Revision as of 01:40, 27 March 2012 editIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits →FYI on Eisenman and Tabor as authors: last warning← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:35, 27 March 2012 edit undoJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →FYI on Eisenman and Tabor as authors: questions for Dr Tabor, links to some pages that might possibly be of use to himNext edit → | ||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
:I'm not sure how to respond to the above flawed allegations which state that a single book by an individual is somehow directly equivalent to one's "life work". Also, regarding your own work and topics related to you directly, I think it is probably in your own best interests to read ], which seems to me to be directly relevant. The question above seems to be about whether your book meets ] standards. You might want to read that page as well. ] (]) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC) | :I'm not sure how to respond to the above flawed allegations which state that a single book by an individual is somehow directly equivalent to one's "life work". Also, regarding your own work and topics related to you directly, I think it is probably in your own best interests to read ], which seems to me to be directly relevant. The question above seems to be about whether your book meets ] standards. You might want to read that page as well. ] (]) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
::Stop ]ing me. This is your last warning. Next time I will leave a third user conduct warning on your talk page. ] (]) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) | ::Stop ]ing me. This is your last warning. Next time I will leave a third user conduct warning on your talk page. ] (]) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::The above comment clearly fails to assume good faith as per ]. Also, I note in my comment I informed this comparatively new editor of some policies and guidelines which are, I believe, perhaps directly relevant to the input he might make. The above comment not only fails to assume good faith, but goes further in actively assuming motivations which are not supported by the evidence, and making unwarranted and unsubstantiated misrepresentations of the conduct of others. But, really, no surprise there. | |||
:::Dr. Tabor, returning to your own comments, I believe it would be very useful if you responded to the following questions, possibly on the ] page, as they would help us determine whether your work meets ] and/or ] status, which would assist us in determining how much space, or weight, to give your claims, and where. | |||
:::1) Please indicate, exactly, what objective evidence you have to support your assertions regarding James and your views regarding him. So far as I can tell, the only real objective evidence you have presented is the James ossuary and the Talpiot tomb. | |||
:::2) I have checked the NewsBank, JSTOR, ProQuest and EBSCOHost databanks for reviews of your book in academic journals, because such reviews are an indicator in determining RS/FT status. I have found very few such reviews in academic journals. In fact, I do not even see any clear evidence that the book was submitted to such journals for academic review. Considering that your book seems, at least to me, to be making new and original assertions regarding the James ossuary and the Talpiot tomb as reliable sources on this matter, or, at least, being among the few sources which give such material substantial credibility. It would be very useful if you could provide evidence of reviews in academic journals which support the statements you make in the book. Also, as I believe it is rather standard for academics to submit their works to academic journals, or comments of other academics relating to your book which are included in academic journals, or in books or other sources which have received academic peer review, it would be very useful to know why you chose not to in this case, if, so far as I can see, it was not so submitted. | |||
:::3) If you believe that the quote from the newspaper which I included in your talk page is either inaccurate or if it does not meet RS standards as per ]. | |||
:::We are always very happy to welcome experts and professionals to wikipedia, sir. Despite the circumstances which seem to have brought you here, I do hope that you find your time here pleasurable. I note that the ] is one which has a broad scope, and a number of extant and possible articles, but could use some knowledgeable editors. Other projects, which can be found at the ], would welcome knowledgeable input as well. At least recently, my own personal involvement has been primarily in the religion content, particularly including content which relates to Christianity, primarily because that is the biggest single religious tradition out there, and, thus, has the most articles. It also seems, for whatever reason, to draw more fringe POV pushing of all kinds, and other dubious edits, as well. If you were to wish to involve yourself in that particular content, as the editor who was (somehow) elected lead coordinator of the ] in the one election to date we've had, I guess I can offer a kind of "official" invitation to contribute to that content as well. ] (]) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:35, 27 March 2012
Welcome
Hello, Jdtabor, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions.
