the nastier of the debates have involved single words--in one case, a single letter. As this is what the intellectual and spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is no reason to expect anything other than that here, unless we are all too ignorant to know about the controversies or totally indifferent to the issues. The main advantage we have over the RW is that it is not possible to spill real blood over the internet.
My point is that in the context of wikipedia, what the lede should say, the issue has been hammered out by megabytes of discussion and revision. It's not like you can walk in there and say "hey guys, you know, the article should really say so-and-so, so I'm just gonna fix it for ya!". There is a reason the articles says what it says. As I said, there's surely been battles about where to put every comma, and the version that is there now represents some form of consensus about how the article should start.
You can't go in and change that, and not expect to be reverted.
--Oskar
Sorry, are you Icelandic?
-- Alvaro
On 21-01-2009, at 20:02, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:42 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Even people with similar general understanding and the utmost good will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a creed, or a lede paragraph.
In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now, and many of the nastier of the debates have involved single words--in one case, a single letter. As this is what the intellectual and spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is no reason to expect anything other than that here, unless we are all too ignorant to know about the controversies or totally indifferent to the issues. The main advantage we have over the RW is that it is not possible to spill real blood over the internet.
My point is that in the context of wikipedia, what the lede should say, the issue has been hammered out by megabytes of discussion and revision. It's not like you can walk in there and say "hey guys, you know, the article should really say so-and-so, so I'm just gonna fix it for ya!". There is a reason the articles says what it says. As I said, there's surely been battles about where to put every comma, and the version that is there now represents some form of consensus about how the article should start.
You can't go in and change that, and not expect to be reverted.
--Oskar
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:42 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Even people with similar general understanding and the utmost good will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a creed, or a lede paragraph.
In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now, and many of the nastier of the debates have involved single words--in one case, a single letter. As this is what the intellectual and spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is no reason to expect anything other than that here, unless we are all too ignorant to know about the controversies or totally indifferent to the issues. The main advantage we have over the RW is that it is not possible to spill real blood over the internet.
My point is that in the context of wikipedia, what the lede should say, the issue has been hammered out by megabytes of discussion and revision. It's not like you can walk in there and say "hey guys, you know, the article should really say so-and-so, so I'm just gonna fix it for ya!". There is a reason the articles says what it says. As I said, there's surely been battles about where to put every comma, and the version that is there now represents some form of consensus about how the article should start.
You can't go in and change that, and not expect to be reverted.
--Oskar
Indeed. We have [[WP:BRD]] for that, and I don't see much evidence of D in this case.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Indeed. We have [[WP:BRD]] for that, and I don't see much evidence of D in this case.
And the "R" was a bit bitey too. Here's the first revert...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=265324214&oldid...
Done with native rollback with no edit summary. That's the same as calling the bold edit "vandalism". I'd be pissed too.
Oskar, I agree with you totally, and was trying to give some context for why what you said is the case generally with all discussions of controversial subjects, and of key religious concepts in particular.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:42 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Even people with similar general understanding and the utmost good will can have difficulty in trying to condense complex ides into a creed, or a lede paragraph.
In the Real World, the question of whether and in what sense Jesus is an incarnation of God has been debted for over 19 centuries now, and many of the nastier of the debates have involved single words--in one case, a single letter. As this is what the intellectual and spiritual leaders of mankind have done, there is no reason to expect anything other than that here, unless we are all too ignorant to know about the controversies or totally indifferent to the issues. The main advantage we have over the RW is that it is not possible to spill real blood over the internet.
My point is that in the context of wikipedia, what the lede should say, the issue has been hammered out by megabytes of discussion and revision. It's not like you can walk in there and say "hey guys, you know, the article should really say so-and-so, so I'm just gonna fix it for ya!". There is a reason the articles says what it says. As I said, there's surely been battles about where to put every comma, and the version that is there now represents some form of consensus about how the article should start.
You can't go in and change that, and not expect to be reverted.
--Oskar
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:23 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Oskar, I agree with you totally, and was trying to give some context for why what you said is the case generally with all discussions of controversial subjects, and of key religious concepts in particular.
Ahh, sorry, I see what you're saying :) I suppose I have a habit of misreading people.
--Oskar