Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-12/History of ancient Israel and Judah

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	History of ancient Israel and Judah
Status	Closed
Request date	04:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	RomanHistorian (talk) John J. Bulten (talk)
Parties involved	see list
Mediator(s)	Xavexgoem (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment	One editor banned by ArbCom.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Authors of the Bible. [1] History of ancient Israel and Judah and dependent articles, also including Gospel of John.

Who is involved?

• User:PiCo
• User:RomanHistorian (declined, accepted)
• User:Hardyplants (not interested but added by Dylan Flaherty)
• User:John J. Bulten

What is the dispute?

I have changed what I saw as a one-sided view using two good sources ([2] and [3]), and (mainly) PiCO and Dylan Flaherty keep reverting my changes. They are reverting it to a version that includes very few sources, and keep attacking my sources as "fringe" even though they have so few sources themselves. I have asked Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bible and I have one response so far, who says the sources are reliable. I keep telling these people I am open to compromise, and have changed my version of the page in several ways to make it more appealing to people who disagree, only to have my edits reverted back. At first, I deleted a large part of the article (mostly the uncited claims) and replaced it with what my sources reported on the matter. That was reverted, so I kept everything that was there before and just added my changes as a fourth column, only to have them reverted back also. These people are unwilling to compromise at all, and instead just keep telling me I am fringe and have extreme views. I obviously can't compromise with them. I also noticed that some people had commented earlier on the discussion page with similar complaints as I have now, only to have their complaints ignored and their changes reverted. I think I am doing everything in accordance with Wikipedia policy and am having my work undone simply because a few people think I am 'extreme'.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit surprised that RomanHistorian decided to close, I am boldly reusing the same page to request mediation on related articles, as my experience with PiCo and Dylan is similar. This is a list of content issues, and the last issue is to have agreement with these editors on how we and they should edit these topics in the future. JJB 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman's original issues now pertain to Gospel of John. JJB 19:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to change about this?

I think people are talking past each other, although I feel as though these people are unwilling to compromise and don't even see legitimacy in my position. (RomanHistorian)

Agreed, plus some contradictory language from these same two editors that suggests the obduracy is intentional. JJB 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Verify if the sources I am using are legitimate and the changes I made are legitimate in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. (RomanHistorian)

Verify if the sources say what I say they say and do not say what PiCo says they say, and provide general guidance. JJB 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediator notes

Please see the section Querying down below. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I will be refactoring from time to time to avoid that overwhelming feeling. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Extended content

