Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 17 January 2021

Template:Locked global account

This user is banned from editing the English Misplaced Pages because CheckUser evidence confirms that they have repeatedly abused multiple accounts. Administrators, please review the banning policy and consult with a CheckUser before unblocking. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

See also: Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/BMX On WheeIs

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats are Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Details of Twitter's ban of Trump

Jimbo, I agree with Twitter's detailed reasoning in their blog at https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html. Do you and why or why not? BillRogers2021 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that things were as bad as this at Twitter. Twitter management's action and propaganda-like interpretations at that link are what one would expect in a dictatorship. For reference, according to Twitter management, here are the tweets that were the reason for permanently suspending Trump's account.

“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Pardon me for being suspicious, but this makes Twitter management look so bad that I wonder if you are a Trump supporter rather than a supporter of Twitter management. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Right—I can't think of a more frightening threat to American democracy in the past week than Twitter's terms-of-use enforcement. Your sense of perspective and moral clarity are always refreshing. Just like when you advocated that Misplaced Pages should be more welcoming toward neo-Nazi editors. MastCell  05:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Fallacy of relative privation. PackMecEng (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Funny thing about Twitter is that it is a property owned by someone, & anyone who uses it does so solely by the owner's permission. While Twitter has a Terms of Service -- like Misplaced Pages -- the company can still forbid access to their website to anyone for any reason they want -- much as you can tell anyone on your property to leave for any reason you want. (That's a wonderful thing about capitalism & owning stuff.) So the people at Twitter can terminate anyone's access for any reason at any time; however, because they want to encourage people to use Twitter, they avoid doing so arbitrarily. Nevertheless, they can. And users of Twitter can be kicked off at any time just people who edit Misplaced Pages can be banned at any time, even for reasons you & I think stink. It just looks bad to do this arbitrarily, so they don't do this unless there is a good reason -- such as a user makes himself infamous. Association with infamous people could harm Twitter's reputation, so it is understandable they terminate Trump's account: a lot of people think he is a crook & a racist, & people don't like associating with people who have that reputation, nor with companies that do business with them. The bottom line always wins out. -- llywrch (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The bottom line always wins out. Uh, huh. Without even looking, I can tell you that this has hurt Twitter's 'bottom line'. With looking, I can tell you their stocks have tumbled by 10%.1 He had ~88 million followers. The 'good business' argument here has no grounding. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A one day, or one month, or one year movement in a share price is zero evidence of whether this is "good business" or not. The question is will the fundamentals of the company be improved by this move. Longer term I guess that having a more ethical business model - including banning rightwing hate speech - is likely to be better for business. Years back the UK made a big effort to ban soccer hooligans. These devoted supporters of their clubs brought in lots of revenue, but banning them was good for business as it returned soccer to being something whole families would watch and enjoy. As for the 88 million followers... don't fall into the trap of assuming they are Trump supporters. Many of them follow to troll him, or laugh at him and many will remain on Twitter to troll Biden. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In one sense, I obviously support and agree with the sentiment behind it. Twitter does a terrible job of enforcing their terms of service, and is a hotbed for conspiracy theory thinking and falsehoods of all kinds, and Trump has definitely had a terrible impact.

At the same time, I do wonder/fear if this ban (and similar things like Amazon AWS kicking off parler) will simply entrench people who are in a "Q" state of mind, turn Trump into some kind of martyr, and ultimately do as much harm s good.

I definitely agree with LLywrch that it's a good thing that a private organization can set standards and enforce them, even if arbitrarily at times. My own view is that twitter's moderation model (anonymous staff moderation coupled with no real power for community norms to develop in a healthy way and be enforced) inherently doesn't scale. I hope to see more competitors arise who are looking for ways to create a platform which both serves as a platform for discussion and debate that the public finds fun and interesting, while at the same time not serving as a platform for radicalization and division. It's a hard problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue raised by the OP was whether or not the two tweets of Trump were justification for Twitter management's permanent suspension of Trump's account as they claimed. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I think that's really up to them, not me. I think twitter has had a very complicated relationship with Trump for a very long time. He's surely made them tons and tons and tons of money. And yet, his behavior has often been terrible. Twitter struggles with a bad reputation as a vector for misinformation / disinformation and he's very problematic in that regard.

