Historicity of Jesus

Editors involved in this dispute
  1. IseeEwe (talk · contribs) – filing party
  2. Smeat75 (talk · contribs)
  3. Mmeijeri (talk · contribs)
  4. Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs)
  5. Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs)
  6. Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs)
  7. Wdford (talk · contribs)
  8. Blackthorne2k (talk · contribs)
  9. John Carter (talk · contribs)
  10. Wickorama (talk · contribs)
  11. Woerkilt (talk · contribs)
  12. Themoother (talk · contribs)
  13. Sparkveela (talk · contribs)
  14. Lyingforjebus (talk · contribs)
  15. Edit Centric (talk · contribs)
  16. Spirit469 (talk · contribs)
  17. Saddhiyama (talk · contribs)
  18. Martijn Meijering (talk · contribs)
  19. Rbreen (talk · contribs)
  20. Huon (talk · contribs)
  21. Ian.thomson (talk · contribs)
  22. Robin Lionheart (talk · contribs)
  23. HiLo48 (talk · contribs)
  24. FormerIP (talk · contribs)
Articles affected by this dispute
  1. Historicity of Jesus
Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)
  1. article tagged with disputed neutrality
  2. multiple ongoing disputes of POV
  3. multiple ongoing disputes of scope
  4. multiple ongoing disputes of validity of citations
  5. multiple ongoing disputes of competent authority
  6. multiple ongoing disputes of reliability of sources
  7. disputed claims of consensus


Additional issues (added by other parties)

Parties' agreement to mediation

  1. Agree. IseeEwe (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Refuse. Too many issues to mediate at once. Choose one specific issue associated with one WP policy (e.g. WP:SCOPE, WP:POV, WP:IRS, WP:V), and you might have a chance to gain some headway. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Undecided. More eyes on the filing user could result in correction sooner, but that correction would not be needed of he had paid any attention to the discussikns he cites yet was often not a part of. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Refuse. Bad-faith request. IseeEwe named me as a party but explicitly declares they will not engage with me. Also, IseeEwe currently is blocked for personal attacks and edit-warring, making mediation moot for the next two weeks. Huon (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree. This is a long-standing problem, which has involved many attempts by many people over time. Wdford (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree. Blackthorne2k (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Unsure. There are really issues here and there have been for a long time, but there are complicating factors, some of which have already been mentioned. First of all, conduct issues by the requester, who has quite rightly been blocked. Also, there may indeed be too many issues to handle at once. The same issues and any potential resolution also affect several closely related articles, namely Historical Jesus and Christ Myth Theory. There is even disagreement over whether Historicity of Jesus should be a separate page or whether it should be merged into the other two. Finally, a much broader set of pages is plagued by similar problems. The Jesus page was at least for a while patrolled by a cabal of religiously inspired editors who edit-warred and wikilawyered against anything they didn't like. One of them has since deleted his account and revealed himself to be a Christian apologist, who was therefore clearly acting in bad faith. The Jesus article is at least somewhat encyclopedic and respectable, but check out the article on Paul the Apostle, its talk page and recent edits to it, and you'll see direct interpretation of scripture and clear evidence of religious bias. At the same time many of these pages are constantly being raided by probable sockpuppets making outrageous demands to remove all statements by biblical scholars, who they often confuse with theologians. I think this is a much bigger problem than can be handled by a mediation procedure, but also one that deserves much more attention than it's getting. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Unsure as I think the request is probably at least somewhat premature and insufficient efforts to resolve concerns on the article talk page have necessarily taken place to necessitate such a step yet. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Category