I'm surprised that I wasn't notified of this case, but now that I stumbled upon it, I'm curious about what I can do to help. Please let me know. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC) I also wasn't informed - and I'm supposed to be one of the parties! Anyway, let's now proceed on the basis of faith in each other's good intentions. PiCo (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC) (Later note: Having checked out the plaintiff's sources, I'd say they're reliable - academics in good standing. But that's not enough in itself - we need to reflect mainstream scholarly opinion, and these sources aren't mainstream. That's the problem - they're academically respectable, but not mainstream. The question isn't one of reliability, but of due weight. PiCo (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC) PiCo, I'd say they're a reliable source for the fringe conservative Protestant view, but not of the mainstream view. As you said, we shouldn't be giving non-mainstream views undue weight. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) This makes no sense. They are reliable and yet fringe? Isn't that a contradiction?RomanHistorian (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Personally I wouldn't use the word "fringe". Well, I might in a moment of passion, but in my normal voice I'd call them non-mainstream. The problem, of course, is deciding what's mainstream. For that I'd go to tertiary books (bible encyclopedias, etc) from well-known academic sources. I'd accept things like the Mercer, Eerdmans, Oxford, Anchor. Others too - that's just four to start with. (By the way, Mercer is an evangelical bible college, quite conservative, so I'm not biased against the conservative point of view). PiCo (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Scope request The mediator should also determine whether this case should also include four additional articles listed below, and whether User:Dougweller and I should be added as parties. Background: on 21 Sep I noted a reasonable sourced edit by RomanHistorian to Joshua being undone by Dougweller, namely, reverted wholesale without regard to parts not objected to by Dougweller (i.e., the Islamic view). When I expanded on RomanHistorian's edit, PiCo stepped in with a number of poorly formatted sources copied from another article. Actual verifiability was even poorer. I read all these sources to determine if they actually said what PiCo claimed (even whole sections when cited to support a point that should have been specified by single page number), and found one of the poorest cases of verification failure I've ever seen, which I first documented point by point in the subsequent edit histories. Naturally in those edits I rephrased according to sources and thought I had achieved stability. At that article I was reverted by Doug twice, PiCo, and Dylan, but usually without separating the reverter's concerns from other reverted improvements, and usually without citation of real flaws in my language (some improvements were recommended by PiCo and enfolded). I also carried the source corrections to the other articles identified as having this crib text: Book of Joshua, History of Israel, and History of ancient Israel and Judah and faced similar uncritical and unsupported reverts. While I perceive this as ordinary editing process, PiCo apparently does not and is considering RFC. In short, my experience precisely follows RomanHistorian's, except that the sources were provided by PiCo rather than me, and are not attacked per se but for what I gloss them as saying as opposed to what PiCo synthesizes them as saying. (Yes, I think PiCo's reading is much more synthesis than mine is.) Having discoved this case, I believed it necessary to mention these details in relation to it, e.g., in case such an RFC would duplicate issues and should be cross-linked or merged. JJB 07:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I think that these should stay separate. Authors of the Bible is undergoing an AfD and I suspect that although it almost certainly will be kept that it will change considerably. The dispute at the other articles is basically about sources and what they say, which is why I think an RfC is more appropriate. It isn't even very much about the general thrust of the articles so far as I can see. I don't see mediation as resolving whether a source backs x statement or y statement. We just need a bit more input from editors with access to the sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I must add that I've now gotten cold-reverted 13 times on three of these articles in a week by this troika of editors, even though I'm pointing out the errors in the text and they aren't. It is very tiring to do the work time and again and get cold-reverted repeatedly, as I'm sure RomanHistorian would agree. I must request assistance in how to remove egregious verification failures that are defended by wagon-circling, hand-waving, and inaction, and I really don't know that a mediator will be by here anytime soon. JJB 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC) It is extremely obnoxious. I have had a good number of one-word edits (see Book of Genesis, Book of Exodus, and Book of Deuteronomy) on many different articles reverted because these one-word edits were considered 'fringe'. I even get edits that make things neutral (like modifying one claim that the Gospel of John was a forgery to make it clear this isn't the view of all scholars) reverted because apparently everything I do, by definition, is 'fringe'. You even see above, they think my sources are 'reliable' and yet 'fringe' as though this isn't some kind of contradiction. The sources are reliable (one is one of the best selling Old Testament commentaries on amazon.com, while the other is one of the best selling New Testament commentaries on amazon.com) but they don't like the view of the author. I have never been called conservative (let alone 'fringe conservative') as many times in my life as I have by these people. I am actually quite liberal in most ways, although skeptical that 200 years of ever-changing scholarship should be held in higher regard than the near-universal view for the prior 1800 years. Dylan keeps attacking me for being anti-Catholic because I removed some apocrypha that are considered Deuterocanon by Catholics. I restored the books to the list as soon as Dylan raised the objection, and yet he still seems to think I didn't restore them or that my restoration was no different from leaving them off. There is nothing I can do about any of it, because apparently they are justified and yet if I revert back, it is me who is edit warring. I am totally powerless so why bother.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC) I don't believe your unthinking deletion of the apocrypha was malicious, just that it was unthinking. It literally never occurred to you that maybe WP should reflect a canon more inclusive than your own. This seemingly willful blindness informs all of your edits, great and small. It clearly informs your comment about valuing 1800 years of tradition over 200 years of modern scholarship. You are editing these articles to fit your worldview, not what reliable, mainstream sources say, and this is a problem. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: At this point Dylan unilaterally added myself and User:Hardyplants to the RFC, though I have not seen Hardy take any part until he decided to do routine work on Gospel of John yesterday. JJB 03:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I would say that you added yourself the moment you posted the biased and inaccurate summary of RomanHistorian's edit war. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC) You really have no capacity for introspection do you. If everyone else defines reality different from you, it is you who is wrong.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Is this how you work towards a common understanding? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I have tried working towards an understanding with you. Every time I try you reflexively revert everything I do and your 'discussion' is limited to telling me how bigoted and biased I am. You simply revert everything without discussion which is SO frustrating. You know nothing other than hostility, and I can see I am not the only one you pick fights with. I will also report you as a sockpuppet if need be, as I sincerely doubt (as does EdJohnston) that someone on Wikipedia for a month could be so knowledgeable about Wikipedia, and so willing to get into so many fights. You do seem to have a real introspection problem. Given that so many editors and admins (now EdJohnston too) agree that you are the one misbehaving yourself, maybe you should get a clue.