I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Misplaced Pages, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Misplaced Pages generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
If you are Professor James Tabor, you need to identify yourself to the Foundation
Because we have problems with impersonation, I am going to have to ask you to identify yourself to the Foundation. You can do this by sending an e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org; be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and an immediate reply may not be possible. Normally you would be blocked until you did this, but in this case I am simply asking you not to edit until you have been confirmed as actually being who you say you are. The edits you have made so far are non-contentious but more substantial edits to anything related to you should be suggested at the article's talk page as mentioned above. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, your email to me should suffice as I'm an OTRS volunteer. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- This user has sent verification to the OTRS team. Doug, if you'd like to see the ticket, it's Ticket:2012032510007329. I've put a note on Jdtabor's userpage. Jdtabor, thanks for going to the trouble to do this! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Dr Tabor. As a new editor to Misplaced Pages, you might want to be aware of this article talk page post criticizing your religious beliefs as biasing your academic work. Since this post was made by an administrator, it's probably fair to ask if it is an accurate reflection of official Wiki policy. Btw, you have every right to remove information from the article about you if you know it is factually inaccurate per WP:BLP. You also don't need to have your articles previewed by an admin or another editor. That is a bunch of crap. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Ignocrates (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. Glad to join you and as I figure out some of the complexities of posting and interacting maybe I can be of some help, not only on my own entries, but others as well in the field of Christian Origins. I am one of the few academics who supports Misplaced Pages with my students. Most of my colleagues forbid its use, probably while using it constantly themselves. I am both a donor and a supporter as I think it is one of the greatest ideas on the planet for the dissemination of knowledge. I am a bit surprised to read a quote from a popular newspaper account in 2008 put forth as support for "Religious bias" on my part. I assume by "the book" the writer is talking about my 2006 book, The Jesus Dynasty. I can't imagine what religious convictions I am supposed to hold that would cause me to argue a very historical view of Jesus and early Christianity, much like Bart Ehrman, Dominik Crossan and all the leading historical Jesus scholars in our field who don't deal literally with "mythology" and theology as if it is history--virgin birth stories, resurrection from the dead and bodily ascent to heaven, etc. But since the comment was all over the place, based on that newspaper quotation, it is hard for me to know what your editor was thinking. My own view, as I tried to reflect in editing my own page James Tabor today, was to stick with information, add books published, solid links, and so forth, no so much to get into the vicissitudes of various theological views, passionately held by many when it comes to Jesus, so much as to lead readers to check out the sources. James D. Tabor 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In response to your feedback
Hi and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please read WP:AUTO. I'm glad your first impressions are positive.... it is a great effort indeed.
Ariconte (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk page hints
It is always good to 'sign' your text with four tildes, see Misplaced Pages:Signatures. The computer will substitute your user name and the time.
Please indent your replies to increase readability - to do this precede each paragraph with the number of colons (:) appropriate to the level of indentation. See Misplaced Pages:Indentation and the overall talk page guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines.
Regards, Ariconte (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
FYI on Eisenman and Tabor as authors
You may want to check this out Talk:Ebionites#Eisenman_and_Tabor. I'm not sure how I would respond to seeing my life's work being described as WP:Fringe scholarship. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to respond to the above flawed allegations which state that a single book by an individual is somehow directly equivalent to one's "life work". Also, regarding your own work and topics related to you directly, I think it is probably in your own best interests to read WP:COI, which seems to me to be directly relevant. The question above seems to be about whether your book meets WP:RS standards. You might want to read that page as well. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Stop WP:Stalking me. This is your last warning. Next time I will leave a third user conduct warning on your talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- The above comment clearly fails to assume good faith as per WP:AGF. Also, I note in my comment I informed this comparatively new editor of some policies and guidelines which are, I believe, perhaps directly relevant to the input he might make. The above comment not only fails to assume good faith, but goes further in actively assuming motivations which are not supported by the evidence, and making unwarranted and unsubstantiated misrepresentations of the conduct of others. But, really, no surprise there.
- Dr. Tabor, returning to your own comments, I believe it would be very useful if you responded to the following questions, possibly on the Talk:The Jesus Dynasty page, as they would help us determine whether your work meets W:RS and/or WP:FT status, which would assist us in determining how much space, or weight, to give your claims, and where.
- 1) Please indicate, exactly, what objective evidence you have to support your assertions regarding James and your views regarding him. So far as I can tell, the only real objective evidence you have presented is the James ossuary and the Talpiot tomb.
- 2) I have checked the NewsBank, JSTOR, ProQuest and EBSCOHost databanks for reviews of your book in academic journals, because such reviews are an indicator in determining RS/FT status. I have found very few such reviews in academic journals. In fact, I do not even see any clear evidence that the book was submitted to such journals for academic review. Considering that your book seems, at least to me, to be making new and original assertions regarding the James ossuary and the Talpiot tomb as reliable sources on this matter, or, at least, being among the few sources which give such material substantial credibility. It would be very useful if you could provide evidence of reviews in academic journals which support the statements you make in the book. Also, as I believe it is rather standard for academics to submit their works to academic journals, or comments of other academics relating to your book which are included in academic journals, or in books or other sources which have received academic peer review, it would be very useful to know why you chose not to in this case, if, so far as I can see, it was not so submitted.
- 3) If you believe that the quote from the newspaper which I included in your talk page is either inaccurate or if it does not meet RS standards as per ].
- We are always very happy to welcome experts and professionals to wikipedia, sir. Despite the circumstances which seem to have brought you here, I do hope that you find your time here pleasurable. I note that the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Archaeology is one which has a broad scope, and a number of extant and possible articles, but could use some knowledgeable editors. Other projects, which can be found at the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Directory, would welcome knowledgeable input as well. At least recently, my own personal involvement has been primarily in the religion content, particularly including content which relates to Christianity, primarily because that is the biggest single religious tradition out there, and, thus, has the most articles. It also seems, for whatever reason, to draw more fringe POV pushing of all kinds, and other dubious edits, as well. If you were to wish to involve yourself in that particular content, as the editor who was (somehow) elected lead coordinator of the Christianity WikiProjects in the one election to date we've had, I guess I can offer a kind of "official" invitation to contribute to that content as well. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Stop WP:Stalking me. This is your last warning. Next time I will leave a third user conduct warning on your talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)