If I were advising twitter years ago, they should have kicked him off years ago. But I think their business model thrives on controversy, being in the news every single day, etc. I can understand that it's hard for them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Twitter gave Trump free rein when it suited their growth objectives. Now that Trump is leaving, and can't use government power to retaliate, it's expedient for Twitter to ban him. I'm sure advertisers have told Twitter that they don't want to underwrite violent sedition. I disagree that there's a risk in making Trump a martyr. He and other culpable parties should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to demonstrate that this is not acceptable. In addition, Parler should be exposed as the Russian psyop that it appears to be. Jehochman 14:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The GOP's political agenda since about 2010 is the political analogue of a Ponzi-scheme. A political movement that's viable on the long term has to address real world issues based on facts. The public can and is often misled by lies and half-truths, but this only works as long as the main political; agenda is still solidly based on facts. Telling lies is then similar to borrowing money that you can spend to invest in your company. It only works as long as you'll generate enough revenue to pay off the debt.

The GOP has had no viable political agenda since 2010, they needed to make more and more propaganda to sell their talking points, which then could not be covered in the mainstream media, except FOX NEWS. But even FOX NEWS had more and more problems with being the GOP's media outlet. Social media was never meant to be a media outlet for political parties, it was only because the GOP couldn't get it lies published as easily elsewhere that it ended up becoming the main pillar of the GOP's media operations. But as with any Ponzi-scheme, what then happened is that more and more lies needed to be published and the nature of the lies also become more and more extreme. It was then inevitable that a conflict would arise with the GOP and the social media platforms. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

From the responses so far, editors haven't mentioned how there was anything wrong with the two Trump tweets that would justify permanent suspension.

On another point, I've been unable to find the full video of Trump's Capitol speech on the day of the riots. I sometimes like to check the context of excerpts that the news media take to see whether their excerpt is misleading. For example, in remarks Trump addressed to seniors months ago about Covid, there was an excerpt in the BBC TV news where he said that they weren't vulnerable and the BBC went on to discuss this and how Trump was wrong. I looked at the full video and the BBC had cut out the part that immediately followed where he added: but for Covid-19 you are. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I found what appears to be the full video of Trump's Capitol speech . The Washington Post published it Jan 11, the day of my previous message. Also, I listened to some of the House impeachment debate, which seems like a good source for both sides of the issue. One of the representatives referred to a part of Trump's speech at 16:22 in the video where Trump said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." Bob K31416 (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Jack Dorsey's statement: "I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all." Count Iblis (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Count Iblis, still waiting for his statement on Iran and China. Sir Joseph 03:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

All users are subject to the same rules, heads of sates have a special status where the rules are less strict. Khamenei's posting on COVID vaccines was removed, and if he were to start behaving like Trump, he would be banned as well. But if he sticks to the rules, he can continue to post on Twitter. This proves that Twitter has no political bias. The same is true for the other platforms. E.g. on YouTube North Korean propaganda channels are allowed as long as they stick to the rules, like this one Publishers from China, North Korea, Iran etc. are used to having to stick to strict rules, and they will end up not getting banned while Western publishers are more likely to rail against the rules, they have more of sense of entitlement to violate rules they don't agree with. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's speech in the right context. Count Iblis (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

One needs to be careful about excerpts from speeches, interviews or reports that can be used by sources in a misleading way. Regarding the potential for manipulating excerpts, years ago when the movie Brokeback Mountain came out, there were parody trailers which took excerpts from another movie to make it seem like something it wasn't . Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Male vs Female number of editors petition

Much admired Jimbo, I am reaching to you because, although I love wikipedia, I feel there are too many male editors, who often are prejudiced against women and therefore also edit articles with prejudice. I would like to ask you please to equalise the number of female and male editors to reflect the world we live in.