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Edit war history RomanHistorian deleted a couple sentences and then cold-reverted three times within 7 hours, and was blocked 31 hours without discussion. PiCo mostly cold-reverted 16 times across 6 articles over time, and was first requested to stop editing the topic area voluntarily for a month conditional on RFC involvement or other conditions. When the RFC was opened, the request to stop was dropped, and PiCo immediately sought to change the agreed RFC into a form of third-opinion-seeking except that there were several editors involved and PiCo wanted to choose the third-opinion giver. Dylan Flaherty cold-reverted four times within 24 hours, and got only 2-week protection on one article. This is problematic! One rationale given for the difference in results is that Dylan was not "the only one making large edits on that article". So consider a hypothetical. If I find an article with massive source verification failures (or otherwise requiring massive cleanup), and I set about with WP:BOLD changes and am faced by tag-teamed bold reverts that just barely skirt (and sometimes cross) the warring border, then I take it the tag team gets a pass because the entrenched article problems they defend are so tempting for massive correction? But OTOH if the article just needs touchup and a tag team alternates reverting small edits, an editor who thinks the first touchup is not a revert can get blocked immediately, without benefit of consideration whether "warring has stopped", "editor is responding to DR", or "we presume editor will respond to voluntary options but doesn't have to"? And the only difference is volatility? That leaves me with the message, "War boldly", because a pathetic little war will be seen as such and blocked, but a massive warrior obfuscates the situation too much to get blocked without an admin feeling guilty. Sorry for reporting the appearances of things. This unattended mediation page is becoming more a catharsis than an antidote. JJB 22:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC) John, the request to me to desist from editing for a while related to a different article (History of ancient Israel and Judah); what we're talking about here is the article Authors of the Bible, and on that one I'm currently editing quite amicably with RomanHistorian. You're welcome to join us if you wish - but frankly I think you need to cool down a bit. Most problems can be solved if we avoid getting emotional and remember that the other guy is probably as human as we are. PiCo (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Where's the mediation? There doesn't appear to be a mediator here, and there certainly doesn't seem to be any discussion that could possibly lead to a resolution of conflicts. Is this how mediation is supposed to work or am I missing something? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC) This is exactly how mediation is suppose to work. The page has been moved to a new and amicable concensus, and without the need for assistance from admins.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Close I think this case can be closed. The dispute seems to have been resolved.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I've closed the case, however if anybody considers that mediation is still required, then the case can be re-opened. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Reopen Yes, definitely reopen! I've edited the page accordingly. JJB 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Maybe this article should be renamed so it is clear we are not dealing with the Authors of the Bible issue.RomanHistorian (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I want to wait to see if anyone knows whether that would throw off the bot. :D JJB 00:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Changed my mind, I think the bot will follow the move, but I prefer not waiting around a long time for a mediator. JJB 01:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC) There is an RfC recently opened at this article's talk page, thus this seems redundant. Dougweller (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC) At this second the RFC, which had stalled awhile, is currently up again with EdJohnston's help, but continuing to go at PiCo's pace, point-by-point, through about the 4th line-item I first challenged about that many weeks ago, with 13 more to go. I took the opportunity of PhilKnight's involvement on this page to see if he could assist in finding someone to speed it up a bit. Either way works, and if it helps, I withdraw my request to consider whether you should be added to the scope. JJB 04:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Well, an RfC often goes slowly, but we really do need more interested parties there. And real life and other duties here keep me busy, but I've purchased Gulden's book on Ancient Canaan and Israel which I hope to use. Patience is often very much of a virtue on Wikipedia, and thanks for the withdrawal of your request. Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC) In the past month there has been some molasses progress on the single edit set of nearly two months ago. Thus with the presence of a willing mediator I need to request scope adjustment again. Particularly, (1) PiCo's latest silence on the history while making other edits doesn't tell me whether we have consensus on how to finish the fix of the one edit set, as well as a couple issues I raised about undue weight and historical sources: specifically I would PiCo to list proposed changes to the current "Iron Age I" section separately without feeling a need to edit or revert it yet again. (2) The rest of the history article, and several other articles mostly related to Biblical authorship, have had many PiCo edits and I would like some assurance that the verification failures I noted will not recur; if necessary I will make a recent list, although the source checking does take time. (3) Thus, in general, I would also like some method of dealing with PiCo in the future so that this issue doesn't become a widespread doubt of source validity throughout who knows how many articles; that is, the fact that it takes two months to fix verification failures that PiCo doesn't see even when shown several times, and that various apparent avoidance tactics have been used, does not bode well for future discussions, and this needs preferably a voluntary fix. JJB 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Please remember that before I begin mediating and asking questions and setting the scope, I need approval from at least two editors who disagree with eachother that my mediating will help. Please find someone who it is worthwhile to mediate with before starting to discuss what should be done. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I don't have time to deal with this right now. Best of luck finding a mediator, as I think I'm the only one who has been going through cases for the past two months! Hipocrite (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And God bless you too. As an update, (1) PiCo and Dylan are still debating some of the same edits on the same sources, so this is technically an open request, but both have declined to come here after being interested in the prior related discussion, so they are both permitting multiple conflicting interpretations of their openness to mediation. (2)-(3) There is open dispute and full protection at Gospel of John, and I have invited those disputants (including Dylan) here as well. Minutes ago Roman agreed to mediation, so I will readd his name, but the fact that nobody so far from the other "side" seems to want mediation, however, does not speak well for the dispute, which is sprawling far enough that it is not likely to have simple means of resolution. It is unclear whether this page will serve better as a mediation field or as an archive for a new mediation page, but I am open to notification of either; justice will prevail and the issue will come to a head somehow. JJB 18:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC) refactored 18:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the current version has a very surprising viewpoint, citing one source, that the Exodus certainly did not happen, or happened only to the king's family. Now for example, I remember that Tacitus wrote about the Exodus as a real event, and believed that the Jews had originated in Ethiopia prior to their time in Egypt, which to my untutored perspective does not seem unreasonable in light of other facts e.g. genetic information. There are also things I'd like to see better explained, like just exactly how and why Samaria is smack dab in the middle of Israel on the map. I would like to see a wider range of perspectives in that article in general, and a clearer distinction between what all sides can agree on and what is unique to a particular viewpoint. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Lord Roem

