User talk:Truth-evenifithurts

Welcome!

Hello, Truth-evenifithurts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Masada

I've always admired the concept of your wiki and generally been pleasantly surprised by the good results. Occasionally, I've found errors and attempted to correct them. I recently came across an article about Masada that made almost no mention of the fact that it was an unsubstantiated myth, which is well-understood in Israel, where I've lived.

In the 60s the former chief of staff of the Israel military made a highly discredited (by the early 70s) dig of a hilltop and claimed that this was Masada with very little proof. Basically, every archaeologist, anthropologist, sociologist, foresnics expert (all of them Israeli) since have concluded that this dig and the claim that it revealed Masada was a fraud. If you look at the history of the article and the talk page you'll see that I've provided overwhelming sources and cites - none disputed. And they come from people like the Dean of Sociology and Anthropology at Hebrew University who painstakingly read three years of transcriptions from the initial dig to prove that it was an open fraud among the team members (please refer to the talk page of Masada).

The reason I'm writing is because all my edits and even previous edits by others that made any mention of these facts have been deleted by Jayjg who at no time attempted to contact me. Furthermore and inexplicably, Jayjg has reverted all my previous edits on other articles, with no explanation.

As I go back and look at Jayjg's previous intervention, I see this as part of a disturbing pattern of partisan editing and blocking that ignoring well-cited contributions. The result is an absurd article, like Masada, that makes no mention of a fact that every schoolchild in Israel knows: Masada is a myth with no basis in scholarship.

Having actually experienced this anti-intellectual bullying and protectionism, I've completely lost faith in this grand and noble experiment. Truth-evenifithurts 02:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's our wiki for one. It saddens me that you let the actions of one editor colour your view of a project that has many thousands of editors. Have you tried engaging Jay on his talk page? Have you appealed to WP:ANI about his alleged wholesale reversions? Have you mentioned/read the relevant policy on undue weight, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Reliable sources? Also, this really isn't the appropriate venue for article content disputes. Hope this helps. Cheers --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 03:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cronholm, I have written to Jayjg, even though he never tried the courtesy). And I know this isn't the place for an article dispute but this isn't really about the article. It's about how a group of like-minded powerful editors and administrators can filter out truth. I'm only using the glaring example of Masada because it's about myth (wiki's mission) and zealots (editors like jayjg, humusapiens and kuratowski's ghost) who repeatedly band together and organize and censor to make political propaganda that fits their biases and loyalties. If you look at the talk of Masada and cites I've provided (with none to counter), it's painfully obvious what's going on to this wonderful idea. Truth-evenifithurts 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't condone anyone taking such severe action as Jayjg without explaining why, but the reason seems pretty obvious. Masada is not a myth. I've visited there several times. The outlines of the Roman military units can still be seen in the valley below, surrounding the hill. (Since there is very little rain in Midbar Yehudah near the Dead Sea, the features on the ground stay permanently.) The archaeological finds at Masada - for example, the stone structure of the buildings, the location of the cistern and the house of worship - are consistent with patterns found elsewhere in Israel from around the Second Temple period. Finally, we have one of the most authoritative historians of the time, Josephus, telling us the whole story. It's one thing to concede that he might have erred on some of the details (this is typical for Josephus) - it's quite another thing to suggest he made it up. But above all, think of the conspiracy theory angle. I understand why Herod would have built Masada, and why the refugees of Jerusalem in the 60s CE would have settled there. But it makes no sense why Yigael Yadin in the 1960s would have fabricated a whole settlement that did not exist beforehand. I'd like you to consider who really is the liar here, if I may speak so bluntly. Shalom ^Hello 03:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing that jayjg should've tried to explain his actions. But the reason isn't obvious and I wish you'd read the article. The fact that you've been to the site doesn't mean it's not a myth. Your mind is poisoned with what the tour guides tell you. We were all brought up with this, too, and believed it. You don't know that they were Roman, Jewish or Canaanite features. Read the pbs series on Masada (I provided the links). Even if Josephus was right (and there's enormous difficulty there) there's no proof the that modern-day site is Masada. The latest published scholarship on this by Israeli academics says that the only remains found there were Roman and not Jewish. Read all the cites I provided in the talk page and look at the history of the article for even more cites (all Israeli!) and tell me who's the liar . . . and be blunt about it. Truth-evenifithurts 04:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is somewhat troubling. Do you mind if I look into this matter and try to forge a compromise? Also, why don't we move this discussion to your talk page? --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the talk page for the article and I believe Truth-evenifithurts has presented some credible sources for his side of the content dispute. I believe he's frustrated because he hasn't been able to make any headway in the debate for various reasons which is why he posted here. Cla68 03:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to contact the involved parties momentarily if you are amenable to this.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm amenable and appreciative. Truth-evenifithurts!