I have felt their prejudice in my editing of Mary Magdalene. Prejudice has been used to justify a sexist sentence in the article. I have been deleted and threatened. I know you will recommend that I go to the Misplaced Pages:dispute resolution but my trust has been eroded and I suspect the people in charge of resolving the dispute will also be men. When it comes to the undertones of a text accused of being biased against women, I can only accept a resolution from women. Men can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against women, the same way white folk can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against other races, etc…

The article says "Ehrman and Schaberg consider it highly improbable that the historical Jesus ever advocated complete equality between the sexes, considering that one of the best-attested facts of his life is that all twelve of his chosen apostles were male”

- We know Jesus never excluded women. Quite the opposite. The 12 were probably men because at the beginning he only had male followers (women were most likely stuck at home with babies, cleaning, cooking and serving others). Later, we know Jesus named women amongst his main followers: Mary Magdalene, Susanna, Joanna… These women happened to be wealthy which could explain their availability to follow Jesus and even support him financially.

- In this website we have many articles that show how often women have been ignored or simply written out of history (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_scientists). Considering how the church has treated Mary Magdalene until recently, i really doubt the men who wrote the gospels also went out of their way to ask the women who followed Jesus whether he had also asked them to be their apostles...I can imagine Jesus often talking to the group of men separate to the women, simply because the women would have felt threatened by the men (Gospel of Mary, chapter 9). So we will never know what Jesus told the women who followed him. We do know however that Pope Francis (and the Vatican is not known for their equality), called Mary Magdalene the Apostle to the Apostles in 2016.

- By including these scholars opinion, Misplaced Pages seems to agree with the fact that because the 12 were male, OBVIOUSLY women were purposely excluded by Jesus. Girls are reading this. They may think that if an organisation is only men, it specifically excludes them. We know this is not true. It may be because no women applied or were available. It may stop girls from trying to become part of it thus creating a vicious circle and causing their own self-fulfilling prophecy. It is important they consider other most likely scenarios such as women not having been available before, or their input simply ignored by those writing history.

- Those references may quote scholars but not all scholars opinions should be used in Misplaced Pages, specially if they use discriminatory undertones when talking about such an important woman as Mary Madgalene.

Again, please, in order to keep Misplaced Pages fair and balance, I beg you that you balance the number of male and female editors and have a team of women monitor those articles that talk specifically about women. Sofiairiondo (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a volunteer-created encyclopedia, and Wikipedians consist of people who volunteer. There are no quotas, preferred sex, or anything resembling authorized balance. You sign up, you edit, and all are respected and treated, hopefully, with civility. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Randy, I have not been treated with respect or civility, thus my post above. Do not try to deny my experience. What do you propose we do to reduce the gender bias? Sofiairiondo (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As Misplaced Pages is a VOLUNTEER activity, your notion is completely untenable. It's also likely illegal in the country Misplaced Pages is incorporated in. Sorry if you feel undervalued, but when one isn't happy with an activity they participate in voluntarily, the usual response is simply to leave. And I'm sure your departure would have less effect on Misplaced Pages than the number of editors that would leave if they were told their edits had to be reviewed prior to publishing. Never mind the ridiculous sexist assumptions you've made. 174.254.193.246 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Treating other editors with civility and a concept of accepting them as acting in good faith are central guidelines of Misplaced Pages. If you've come upon editors who don't do that (case in point, the IP above) a reminder and link to those points can be used but, remember, treat them with the same courtesy (or at least keep it in mind). Would be nice to have more women and men editing, and an advertising outreach to colleges, scientific organizations, elderly communities, and the hundreds of other places where potential editors roam can be further utilized, with celebrity editors (rock stars, nobel prize winners, science fair celebrities, gaming superstars, athletes, princesses and princes, etc.) endorsing the idea of editing Misplaced Pages by showing how easy it is. Just a couple ideas. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Sofiairiondo, We know that we don't have a diverse enough editor base, and are working to attract a more diverse group of volunteers. Our volunteers are also working to give better coverage to disadvantaged groups, see for example Women In Red, which has increased our coverage of women significantly since it began.

