What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
Several editors have reverted fully referenced, valid editing of the status of current knowledge on the origin of the Jews. As far as I can tell they have no expertise in the field other than personal interest and desire to limit the article to what they believe the state of the field entails. (This same group of editors have very similar tactics that are being used on several pages that involve information about Jewish history, archaeological theory on Jewish history etc). On the other hand I am a PhD academic with over 20 years of experience and have read all of the literature that I have cited. I am in contact with a number of scholars who hold the opinion that these editors refuse to allow on the page as well as scholars who are more moderate in their interpretations on the topic. One scholar who holds the unallowed interpretation (DavidAFalk) tried to enter the discussion on the talk page and was actually told that he did not know what he was talking about, by an editor who admitted that he had not read any of the relevant references being offered for improvement for a NPOV. (He also suggested that no one reading my edits should assume that I had correctly summarized the material, admitting that he had read none of what I had referenced.) Another editor has gone so far as to request investigation of me for sock puppetry because I have similar complaints and discussions with another user, Korvex. This charge was brought forward based on our common complaint that articles that these editors are monitoring is not representative of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This same editor actually stated that we should be investigated because both are "involved in articles pertaining to the history of Ancient Israel, both users push a maximalist (read: either fundamentalist or conservative evangelical) standpoint". This statement is of course discrimination on his part based on what he perceives is a religious affiliation. This has legal implications for him. These same editors are deliberately removing valid, current status of the field, text over and over again, disregarding any and all attempts on my part to comply with each 'suggestion' they have made. Over two months time they have asked me to discuss on the talk page, then complained because I discussed at too much length on the talk page, most recently 'warning' me of this. Although the sock puppetry claim was closed with no action, it was brought up again today by one of the editors at which time, disregarding all of the discussion on the talk page, he/she removed my edits, stating they were POV. This is bizarre. MY edits provide both POV that are currently part of the field, which creates a NPOV document, rather than the single POV that the reverting editors insist upon. These editors have They are deleting the very text that provides NPOV, I can only assume without even reading it. To make matters very much worse, these editors appear to have no responsibility to reference their own claims or offer proof that their edits (in this case, reversions) are valid. They certainly do not seem to feel that they have any responsibility to verify their editorializing which in this case, after 2 months, is more bullying than scholarly. Or as legal counsel who I have spoken to observes, smacks of anti-Semitism. These editors either have no working knowledge of the Jews origins as it relates to archaeology or worse, they have some sort of agenda that clearly goes against Wikipedia's stated policies. SO PLEASE, please escalate this to editors who are indeed neutral and seek to have Wikipedia articles provide real scholarly content, one that is not colored by agenda, religious intolerance, bias, or lack of expertise.
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
Disagree. ...as there is no debate.... clear consensus by the vast majority of participants that the text and sources are problematic.--Moxy (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite for mediation #3, "The dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor." For issues concerning editor behaviour, speak to an administrator or file a complaint at administrators' noticeboard/incidents after thoroughly reading the instructions there. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