As I previously mentioned, as jayjg did not communicate with me or even publicly justify his actions to revert and ban me, I wrote to him on his talk page asking: "Can you please explain why you've blocked me from editing articles and reverted all my contributions, even from past articles? Specifically Masada, why have you reverted it to a state that predates my edits and now leaves no mention of the glaring fact that in Israel and int'l academic circles the myth of Masada has been exposed by various authors of high repute and published in major publications? Why have you not attempted to communicate with me about any of this? Have you read the cites I provided? Are you aware of any reputable sources that contradict these sources?" As you can see, here, he undid my question and removed it from his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&diff=144103240&oldid=144098410 I don't think anyone with the powers of administration should be behaving like this Truth-evenifithurts 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They have all been notified via their respective talkpages. Feel free to add your statements and evidence under the headings.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 04:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold off on commenting on Jay's page. Hopefully he will respond here.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴

Masada comment on User:cla68's talk page

I appreciate you taking the time to look over my contributions and cites on Masada. As I previously mentioned, as jayjg did not communicate with me or even publicly justify his actions to revert and ban me, I wrote to him on his talk page asking: "Can you please explain why you've blocked me from editing articles and reverted all my contributions, even from past articles? Specifically Masada, why have you reverted it to a state that predates my edits and now leaves no mention of the glaring fact that in Israel and int'l academic circles the myth of Masada has been exposed by various authors of high repute and published in major publications? Why have you not attempted to communicate with me about any of this? Have you read the cites I provided? Are you aware of any reputable sources that contradict these sources?"

As you can see, here, he undid my question and removed it from his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&diff=144103240&oldid=144098410 I don't think anyone with the powers of administration should be behaving like this. My worry is that he will further ban me so I'll be unable to correspond. Truth-evenifithurts 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it can be frustrating to be involved in a dispute over the content of an article, especially when one may be unfamiliar with the "rules" of Wikipedia. Cronholm144 appears to be trying to mediate a way forward. I think you should work with him and his generous efforts to try to resolve the matter. If you have any questions about how the dispute resolution process works, please feel free to ask me or anyone else and they should be more than willing to help you out. Cla68 06:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Evidence

Already mentioned in article

Nachman Ben-Yehuda, The Masada Myth: Scholar presents evidence that the heroes of the Jewish Great Revolt were not heroes at all.

• M. Avi-Yonah et al., Israel Exploration Journal 7, 1957, 1–160 (excavation report Masada)
• Y. Yadin, Masada, London 1966
• Y. Yadin, Israel Exploration Journal 15, 1965 (excavation report Masada)
• N. Ben-Yehuda, Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking In Israel, University of Wisconsin Press (December 8, 1995)
• N. Ben-Yehuda, Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada, Humanity Books (June 2002)

Talkpage

http://srb.stanford.edu/nur/GP50/diane.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2386/is_v108/ai_20438267 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/22/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Masada-Revisited.php http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286607,00.html

Statements by parties

User:Jayjg

His statements included the phrase "your abitrary use of your admin powers", which is clearly a personal attack, and claims that I have "banned" him, which are simply false. I don't need to put up with those on my Talk: page. Regarding the rest of the issue, the IP editor in question was edit-warring on a number of articles. Aside from the fact that the material he was inserting quite obviously violated WP:NPOV, he had also clearly violated WP:3RR on Masada and WP:BLP on Robert Fishman. I suppose I could have blocked him, but instead I semi-protected the pages in order to encourage him to engage in dialog. I've clearly been successful at that, though his dialog appears to be as belligerent as his edits. Perhaps you can help him moderate his tone, and cut back on the number of venues in which he is airing his grievances - I believe he's up to seven different pages now, and counting. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Humus sapiens

I believe I acted within NPOV policy when I decided to accommodate an alternative POV as an alternative POV, even though this sensationalist book was written by a non-specialist - the author has no relation to archeology. Despite the lack of WP:RS, the user chose a non-compromising approach, attempting to present his POV as the fact and the mainstream version as a fraud.