For better or worse, we reflect the biases of society at many times. If you think a quality source is biased, the answer is rarely to remove it, but instead to add another source that balances it out. Looking at this issue in particular, I see you were trying to make this edit. In my opinion, that sentence is already fairly neutral. It doesn't say it in Misplaced Pages's voice, and instead attributes the quote to the authors. And the very next sentence notes that Jesus' ministry brought greater liberation to women.

The best solution here is not removal, but instead additional research. Try to find a scholarly source that disagrees directly with Ehrman and Schaberg. Or that disagrees on the principle. Then you can include it and provide a counterpoint to theirs. But we do not often wholesale remove information from reliable academic sources. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not a sufficient expert in this area to immediately know the right answer. If Ehrman and Shaberg are eminent scholars whose opinion carries significant weight in scholarly circles, it would be wrong to simply exclude them from this article. If they are anti-feminist activists posting in random blogs and publishing populist tracts, then they probably aren't relevant for this article.

If there is a legitimate scholarly question here (again, I know too little to even guess) then there will surely be valid references to give the reader the full context of the debate. (Remember, Misplaced Pages doesn't take sides on controversial issues, but attempts to present readers with the full understanding of the state of the debate.)

I would suggest to you that finding like-minded high quality editors can be done in various places here: the Women in Red group is great in my experience.

The last thing that I would say is that the very complex questions around Women in Christianity - including historical questions of how women were treated during the earliest Christian times and throughout the history of various Christian churches - surely means that our articles are not likely to show any very simple one-dimension conclusion. What we have to do is grapple with it all, fairly, and with a spirit of inquisitiveness and kindness towards each other.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Jimbo Sofiairiondo (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sofiairiondo You don't know me, but apparently we have a mutual acquaintance in Gråbergs Gråa Sång who sent me this link in hopes I would chime in because I am a female user who was harassed until I felt I had no option but to leave WP for almost two years. He knows I sympathize and even empathize with your struggle here, and since you requested female input, here goes.

In the two years I was gone from WP, my harasser was banned from WP for his behavior. I learned a lot from that. I learned that the wheels of justice on WP turn slowly but they do turn. If you have a problem with an editor, document and report it, even if it goes to a male arbiter, and even if it doesn't go your way at first. I believe truth will out eventually. Have some faith in your fellow man and their desire to do the right thing.

I use that phrase fellow man advisedly. This: Men can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against women, the same way white folk can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against other races, etc… is a bias of its own. One misogynist pig does not a universe make. Most human beings, including men, are decent and try hard to be as moral as they can, and that includes being fair to others. The fact men might not be able to imagine what it is to be female doesn't equate with automatically being unjust. This statement of yours is unjust to most men, is not supported by any real facts, and is an attitude that can never do you or those around you any real good.

Your example of a sexist statement - and it is a sexist statement - The article says "Ehrman and Schaberg consider it highly improbable that the historical Jesus ever advocated complete equality between the sexes, considering that one of the best-attested facts of his life is that all twelve of his chosen apostles were male” must be included in the article. CaptainEek is absolutely correct in his response. It's on you to do the work necessary to find alternate views. I can personally guarantee they are out there, because religion is my field of study and my avocation on WP. There are references that discuss Ehrman and Schaberg's view. This one discusses Ehrman, while this next one discusses Schaberg. . I believe you will find theirs is not a majority view.

