Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Masada myth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

I've seen your enquiries on why more of the reasoning of ARBCOM sessions is not on display. I have to say that I too am surprised by how little of the reasoning is presented out in the open. Not only are there closed arbwiki sessions, but video calls and emails beyond that. A lot of this seems to go against the basic remit of transparency that infuses the rest of the project. I don't entirely understand why any private interaction is required at all, unless it is about material that specifically would involve doxxing. My broader sense of the problems at the heart of ARBCOM is that the process is inherently schizophrenic. It presents itself as open and transparent, but much of the insightful discussion occurs in private. It is often described as being jury-like, but it is empowered like a supreme court. In practice, it functions like both, but without any of the checks and balances in a more complex system. It is said that it is not like a legal court, but it takes all the aspects of such a court that pertain to power, but with none of the restrictions. One arbitrator recently noted how they had mused that it was like they were "jury, judge and executioner", which of course is a phrase they alludes to the abuse of power.[1] A few things that stick out like a sore thumb are the arbitrariness of referrals (despite acting like an upper court, it doesn't require direct referrals from the lower court, but can add parties at a whim); the absence of questions to the defendants; and the lack of any predefined restrictions on punitive sentencing (which is all the more important in a "jury and judge"-style situation). Juries should not be both approving charges and sentences and ruling on them (not least with absolute judicial discretion without limits). A broader question is whether a supreme court-like body should even be involved in individual cases or if it would be better restraining itself to big-picture questions about the powers handed to administrators. An ARBCOM case looking at half a dozen editors is not in fact more efficient than half a dozen AE cases – far from it – so the rationale that it somehow the only forum apt for/ capable of handing such things is bizarre. If Wikipedia is to retain its role as an open, transparent and broadly democratic knowledge platform, it needs to have oversight functions that match these values. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these comments. We are left to speculate on ArbCom’s thinking. There is no precedent that can be applied elsewhere. There is no route for other editors to learn. And what will the appeals in 12 months look like?

Is everyone supposed to accept the workshop-disputed evidence referred to in the PDs as a foundation for all this? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you partially reverted my edit to still include the phrasing “although enthusiasm since cooled after mistakes were identified by archeologists.”

This is a bit strange, because language shift is generally not labeled as “mistakes”, and the source cited does not state this. The time period is also ambiguous, as “has since” is talking about from the late 1940s to late 1970s.

Therefore, I don’t see any point in keeping this line and I think it should be deleted. LivLovisa (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LivLovisa: the source says The earlier enthusiasm for restoring biblical names to their ancient sites has cooled down somewhat, especially after Tell (ʿArâq) el-Menšîyeh, changed to Tel Gat, was proved not to be a suitable candidate for Gath of the Philistines.

The example given was a mistaken identification. The Israeli towns of Gat, Israel and Kiryat Gat were named as such because they were thought to be adjacent to the Biblical Gath (city). Turns out they were wrong and now the names are an embarrassing reminder.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something being "not a suitable candidate" is not synonymous with being a mistake, and you calling it "an embarrassing reminder" is not exactly very NPOV. LivLovisa (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On your second point, if my POV is “archeological accuracy", then yes perhaps you are right.

On your first point, you are incorrect. It certainly is synonymous for a mistake. If you still don’t agree, try explaining what you think it means in long form. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not for you to formulate your opinions. If you wanna go down that route, it’s a bit like saying it’s embarrassing to call Hillingdon “London” because it’s not part of Londinium.

Either way, that’s your judgement, and not something that should be included in the article. LivLovisa (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion on what it means? Stating what you think it doesn’t mean is not enough.

We are editors, so we have to summarize in our own words. Let’s agree on a summary together. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside observer, I found this helpful in understanding the subject overall and it fits in line with other trends in the constant works-in-progress that are Biblical Archaeology and Historical Criticism. 2600:1700:131:51E0:140A:9AE7:757:60CD (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, didn't realize I wasn't logged in and just following up to put a name to my comment. Eulersidentity (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump and handshakes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump and handshakes (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

RealStranger43286 (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I woke up today completely burnt out with work. So I did the most sane and reasonable thing and spent a couple hours attending the Canaanite religion article, which is in a really sorry state. I would invite you, should you have time and interest, to contribute too. There's a good article which is available to anyone. Best Wishes Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]