Extended content

At your talk I have outlined the current mediation starting point, including the way in which PiCo appears to agree to mediation, and a diff of the most pressing content disagreements. I would appreciate your marking the case as opened, or else suggesting (several) other routes for resolution (as your first few suggestions will IMHO be likely to have been already exhausted per talk archives). JJB 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I've received this on my Talk page from JJB, expressed in his usual courteous language: "Based on your latest comment at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah, please indicate at MedCab whether or not you agree to participate in that page's process. If you do not agree to participate in this bilateral resolution within 3 days, I am likely to take other, unilateral steps, which are likely not to reflect well upon your account; so it appears to be in your interests to participate wholeheartedly. JJB 20:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)" I've been engaged with him for quite a while now, and I'm sure he intends to make good on his threats. PiCo (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Querying

I just want to make sure people are on board with this mediation going forward. If after 3 days no one answers, I'll assume everyone has this off their watchlist and I'll prod a couple of you. If someone does answer to this and another doesn't, it might be because they don't have this on their watchlist. I encourage you to reach out. Just sign below, maybe give me some current context (venting your frustrations helps me, by the way), and then I'll get moving. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Present. My take is that RomanHistorian, on wikibreak over 2 months, counts as a once-productive, growable editor driven away by the the tactics of PiCo and Dylan Flaherty (which I will comment on in due time); and that Hardyplants can be removed as having been added by a now-banned editor and having been silent about my prior invitation. Since technicalities are important to this case, I must state that PiCo's responses have not yet agreed to participate in this page as mediated by Xav, and that on my original deadline PiCo has only hours left. I will accordingly repeat the request directly, and (since this was questioned) clarify any use of "threat" or "promise" there. JJB 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Xavexgoem, you need to be aware that JJB has a long history as a pov warrior with a penchant for bullying tactics - you can check his history on ArbCom and ANI. However, if you're willing to take this on, I'm here. PiCo (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening overview by John J. Bulten

Responsive to Xavquery for context and venting:

• Primary issue concerns essentially one section and related first to V, RS, NOR, NPOV and shortly after to sustained WP:IDHT and other nonproductive (disruptive or tendentious) behaviors by PiCo. The policy violations and behavior violations can be listed at great length and I need to go slow with them.
• With the issues in that section resolved, the next issue concerns several other problems with the article at large that I have either not raised, or raised and abeyed, simply because of the complexity of the one-section issues. This would require compiling a short list and may or may not need additional mediation depending on the resolution of the primary.
• The degree of these problems suggests a secondary issue, corroborated by my experience with PiCo at several other articles; viz., if my beliefs about the primary issue are vindicated, it is very probable that PiCo's edits to all articles will need to be reviewed at large to determine whether community remediation is required. I have deliberately not reviewed PiCo's edits at large because, frankly, 100% of the edits I have encountered are problematic (in a minority of cases they are not directly problematic but sustain an otherwise disruptive persona). Thus this issue would await my performing such a fuller review and determination after we have some headway on the primary. JJB 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to Xavquery: John Bulten is a fundamentalist Christian who wishes to move Wikipedia towards content more in conformity with his world-view. His tactics, apart from general bullying and disruption, involve endless querying of articles, including sourced content, and a refusal to accept whatever doesn't suit his end-aims. He has a long history at ArbCom and ANI and elsewhere. However, I'm willing to continue to try to work with him. PiCo (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see this, what fun. (1) How do you know I'm a fundamentalist Christian, please? (2) How do you know my wishes about WP? (3) Yes, primarily in this one section of one article, I've queried the conformity between the source and the content, because I discovered it was consistently not there (you know the diff); would you like to count up who made more compromises in the voluminous talk archives, as it wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask you to prove the class statement that I refuse something every time? (4) Yes, I have one ArbCom case (besides the occasional odd comment), for which I think there is a consensus that I will be vindicated; and I was once blocked for 3 days for questionable reasons off of WP:COIN, although I don't think I've ever had a serious ANI; so would you like to inform me of my long history, as it would be eye-opening to me? Yes, PiCo, I am asking you to answer these questions, which is why I numbered them, thanks. However, Xav, even if PiCo refuses to answer, I'm willing to continue to try to work with him/her. (I honestly don't know if PiCo has ever presented a gender: (5) Shall I keep using "him/her"?) JJB 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Xav

Mediation is for content disputes. So far, the details have been behavior. Since neither editor has placed much faith in the other, it seems best that I close this. Note that it will not have been a result of PiCo's unwillingness to try DR (this has been claimed), just that mediation does not seem like the best use of that process. I'll let this sit for a day or two, in case something comes up. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Xav, since PiCo is here, I will immediately (day or two) begin listing the content issues, which I believe I alluded to in all three bullet points (please forgive me if not). I will also be happy to withhold most behavior analysis for a potential later forum. JJB 16:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue 1

For a (relatively) easy example, at the end of the second graf of Iron Age I, "common-sense" is quoted from Edelman, who uses it only in relation to site layout and not to pig bones as our article implies, and Edelman is also, weasel-like, called "others" when she is only one person. However, please permit me to compile the actual list of current differences between PiCo's version, which I have avoided fighting over for a month, and the actual sources, so that they can be handled orderly. Further, as I've said, I am still needing to go slow in this forum the first week or so, so as not to overwhelm ArbCom or real life, thanks. JJB 16:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The "common sense" issue shouldn't be terribly complicated to start out with. Let's start with that. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's look at the last sentence of the second para of the section headed Iron Age I.

Here it is: Israel Finkelstein proposed that the oval or circular layout that distinguishes highland sites and the notable absence of pig bones from hill sites can be taken as a marker of ethnicity, but others have cautioned that these can be a "common-sense" adaptation to highland life and not necessarily revelatory of origins.

