This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndreJustAndre (talk | contribs) at 03:45, 18 March 2014 (→Re: Gospel of Matthew). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:45, 18 March 2014 by AndreJustAndre (talk | contribs) (→Re: Gospel of Matthew)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Archives
Workpages
Re: Gospel of Matthew
The discussion does seem to have died down. I noticed that the version in the article is missing the "Many scholars have held..." bit, even though it seemed like everyone in the mediation supported that line. I'm a little uncomfortable about closing the mediation on that note since it sort of looks like we are not giving those proceedings justice here. Andrevan@ 02:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Considering the intensity of opposition to doing anything at the beginning of mediation, I think it went extraordinarily well. Most of the involved editors don't really support the solution - they are indicating that by their silence - but these are veteran editors who realize there is a greater good being done here. I would take to heart Voltaire's famous quote that "perfect is the enemy of good" and leave it at that. In any case, I am off for a long break and I won't be checking my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I just read over Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, such a struggle over two sentences in an entire article. I'm glad that I don't edit in such contentious areas like early Christianity. It seemed like 1/3 of the way through, most editors agreed on a version, then the mediation went to hell (veered off-topic), then multiple versions were tweaked without any getting majority support. I hope you're enjoying your break. Liz 01:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think the tiny compromise we worked out was the best outcome that could be achieved under the circumstances. The mediator was very quick to pick up on the real problem, which is intractable. Ret.Prof needs to stay off this article, period. Otherwise, his deficiencies as an editor will continue to be used as straw-man reasons to maintain the status quo of suppressing the minority view that there was an original Aramaic or Hebrew document of some sort which became associated by tradition with Matthew the Evangelist. Believe me, there are days when I'm ready to file an arbitration case and pull this problem out by the roots. Then I quickly come to my senses and realize it's not worth the personal sacrifice that would require. See ya. Ignocrates (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please feel free to take a break. I am going to leave the mediation open and see if people return to it; Athenekos has left a proposal there and people can comment on it there. Many of the participants in this mediation were combative and troublesome, but naming names really isn't very productive, and Ret. Prof was certainly not the one who was most disruptive. Let's go forward to building consensus instead of trying to find the culprit. Andrevan@ 03:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)