It is a fact that, for 200 years, biblical criticism was dominated by white male Protestants, and we also know now that, since everyone has biases, their white, male, Protestantism impacted their interpretations. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza says, "Christian male theologians have formulated theological concepts in terms of their own cultural experience...". Your sentence is a good example of that. Leaving out the women who were also disciples in Jesus' group of followers who were also personally taught by him, reflects a bias. Therefore, demonstrate that in the wiki-way: Present all the information from reliable sources, giving each view its due weight as the sources present them. Here are some places to start: ]; and ; and

Find those references that say something entirely different from Ehrman and Schaberg. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion The Power of the Hysterical Woman is a book by Margaret MacDonald that uses anthropology and sociology to document pagan reaction to the importance of Mary Magdalene and other women in early Christianity. MacDonald analyzes how female initiative in early Christianity frightened the stew out of Rome to such a degree that it is probably what produced a lot of the early violence towards Christians!

Origen responded to the Roman critic Celsus' complaints about Christian women by saying that Jesus and his followers were supported by women, including Magdalene, but critics denounced Jesus for it, and insinuated these men took more than money from the women. Of course that's what they accused them of! This is called enemy attestation, and it is especially useful in demonstrating the importance of Mary Magdalene and women because it comes from an enemy. It proves Mary Magdalene had a central enough role in early Christianity that even opponents two hundred years later were trying to discredit her.

MacDonald does a good job of arguing that Celsus' misogyny reflects a "second century controversy over the importance of Mary Magdalene in Jesus' circle and the implication that importance had for the leadership of women. Several apocryphal and gnostic texts provide evidence of this controversy". The challenge portrayed in the Gospel of Mary "has been evaluated as an indication of tensions between 'the existing fact of women's leadership in Christian communities, and traditional Greco-Roman views about gender roles".(page 106)

Jimbo Wales is spot on. our articles are not likely to show any very simple one-dimension conclusion. What we have to do is grapple with it all, fairly, and with a spirit of inquisitiveness and kindness towards each other. That's the best statement I've heard in a while, and I don't think I can improve on it!

I, a woman, who has also experienced harassment, attest to the wisdom of Jimbo's response, and to the good-heartedness and fair-mindedness of the majority of the men here. I assert as a fellow woman, that we don't need special favors, we don't even need other women to get fairness, because we wikipedians are all committed to that concept by the very nature of the work we do here. Fight for what wiki stands for by doing it, fight for the NPOV. In the end, it really is the best approach, and it doesn't matter if it is undertaken by men or women. Don't run, don't whine, work; that's how we counter bias here. I wish you all the best.

References

1. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler (2014). "Between Movement and Academy: Feminist Biblical Studies in the Twentieth Century". In Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler (ed.). Feminist Biblical Studies in the Twentieth Century: Scholarship and Movement. Society of Biblical Literature. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-58983-583-2.
2. Bloesch, Donald G. (2001). Is the Bible Sexist? Beyond Feminism and Patriarchalism. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock. ISBN 978-1-57910-691-1.
3. Witherington III, Ben (1984). Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' attitudes to women and their roles as reflected in his earthly life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-34781-5.
4. MacDonald, Margaret Y. (1996). Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion The Power of the Hysterical Woman. Cambridge University Press. pp. 103–106. ISBN 9780521567282.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jen, Many thanks for all the information. Really useful.

Firstly, unlike you I am not an expert. AT ALL. I just know that, when I read that sentence, it shocked me as it is obviously prejudiced. I tried to edit it various ways, and i think it could say:

”Ehrman and Schaberg consider it highly improbable that the historical Jesus ever advocated complete equality between the sexes, because he named twelve men to be his apostles, which in their opinion means women were specifically excluded. However, this would mean gentiles or members of other nationalities were also specifically excluded. Moreover, it would mean that Jesus chose Judas Iscariot to be one of the original Twelve, presumably knowing that Judas would later betray him John 6:64, 70-71. Since Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve, this makes the argument untenable that Jesus intended the Twelve to be some sort of precedent or paradigm for church leadership."