When you click on the link the book will open at page 45. There and at the top of page 46 Edelman discusses site layout as an ethnic marker (i.e., whether circular villages are necessarily Israelite villages, as claimed by Finkelstein); on pages 46-49 she discusses diet as an ethnic marker (i.e., whether the lack of pig bones at the sites surveyed by Finkelstein can be taken as an indication that these villages were Israelite). She concludes that neither conclusion is warranted. In other words, the source supports the sentence in the article. It's typical of Bulten's nit-picking approach that he (deliberately?) takes a single phrase ("common-sense adaptation") out of its context, misinterprets its scope, and uses it to undermine an entire entry. His aim is to drive other editors off the article by these tactics so he can delete scholarly sources and replace them with quotations from the Book of Joshua.PiCo (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Placeholder for answering this in full. JJB 07:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'll start here rather than make a fuller list first, and please read patiently. Here is the last draft I approved, which is likely to be a reference link for awhile. It has two sentences (below) in place of PiCo's one. (Incidentally, note that, when copying the text here, PiCo has replaced the short-ref style, actually in the article, with the link it refers to, though omitting the final "}". That is, the present article mentions "p. 46-7", which are thus the source pages that PiCo uses to sustain the whole sentence, and the article, unlike this page, (properly) requires you to click the link in the bibliography instead, and then to scroll to the page(s); but on this mediation page that might be unclear because the link might open elsewhere, such as here to p. 45. That may be important later.) From the reference link, slightly edited per below, "my" version is:

Israel Finkelstein proposed that the oval or circular layout that distinguishes highland sites is a marker of ethnicity, but it is stated that this is a "common-sense" adaptation to highland life and not necessarily revelatory of origins. Archaeologists (significantly Finkelstein) also interpreted the notable absence of pig bones from hill sites as an ethnic marker (in view of the biblical injunction against pigs), but others have advised caution since this could reflect factors that have little to do with ethnicity.

In "my" version, the first sentence comes largely from Edelman, half from p. 45 and half from pp. 46–7; the clause "that distinguishes highland sites" comes from Killebrew (which is accordingly listed midsentence); and the second sentence comes from Killebrew except for the unsourced parenthesis. Edelman pp. 45–8 says:

Israel Finkelstein has proposed that the haşer-style layout of certain sites, in which housing units are built contiguously or continuously to form an ovoid or circular enclosure belted by buildings with open land in the center, is a marker of Israelite settlement in the hills and proof of their builders' pastoral origins.⁴⁴ ... 46 ... Allowing house walls to serve double-duty as settlement walls and having an open space in the interior of the site for the protection of animals, one of the mainstays of the local economy, is a common-sense 47 approach to living in the hill country. It reveals nothing about the origins of the inhabitants of a settlement, .... The biblical prohibition against the consumption of pork has been put forward as another ethnic marker for premonarchic Israel that can be verified through archaeological remains.⁴⁸ ... Notwithstanding, preliminary results have led to the conclusion that the law against the consumption of pork was already in place among the Israelites when they settled during the Iron I period because so few pig bones have been found at sites in 48 the highland areas associated with premonarchic Israel, while they appear in larger numbers at lowland sites.

Killebrew pp. 13, 176 says (proper footnote):

These small sites are distinguished by the limited number of ceramic forms and their relative percentages, as well as the agrarian nature of their settlement plans. ... 176 ... One species, the pig, is notably absent. ... Some archaeologists have interpreted this to indicate that the ethnic identity of the highland inhabitants was distinct from Late Bronze Age indigenous peoples (see Finkelstein 1997, 227–30). Brian Hesse and Paula Wapnish (1997) advise caution, however, since the lack of pig bones at Iron I highland settlements could be a result of other factors that have little to do with ethnicity.

Now one of the effects of the gyrations over this text is that some details get lost, and, if I lose them, I admit it and explain. Two cases here: first, I find that on 9 Dec I mistakenly changed the "Edelman pp. 45–7" to "Edelman p. 46" because it was the only page quoted, not realizing that the content of the sentence still came from all 3 pages, since I don't look at the sources every single time PiCo comes up with a new interpretation. But, since misnumbering is an error I list when PiCo does it, I also charge myself when I do it. Second, a week before this edit, I had had "proposed ... absence ... is a marker" as in Edelman p. 45; after a paragraph by PiCo on why "as" was better than "is" I compromised to that, and then unaccountably permitted it to be further watered down (gradualism) to "can be taken as". However, reviewing the sources fresh, I must insist on sticking to them (i.e., retaining "is"); and, although I have documented several cases where PiCo has silently reneged on compromises, if this actually counts as a renege I at least explain what I am doing and why. These two changes are fixed above. Now, given all that, I can say:

1. PiCo has deleted the footnote to Killebrew p. 13, which like them all is PiCo's own source. Since that footnote sources the fact that oval or circular layout does distinguish highland sites from others, when Edelman does not say the layout distinguishes those sites, it must be readded.
2. PiCo has deleted the other footnote to Killebrew p. 176, which sources the phrase "notable absence of pig bones"; Edelman characterizes the bones less clearly, and in an earlier work than Killebrew, as "few pig bones", so Killebrew's more specific and later characterization should be preserved. In both these cases, citing Killebrew's thought to Edelman is a source verification failure.
3. PiCo's draft, by conflating the sources, further says that Edelman is a source for Finkelstein proposing absence of pig bones as a marker, but Edelman on pig bones (pp. 47–9) does not mention Finkelstein, Killebrew does. Same problem as prior.
4. PiCo's version says "p. 46–7" instead of "pp. 45–7" or "pp. 45–9" even though material comes from p. 45 and, PiCo implies, pp. 48–9, but this is perhaps a numbering error equivalent to mine, rather like the recurring difficulty telling "p." from "pp.".
5. As noted, PiCo wore me down with gradualism from "is a marker" to "can be taken as a marker", while Edelman affirms Finkelstein said layout "is a marker". Thus the weaker version of Finkelstein's view is not actually in Edelman, another V failure. Though this would ordinarily be a nitpick, the fact is that these nitpicks have added up over the months, and almost always in the same direction, a direction toward an OR narrative of PiCo's evident in the talk pages; but we'll develop this theme slowly, as I said.
6. Easy one: PiCo changed "it is stated" (itself a compromise from "Diana Edelman states") to "others have cautioned", turning Edelman into a weasely plural.
7. PiCo took the word "caution" used by Killebrew, and applied it to Edelman's quotation though it was not ostensibly a caution, a violation of WP:SAY because unduly strengthening Edelman's view.
8. Easy one: PiCo then extended the "caution" quotation's scope as if it were that both layout and pig bones were "common-sense" adaptations, contrary to Edelman, who didn't say "common-sense" about pig bones, and to Killebrew, who didn't "caution" about layout. Sounds like two V failures to me.
9. PiCo then further sharpened the source's actual phrase, "advise caution", into "cautioned that", which treats Killebrew's general topic-area caution in marker interpretation as if a much more specific caution appeared in either source.
10. PiCo for the nth time changes source's plural, rendered as "Archaeologists (significantly Finkelstein)", into just Finkelstein, another misweighting when it refers to the pig bones.
11. The distinction that Finkelstein specifically "interpreted" pig bones as a marker is lost in the conflation of "proposed [it] can be taken" as a marker.
12. PiCo actually previously said that the (obvious) link between absence of pig bones and the biblical injunction should be included, but has now deleted it. It is certainly significant, and should have been easy to source. The cn remained in my version because it was PiCo's text (PiCo changed it from a different, sourced thrust, into the present unsourced one), and because at that phase in the discussion I didn't want to put words in PiCo's mouth on the parenthesis. The parenthesis could be changed to a paraphrase of Edelman p. 47, for instance; but the point for this discussion is that it's a necessary POV, as PiCo agreed, and was still dropped during PiCo's editing.
13. The general caution, arising since absence of pig bones could reflect factors other than ethnic, was also conflated into "that these can be ... not necessarily revelatory of origins". The nitpick differences here are that "not necessarily" is a shouting caution, while "could reflect factors other than" is a hesitant caution; and origin is not ethnicity.

To illustrate the cumulative effect of these nitpicks with a little exaggeration, the source basically implies, "Uncounted archaeologists find it to be ethnic, and two specialists say maybe not", while PiCo's draft basically implies, "One archaeologist proposes it can be taken as an ethnic marker, and uncounted unqualified others, with Caution!, say definitely, and do not merely propose, that: 'Not Necessarily!, it can (definitely) be nonrevelatory of origins." These are the nuances I hear when reading the source vs. reading PiCo. I hope you can see that they do tend to add up, and all in the same direction. Now, we also have PiCo's actual comments above to address, and the running narrative with which PiCo describes Edelman:

1. In PiCo's comment, both 46's should be 47's.
2. PiCo relegates Finkelstein to a "claim" (WP:SAY violation) to be judged by Edelman, when in fact Finkelstein's POV about the evidence needs weight just like Edelman's.
3. PiCo treats Finkelstein as saying the villages are "necessarily" Israelite, when source actually says he has "proposed" that it is, which has the tendency of turning him into a strawman.
4. PiCo acts as if Edelman is talking about Finkelstein in re pigs when source does not show she is. This OR in PiCo's comment may seem to support the same OR when it appears in the draft, but our article says Edelman refers to Finkelstein in this section, and that does not appear in the source.
5. PiCo then makes a sweeping generalization "she concludes", which does not do justice to her subtleties nor, perhaps, even to what she says directly. Her conclusions are (p. 47) that "layout ... could have been used by different ethnic groups" and (p. 49) that "absence of pig bones ... becomes an ethnic marker ... but when is unclear". That sounds quite different from "neither conclusion is warranted". When PiCo summarizes the summary of the source, it is natural that the article agrees with the summary summarized, because neither the summary nor the article agrees with the source: both are the same running OR narrative!
6. The remainder moves to personal attack: nit-picking approach, deliberately?, out of context, misinterprets, undermine an entire entry, drive editors off, tactics, delete scholarly sources and replace them with quotations from the Book of Joshua. I mention this only because I said I would occasionally allude to behavioral issues, and I think that is a bit harsh for an opening statement.
7. In response to the actual charge within the attack, I merely selected an easy-to-grasp issue to demonstrate, while Xav was asking, that there are real content issues, which is why I took a single phrase. In its context the quotation refers to layout and not pig bones, and PiCo says the quotation itself refers to pig bones, not just PiCo's views about what Edelman also thinks is common-sense without using the word. It thus appears that PiCo has taken the same phrase out of context, and misinterpreted the same scope, that I was accused of doing. As for my alleged motivations in undermining and so on, I think the remaining list of issues, which will arise in time, are sufficient to undermine PiCo's text all on its own. And you notice how PiCo deleted two sources (both pages from Killebrew) but accused me of deleting sources, without proof?

Paths forward might include: use Edelman's actual words on both points instead of conflating Killebrew's words into them, while preserving any uniqueness within Killebrew; or, return to a 2-sentence structure with footnotes largely as in my version but find compromises on the wording details; or, find another source (watch what happens to these two if PiCo opts for that one); or, find some sourced wording that would actually allow these two thoughts to be combined without doing injustice to the sources.

