Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Successful

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Editors involved in this dispute

Ret.Prof (talk · contribs) – filing party
PiCo (talk · contribs)
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs)
In ictu oculi (talk · contribs)
Ignocrates (talk · contribs)
Eusebeus (talk · contribs)
Davidbena (talk · contribs)
Atethnekos (talk · contribs)
Evensteven (talk · contribs)
Bermicourt (talk · contribs)
StAnselm (talk · contribs)
John Carter (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

Gospel of Matthew (main)
Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (secondary)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

ANI, 3 February 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 26 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 30 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 30 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 31 January 2014 (link)
Article talk page, 1 February 2014 (link)
Reliable sources noticeboard, 30 August 2013 (link)
Fringe theories noticeboard, 2 August 2013 (link)

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

To what extent, if at all, should Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew as described by Papias be represented in the Gospel of Matthew article?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Additional issue 1 - The specific language, if any, to be used in the article regarding the above subject, and specifically where it would be included in the article. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional issue 2 - Clear and specific indications from those proposing such content regarding exactly how the proposed changes are in accord with all relevant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediation

Agree. Ret.Prof (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. PiCo (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Davidbena (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Ignocrates (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Atethnekos (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Evensteven (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Bermicourt (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. St Anselm (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Eusebeus (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

Accept. Mediator to be assigned. For the Mediation Committee Sunray (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note1: I have added StAnselm to the list of participants. StAnselm needs to accept. I hadn't noticed that other participants had not accepted yet (my bad). I will check with them.

Note2: There are many participants involved. The mediator who takes this case may want to discuss ways of making the process simpler. One way to do this would be to have the participants agree on spokespersons. Sunray (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Cross-posted from Sunray's talk page] With the growing number of parties selecting spokespeople is necessary. David and I will represent those who believe Papias is reliable re the Hebrew Gospel. I suggest the opposing view select User:PiCo and User:Ignocrates. PiCo has been a part of this process from the beginning and although he has brutally attacked my position, he has been polite...even kind toward me. His arguments have actually made me moderate my position. (A good sign for mediation). Ignocrates on the other hand knows "the ropes". He has been though this process before. Of course it is up to them to decide. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this is assuming there is an "us" and "them". I don't necessarily want anyone to speak for me until I know what they're going to say. St Anselm (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I have no intention of being a spokesperson for anyone but myself. Ignocrates (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason for the suggestion for spokespersons, but I think it would put a huge strain on the person acting as such. I have to decline. PiCo (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. A mediation is a facilitated discussion. It is up to the participants to determine what works best for them. The mediator is there to assist that process. Sunray (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I suggest that each side be restricted to a certain number of words - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this mediation goes anything like others I have participated in, some or all of the parties will be asked to make an opening statement. How that happens will be up to our mediator. Please remember (everyone), this is strictly about content. Therefore, no speculation about the motives, intentions, or hidden agendas of other editors is required. Ignocrates (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am flexible. My only concern would be a "word restriction" per "user account". All other approaches would be fine with me! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I add to this: any arguments smacking of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH should be speedily deleted or re-factored, since these policies are non-negotiable. The mediators should do this, so there would not be any suspicion of foul play. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would a two stage approach work? The original editors involved ie User:PiCo and I work [1] with the mediator. If we secure an agreement, then we try to extend it to all the parties who have joined us. In any event, it is probably best that I say no more and simply trust User:Andrevan. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note3: Participants may wish to familiarize themselves with the Mediation Policy. Note that mediation is not a step on the road to arbitration. Mediation deals with disputes over content. It does not address behavioral issues. Participants need to be clear on which process they are going to engage. Sunray (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We still have two editors on the above list who have not yet signified their agreement. I will contact them to ask about their intentions. Sunray (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All editors have agreed to mediation and we are ready to proceed as planned.Ignocrates (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've agreed to mediate. We should get started over the weekend. Thanks, Andrevan@ 20:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of everybody, thank you. Please note that David observes the Sabbath. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrevan, thank you - please note Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew request by John Carter (which I believe will only benefit this). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation moved to talk page. Andrevan@ 23:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.