Note his propagandist stance regarding Israel: "a European colonization of Arab (Muslim, Christian and Sephardic Jewish) land", note his edit warring (he broke 3RR even after warning, I let it slip), note personal attacks against practically everyone else - all despite attempts to discuss and despite numerous warnings, and note his tendentious username. In my years here, I've seen a fair share of claimants to show "what really happened", "tell the truth even if it hurts" and "expose fraud". Unfortunately, topics related to Jewish history and religion tend to attract such crowds. Consider WP:REDFLAG: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already quoted that further down :). Also, can we avoid characterizations like propogandist? Thanks. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 06:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I was talking about a statement, not a person. I included it because I find that unambiguously anti-Israel propagandist stance highly pertinent to this case. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mats Halldin

I got no personal engagement in Masada (or in Israel). Rather, I got involved in this dispute as I happened to be reading the article about the Legio X Fretensis and made an attempt to clean-up Lucius Flavius Silva. My attempts to some sort of mediation on the talk page (I never touched the article) primarily focused on gathering the discussion in a single place where I tried to introduce what I believe to be a NPOV source (the Kim Stubbs article) which is neither describing Masada as only a myth, Nachman Ben-Yehuda as purely fake, or Josephus as the only credible source.

I've made attempts to make 208.58.65.42 / Truth-evenifithurts find a more balanced position, but have been rewarded with accusations of "personal attacks and falsehoods"; and with statements such as "it is absurd that this article makes not mention of the fact that no credible archeologist, anthropologist or historian believes the myth or the archeological site has anything to do with it" (AFAIK, several sources given question the 20th century interpretation of heroism but not the site in itself).
Furthermore, I've tried to make Truth-evenifithurts use his sources more carefully. He claims to present "over a dozen reliable sources", but looking more carefully at them shows several problems:

• His Fox News and International Herald Tribune references are basically the same AP article. He uses this source to quote "No concrete evidence for the Zealot suicide has been found" while ignoring the next sentence: "debunking the Masada myth has become as popular as creating it was 40 years ago."
• He uses the long PBS article (which I've actually read) to cite "But even without the benefit of the archaeological discoveries we would know that something is wrong with Josephus' story." while ignoring sentences such as "At least some of the Sicarii killed themselves rather than face the Romans"; [to know how the defenders were killed] "we are dependent upon Josephus alone."; the last sentence "The Masada myth does not begin in the twentieth century.". Instead he proceeds to cite Jewish News Weekly to describe Masada as merely "a symbol of the fledgling Zionist enterprise".

I hope information on the myths related to Masada will be included into the article in a proper way. I'm afraid it won't happen until contributors stop using sources this way.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mats, could you sandbox a properly cited example if it wouldn't be too much trouble? I will create a space for you if you want. Thanks so much--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 11:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a first try today, but didn't get very far and never saved my work. My knowledge of the subject is very slight and my shortcomings in English makes it likely this mediation will be outdated before I complete anything of any use. So, I guess this means no. The article is developing even if sources are still missing, so let's hope for the best.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuratowski's Ghost

The "myth" claims are a case of POV and exaggerated language. The sources offered are not history or archaeology research papers written according to academic standards but sensationalist opinion pieces and moreover they fail to prove the claims being made. Nachman is not a specialist in the field, his opinion are one man's opinion and of no more value than that of the local janitor or bus driver, and a oddball minority opinion at that. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ?mediator?

I have just finished reading through the article and talk page. Comments will be coming forthwith--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Some things we can all agree on

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all 'significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."

"Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. This seems to have particular relevance

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people. This as well"

"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

This always is a problem, so I am adding it just in case

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."

Initial comments

• Everyone remember to keep cool, this is just the Internet after all.
• Remember that WP is a tertiary source and we only report on the relevant information, we do not determine it.

• The real issue here seems to be about the inclusion of information regarding whether or not Masada took place and the style of insertion. So my questions become.

• • Are these sources verifiable and reliable?
  • If they are...What weight should they be given within the article?

Truth, it has been asserted that the sources you have provided thus far are of questionable scholarly value. Could you please respond in your statement? If you could provide an relevant article published by an expert in the field that would helpful.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 22:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Part 1

Truth, why don't you write the article that you would like to see here in this sandbox I have created User_talk:Truth-evenifithurts/Masada. Then we can compare the two and discuss the ramifications of the changes--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 06:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

Comparison and discussion I imagine.