• Executive summary: 1. There are many subtle differences between PiCo's draft and the sources. 2. I feel compelled to analyze them often at the word-unit level so that the subtle failures of PiCo's draft, and their general cumulative POV nature, are clear. 3. PiCo's description of the sources in talk is not much better than the description of them in the article, and we should be wary of this, as well as the behavior issues.
• To PiCo: If you wish to interleave your comments with mine, please use "##" in the numbered sections in front of each graf to preserve the numbering, and please use {{interrupted}} elsewhere. However, Xav may have something to say about too much interleaving, as others have found it difficult before.
• Opt-out clause: Xav, it's very possible that, since I do admit often writing walls of text, you may be daunted or uncertain about whether this mediation is worth having. My observation is that PiCo, when there may be some benefit from it, does offer the occasional compromise, and I think that we may be able to work at least some issues out with mediation. What I ask is that you be honest with us about any concerns you have with mediation as they arise, including either of our behaviors, and that you at least give a fair effort to navigate the sources with us, so that I can be either vindicated or corrected by a fresh witness to the matter. Thank you. JJB 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Below I list a few more disagreements, listing only versions and sources, without going into the rationales at length yet. JJB 15:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

For now, I really only want to focus on this issue. I do want to give PiCo the chance to comment on the issue, but I ask that you both abstain from commenting on behavior. I actually suggest against the interleaved style since that structure lends itself to defensiveness (the replies may look subordinate to the accusations). I realize that's a minor point, but it may be something to consider for the future. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Right on. Discussion currently continues at #Getting back to the point. JJB 19:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue 2

To be mediated later.

Extended content

The unquoted beginning of this sentence up to its colon is not disputed. PiCo: features that have been said to be specifically Israelite – notably collared-rim jars and four-room houses, have now been identified outside the highlands and thus cannot be used to distinguish Israelite sites; and, while highland villages display a far more limited late–13th–century BCE ceramic repertoire than that of lowland Canaanite sites, it develops typologically out of Canaanite pottery that came before. John J. Bulten: features have been said to be specifically Israelite – notably collared-rim jars and four-room houses, yet these have now been identified outside the highlands and thus cannot be used to distinguish Israelite sites; and, while highland villages can be distinguished by a far more limited late–13th–century ceramic repertoire than that of lowland Canaanite sites, it develops typologically out of Canaanite pottery that came before. Miller p. 72: Claims have been made that certain features of Iron I material culture of western Palestine were specifically "Israelite" in origin. ... The two items that have been given most serious consideration as being distinctively Israelite are the so-called "collared-rim jars" and "four-room houses." Yet there is nothing intrinsically "Israelite" about either of these features, and in fact they show up in the regions of ancient Ammon and Moab as well as in the areas generally associated with Israelite settlement. Clearly these items belonged to a commonly shared culture throughout Iron I Palestine and therefore cannot be used to isolate particular sites, geographical areas, or historical periods as "Israelite." Killebrew p. 13: These small hamlets comprise four-room houses with domestic installations, and their inhabitants produced a ceramic assemblage that developed typologically out of the thirteenth-century B.C.E. repertoire of Canaan. ... These small sites are distinguished by the limited number of ceramic forms and their relative percentages, as well as the agrarian nature of their settlement plans. ... The differences between the limited repertoire of ceramic forms at these small hill-country hamlets and sites in the lowlands, often within walking distance from highland sites, are remarkable and do seem to designate a "boundary" that may have resulted from social, economic, or ideological differences with the lowlands and some of the larger settlements in the highlands. JJB 15:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue 3

To be mediated later.

Extended content

PiCo (the commaed sentence will continue in the next issue): In the early 20th century three models emerged to explain the origin of these Israelites: the "conquest" model which essentially affirmed the historicity of the biblical narrative, the "peaceful infiltration" model which saw the Israelites as nomads who entered and settled the highlands over a long period, and the "peasants revolt" model which proposed that the early Israelites were a Canaanite underclass in revolt against their overlords. All three have been criticised extensively, John J. Bulten: Three theories emerged to explain the origins of the Israelites. The first of these was the "conquest" model of Albright and Bright, who affirmed the basic historicity of the Bible. Another was the "peaceful infiltration" model of Alt and Noth, who saw the Israelites as nomads who entered and settled over many years. Third, Mendenhall and Gottwald proposed the "peasants revolt" model, a Marxist analysis of an Israelite underclass in revolt against their overlords. All three have problems or criticisms. Pitkänen pp. 161–3: In broad sweep, three different models to account for the origins of Israel emerged. First, there were those who wished to affirm the basic historicity of the biblical text, even if the date of the conquest was to be lowered .... The most illustrious proponent of this view was William 162 Albright, and his work was continued by his disciples, the most notable of whom was John Bright.3 However, there were, and still are, a number of problems with this model.4 ... 163 Another model is the 'peaceful infiltration' model which originated from the German scholars Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth in the early 20th century. According to this model, the Israelites were nomads who immigrated and settled the land over a long period of time. However, besides not being consistent with the biblical accounts, the model has been criticised for its lack of understanding of nomadic life in the region.11 ... The third model was initiated by Mendenhall and Gottwald. According to them,12 the Israelites had their origins with an underclass which revolted against the Canaanite upper class, withdrew to the highlands and settled there with the resulting formation of a society which was to become Israel.13 This model has been criticised for its Marxist socio-political analysis.14 However, the main legacy of the 'peasants revolt' model is that it drew attention to the possibility of indigenous origins of the Israelites. In fact, though ditching the 'peasants revolt' model, subsequent scholarship has essentially sought to explain the birth of Israel as an indigenous development. JJB 15:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue 4