But I was deleted and threatened. I never questioned that Jesus named twelve male apostles, but the obvious sexist assumption by the scholars that he did not name twelve or twenty or fifty female ones. Or twenty or fifty Gentiles in Tyre and Sidon. And were they really the paradigm of leadership when one, Judas, betrayed him for money and another one, Peter, denied him three times before the rooster crowed…? How do we know the men writing the gospels did not simply ignore the women Jesus may have also given instructions to? We know how many of them felt about women (Gospel of Mary, chapter 9). We have many reasons, as you mention, based on experience (god forbid i make this up) to believe many men (not all of course) have ignored, deleted and even stolen women's input from history.

I am afraid, denouncing the injustice committed to women by those with power who have been, throughout history, overwhelmingly men, is not being unjust to men, it is just stating a fact. "Men can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against women, the same way white folk can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against other races, etc…" is a fact. Read history, or ask your grandmothers, ask any minority races. Women can ALSO be unfair against other people, however, we have rarely been in power to do so. When that happens, I will denounce us women, don't worry. This article is much about Jesus. We humans, he said, are sinners, only by looking at our sins in the eye, accepting them and regretting them, can we all change. Can you please give me examples of men in history that have fought or given their lives to protect women and girls’ rights? Those of their sisters and daughters? And I am afraid, yes, women are needed in order to have a fair outcome when it comes to women's justice. It is not surprising that only in recent times, when women have been able to have a say (for many reasons including our own fight for the vote, the fact that we are not burden with childcare or farming work, our going to Uni and studying hard, the list is long), have women rights and justice improve, even though they still have a LONG way to go.

It is all very good to congratulate Jimbo for his suggestion that we act kindly. The question we have to ask ourselves is what it is to act kindly. Being kind is NOT being polite. Do you remember Jesus? Do you remember him getting really p-ed off and knocking the merchants' tables at the temple? Do you remember him shouting at the pharisees calling them hypocrites and white-washed tombs (Matt 23)? Kindness involves, above all, the denouncement of injustice, protecting the vulnerable, at the risk of being killed on a cross. If you know so much about this subject, why did you not edit it? Where are the female editors? Where are the female experts? I know we are often bullied but then, can I say this without being accused of sexism???

Finally, As you say, I do not run. I am trying to denounce injustice the best way I can think of. As you seem to know so much can I please beg you to keep an eye on articles that refer to women. Could I also ask you to contact these female scholars you know so much about and ask them to edit articles on the subjects they are experts on please? All the very best. Sofiairiondo (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sofiairiondo I must say, this is an interesting response. As someone 'who knows so much' I can tell you there is more than one error here. Your rewrite of the sentence from E and S contains two, and so I can safely assume it represents original work, and is not a researched and supported scholarship. I know of no scholar who would argue the gospels don't give the impression Jesus chose Judas Iscariot intentionally and knowingly. I know of no scholar who would argue that one can assume the women among them were treated unjustly because the men weren't perfect paradigms of virtue. I would have contacted you on the talk page and asked you to revert yourself, because I have a personal policy of not reverting others, but I would not have let this stand as it is. All of this smacks of OR. That is no doubt why you got reverted.

How do we know the men writing the gospels did not simply ignore the women Jesus may have also given instructions to? Well, the obvious answer is because the only reason we know about these women is because the men that wrote the gospels included them. There are no other sources.

One of the important things to learn on WP is to be careful when interpreting what others have said. I am afraid, denouncing the injustice committed to women by those with power who have been, throughout history, overwhelmingly men, is not being unjust to men, it is just stating a fact. This claims something I didn't actually say. Has there been injustice in history? Absolutely. Does that prove those on WP have been unjust to you? No, it does not. If you were reverted for OR, then there was no injustice. The paragraph above indicates you responded to someone else's bias with your own biased OR, thereby countering injustice with injustice and bad scholarship and a violation of policy. There is no higher ground for you to claim there, and no evidence of injustice toward you specifically. I'm afraid history doesn't qualify as evidence.