To be mediated later

Extended content

PiCo: and modern scholars see Israel arising peacefully and internally in the highlands. John J. Bulten: Coote and Whitelam sought to explain the birth of Israel in terms of climate change and the collapse of trade structures, and Israel Finkelstein sought to explain the Iron Age hill-country settlements as nomads adopting a settled lifestyle. These subsequent scholars sought an indigenous-origin explanation as suggested by the "peasants revolt" model, including in their number pastoral and nomadic elements and (with Mendenhall and Gottwald) a small Egyptian exodus. Pitkänen pp. 163–5: However, the main legacy of the 'peasants revolt' model is that it drew attention to the possibility of indigenous origins of the Israelites. In fact, though ditching the 'peasants revolt' model, subsequent scholarship has essentially sought to explain the birth of Israel as an indigenous development. A major attempt to understand the birth of Israel based on indigenous origins was made by Coote and Whitelam.15 They sought to explain the Late Bronze–Early Iron Age transition against the backdrop of cyclical variation in the ancient Levant over millennia. Coote and Whitelam suggested climate change and collapse of trade structures as the driving force behind the changes which led to the collapse of the Late Bronze culture and the birth of the Iron Age 164 culture from which Israel emerged.16 ... Finkelstein showed conclusively that settlement increased substantially in the hill country of Ephraim in the Early Iron Age which he attributed to nomads who were resedenterising after having been forced to nomadic existence in the Late Bronze Age.20 ... 165 ... Dever and many other scholars allow for the existence of a pastoral/nomadic element among the new immigrants.23 It can also be noted that such scholars as Dever, Mendenhall and Gottwald allow for a small exodus group from Egypt as part of this settlement .... Gnuse pp. 28, 31 (a source I've seen for the first time today): All three theories have been criticized extensively, .... 31 ... Out of the discussions a new model is beginning to emerge, which has been inspired, above all, by recent archaeological field research. There are several variations in this new theory, but they share in common the image of an Israelite community which arose peacefully and internally in the highlands .... JJB 15:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

References

I think you'll need this to remain as the bottommost section:

Getting back to the point

John, that's a finer effort at obscuring the issue, but we can't let you get away with it. THIS is the point at issue, and I'll restate it - and this time, stick to a straightforward discussion of the matter at hand;

For a (relatively) easy example, at the end of the second graf of Iron Age I, "common-sense" is quoted from Edelman, who uses it only in relation to site layout and not to pig bones as our article implies, and Edelman is also, weasel-like, called "others" when she is only one person. However, please permit me to compile the actual list of current differences between PiCo's version, which I have avoided fighting over for a month, and the actual sources, so that they can be handled orderly. Further, as I've said, I am still needing to go slow in this forum the first week or so, so as not to overwhelm ArbCom or real life, thanks. JJB 16:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The "common sense" issue shouldn't be terribly complicated to start out with. Let's start with that. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's look at the last sentence of the second para of the section headed Iron Age I.

Here it is: Israel Finkelstein proposed that the oval or circular layout that distinguishes highland sites and the notable absence of pig bones from hill sites can be taken as a marker of ethnicity, but others have cautioned that these can be a "common-sense" adaptation to highland life and not necessarily revelatory of origins.

When you click on the link the book will open at page 45. There and at the top of page 46 Edelman discusses site layout as an ethnic marker (i.e., whether circular villages are necessarily Israelite villages, as claimed by Finkelstein); on pages 46-49 she discusses diet as an ethnic marker (i.e., whether the lack of pig bones at the sites surveyed by Finkelstein can be taken as an indication that these villages were Israelite). She concludes that neither conclusion is warranted. In other words, the source supports the sentence in the article. It's typical of Bulten's nit-picking approach that he (deliberately?) takes a single phrase ("common-sense adaptation") out of its context, misinterprets its scope, and uses it to undermine an entire entry. His aim is to drive other editors off the article by these tactics so he can delete scholarly sources and replace them with quotations from the Book of Joshua. PiCo (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

After the first paragraph, this cuts and pastes the above discussion: so PiCo wants to start with only one part of a sentence at a time. PiCo has also indicated by talk style (e.g. starting new sections), and by indirect statement, that there may be some technical problem processing long replies. I have generally accommodated this, so here I repeat the two applicable bullets from above:

(6.) Easy one: PiCo changed "it is stated" (itself a compromise from "Diana Edelman states") to "others have cautioned", turning Edelman into a weasely plural.

(8.) Easy one: PiCo then extended the "caution" quotation's scope as if it were that both layout and pig bones were "common-sense" adaptations, contrary to Edelman, who didn't say "common-sense" about pig bones, and to Killebrew, who didn't "caution" about layout. Sounds like two V failures to me.

It is a simple thing for PiCo to admit Edelman is not "others" and that the "common-sense" quotation does not apply to pig bones. Then we can agree on wording like "it is" [cautioned] instead of "others have" (without agreeing on the word "cautioned"), and agree to decouple "common-sense" from pigs (without agreeing what to do with the pigs yet). Then, presumably we can move on to the other numbered concerns. Wouldn't you think? JJB 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Alas, while this content issue seems extraordinarily simple, I find myself advised to place this page on hold temporarily; I did advise you that I might need to go slow. I hope to have you updated within a week. It'd be great if PiCo could continue with a best-response proposal to this and other points even so. JJB 05:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC) With my apologies, Xav, this edit suggests to me that I should continue to count mediation on hold without discussing why. I'm hopeful the content questions will be resolved someday. JJB 21:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your proposals so far sound reasonable. They're largely grammatical/precision changes, in my mind. I'll hear what others have to say. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)