"Men can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against women, the same way white folk can rarely give a balance opinion of injustice committed against other races, etc…" is a fact. No, it isn't. There would need to be some actual data, a study of some kind, that demonstrated this as a dependable fact for the majority, and not simply personal perception based on partial information, and my grandmother not withstanding, there isn't. One person's personal experience does not prove anything about the breadth of experiences across society. That's why personal experience is called 'anecdotal'.

If this were in any way an established fact, our entire society would lobby for law that would ensure no female was ever judged by a male and so on. But the truth is, men can and do give fair and balanced opinions involving women - on a regular basis - and still that does not prove there have not also been abuses of power in history. The two do not equate or counter each other; they coexist.

It is all very good to congratulate Jimbo for his suggestion that we act kindly. First, that isn't primarily what I agreed with him on. It was the rest of his statement that was a brilliant summation on how to approach controversial topics on WP - that part overlooked in this response. Your theology is a bit confused, and you have an interesting definition of kindness, but I don't completely disagree. Kindness is being considerate of others, which certainly does include good manners, but may also include preventing or fighting injustice, sure. Following his advice can only benefit you. If you know so much about this subject, why did you not edit it? Where are the female editors? Where are the female experts? is a good example of a failure of kindness that perpetrates an injustice of its own. I personally have never seen the article you refer to. I tend to edit articles that are heavily tagged, but someone who knows me - or I myself - have to actually run across the article for me to descend upon it with my red pen in hand. All of us female editors are out there working, but I doubt any of them limit themselves to articles about women. I don't, and I would think it an injustice to be expected to do so by any man, woman or child.

Denounce injustice all you please, just don't do it by posting original research on WP. And the Women in Red don't need me to tell them what to do. They do a fine job already. I think I have now said all I have to offer that might help you, and won't be writing more. I wish you the best of luck in the future. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

As a mob attacked the Capitol, Misplaced Pages struggled to find the right words

Interesting read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

One more: Misplaced Pages is twenty. It’s time to start covering it better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post is saying that it "might be the safest place online". Axios has an article. CNET is saying that we need more than ever. Another article by CNET also says that Misplaced Pages is "an unlikely beacon of reliability". Seems like other outlets followed the trend. Thanoscar21_{contributions} 16:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Heard you on Radio 4 this morning, and just wanted to say thank you and everyone else for creating this site. I wouldn't be doing anywhere near as much good in my spare time if it didn't exist, and I'm sure the same can be said for quite a few of the, what is it now, over 40 million users? Misplaced Pages will forever be immortalised as the first, real, proper attempt at free information anyone can access.

Again, thank you.

Seemplez 09:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. Editing Misplaced Pages is a thankless task—as is a good editing philosophy, no-one else is going to do it so we have to do it ourselves. Thank you, Jimmy, for all your work in creating this site, maintaining it and spreading awareness; thanks to everyone reading this for helping make the world a better place one piece of (reliably sourced) open access information at a time. — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 20

This is the new WikiPedia! Happy birthday! To celebrate 20 years of Misplaced Pages in this time in 20 years ago, I, award Jimbo Wales "The Founder Barnstar" as a co-founder of Misplaced Pages. Wishing this encyclopedia to a place for knowledge biggest than the universe. P.S. I hope there will be "The Federation of International Encyclopedia" in the near future. UuU! — I come form Thai Wiki 19:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Congratulations on 20 years and 1 billion edits 😃👏🎊 Linguist111 20:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A nice new donor

Hey Alabama, I thought you'd like reading this email I just got from a buddy: "I made my first donation to Misplaced Pages this afternoon. I thought you would enjoy hearing that.

I did some research on the internet this afternoon and their information was fantastic. I felt strongly

about making a contribution. I recall a few years ago that you were very big on the Misplaced Pages model.

Anyway, it is an excellent website and I certainly plan to make more contributions in the future.

Like they say, it is important for humanity to have the information they are able to present."

Itain'teasy2021 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sweet!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Always be happy.

Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages sockpuppeteers