User talk:Goodoldpolonius2/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Is the Jewish Enclyclopedia in the Public Domain? Roodog2k 21:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep. See the article Jewish Encyclopedia --Goodoldpolonius2 21:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote on new template[edit]

I have now posted a vote (Template_talk:Jew#Vote_on_new_template) for whether or not people will accept the new template. Please put yourself where you feel comfortable. Alkivar 19:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problem of converted/ non-ethinic / ethinic jews on Jew page[edit]

Well it is this, on that talk page more talk is of no use. For many on that talk page, this objection is not acceptable in context of this article.

Yes I have biased thoughts. I made it very clear that I am pro-Palestinian. I don't feel any need of creating a 'sock puppet' which will 'hide' it. If my point is valid it doesn't matter what opinion I have. Now about that article, I am willing to talk with you on your user page or my user page or any other place. But currently jew talk page is not suitable for it, because of 'hostility'.

You are on present on that page very actively and for a long time. You know better then any body else that, all the content on that page depends on, what is actually meant but 'ethnic jew' . The term on which the whole article depends is complex/vague/Weasel you can chose any word but it is not very clear to all. You might say that is due to lack of knowledge of the readers who don't understand it. But this is the whole point in wikipedia. We expect people to have 'lack of knowledge'. These articles are to 'fill up the knowledge gap'. So it should be clear.

Zain 20:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, I guess my point is that the article is very clear and that the confusion that surrounds it is the confusion associated with any word that has ambiguity. Plus, there is an entire article on Who is a Jew? designed exactly to address your concerns. I will make my arguments, and I would ask you to respond to the statements in bold so that we can come to some sort of consensus.
  1. Defining Jew. The article confines itself to defining Jew as "used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or a member of the Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes." and then it says "In modern usage, Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification." All other definition of the term is left to the Who is a Jew article. Do you agree that this is the way that the article currently addresses the definion of Jew? What is wrong with the current Who is a Jew article
  2. Confusion. I guess I am still not sure what the confusion actually is. First, the key term you object to, "ethnic Jew" is barely used in the article. Instead, the article describes Jews from a non-religious standpoint. This is an ethnic/national/cultural description, just as I could describe Gypses by both their religious beliefs, and also by their culture. Regardless, there seems to be, at a very minimum, four characteristics associated with being a member of the group of Jews: (1) You must be descended from Jews, or converted into the religion yourself (the analogy here is with nationhood - you must either be born to Pakistani parents, or become a Pakistani citizen), and (2) You must acknowledge you are currently a Jew in some way, whether by religious or cultural association to the Jewish people. (3) Some reasonable group of outside observers (not a majority, but some significant group) should consider you Jewish. (4) If your hereditary connection to the current Jewish people is murky, there is an especially high burden to have some forms of Jewish practice and identity in order to be part of the Jewish people (thus the Bene Israel are considered Jewish, the Pashtun are not). The article states these things, and the Who is a Jew? article goes into it in more detail. Please tell me, according to these standards, which groups are excluded from the Jew article, that you feel need to be included? Note that Paul, Mary, and Jesus are included in this definitoon, as is Madeline Albright
  3. Differences between Jews and Israelites. Some of the groups you cited claim to be descendents of the Israelites, they do not claim to be Jews. The proper article on this subject is Israelite.
  4. Differences between individuals and groups. Some groups ("Messianic Judaism") consist of some members who are Jewish (even if they converted to this form of Christianity) and some who are not, because they have no hereditary connection, and no cultural connection, to the Jewish people. Thus, it is possible for certain groups to have Jewish members, without being Jewish groups. Who is a Jew handles this.
  5. The proper set-up of the article. I continue to hold that the proper place for defining whether someone is a Jew is the Who is a Jew? article. Please explicitly state which other changes you would like to make to the Jew article, and why those changes would not be appropriate to the Who is a Jew? article.

This will help me understand what you want, and we can try to resolve this to your satisfaction. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  1. 'who is jew' doesn't explicitly says 'who is ethnic jew'. About scope of Jew article the only statement which is made in Jew article, is following:
    • "This article discusses the term as describing an ethnic group"
    'Who is jew' deals very good with all other definitions except 'ethnic jew'. that Who is ethnic jew?
  2. The standards you stated are neither mentioned in this article, nor in 'who is jew article'! Can you tell me where these four conditions are mentioned explicitly? (Although 'who is jew' article give a claim of 5 conditions but largely related to israel/zionism/anti-sentiment.). You can give the standard which u mentioned in 'who is jew' article or a new article Who is ethnic jew?
  3. Yes you are right there is difference, but some (minor/major not sure) say all Israelities are jews (whether they recognize it or not). It was even mentioned in 'who is jew' article but that portion was later deleted when I referred to that article. It stated
    • "Traditional view is that any child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish, whether or not he/she is raised Jewish, or even whether the mother considers herself Jewish. As a result, the grandchildren of Madeline Albright (who was raised Catholic and unaware of her Jewish heritage) will all be Jews according to halakha (Dr. Albright has only daughters), since their mother's mother's mother's mother's mother was a Jew."
    Just for information. Is Al-bright only jew because she discovered it, when she became the sectary. Without this knowledge she was not jew? And can we call her jew from her time of birth or did she became jew at time of her discovery?
    But any how this is currently a sub-problem. Because the content of the article at present are depended on definition of 'ethnic jew' not 'Halakha'. No need of discussing this point for now.
  4. Skipping this for the moment
  5. I am not asking for even a single content change I just want more explanation either in the article (not feasible) or as a link. Currently 'who is jew' article doens't give explicit definition of 'ethnic jew'. Compare it with the 4 standard what you have given to me. They should be added in to 'who is jew'. Word 'ethnic jew' should be linked to that specific section of 'who is jew'. (or may be a complete article explaining 'who is ethnic jew')

Zain 22:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, I guess the problem is that there is no such thing as an "ethnic Jew" -- there are only Jews. Plus, you are actually overemphasizing the role of "ethnic Jew" in the article, it also refers to Jews as a nation and a culture. The Who is a Jew? article covers the full range of different ways of determining who is a Jew, including religious and ethnic perspectives. I do not think we need a new article, and I would like your argument about why we do.

Second, it is worth noting that the identity of "Jew" is a bundle of concepts (nationality, religion, ethnic group, etc.), and, as such, can be somewhat imprecise to define. The definition I came up with was an attempt to actualize this approach. Obviously, it is not a formal definition. Was Albright a Jew before she figured out she was a Jew? Probably by some definitions, but she was probably more "Jewish" after she identified and acknowledged her connection to the Jewish people. The point is that this is not a black and white issue, there are people who are clearly Jewish, and then there is some ambiguous cases. The Who is a Jew? article actually discusses this controversy.

What changes would you want in the Who is a Jew article to make you happy?

Again, I leave you with the words of the Alt.culture.jewish FAQ, which I think is pretty good: Judaism can be thought of as being simultaneously a religion, a nationality and a culture.

Throughout the middle ages and into the 20th century, most of the European world agreed that Jews constituted a distinct nation. This concept of nation does not require that a nation have either a territory nor a government, but rather, it identifies, as a nation any distinct group of people with a common language and culture. Only in the 19th century did it become common to assume that each nation should have its own distinct government; this is the political philosophy of nationalism. In fact, Jews had a remarkable degree of self-government until the 19th century. So long as Jews lived in their ghettos, they were allowed to collect their own taxes, run their own courts, and otherwise behave as citizens of a landless and distinctly second-class Jewish nation.

Of course, Judaism is a religion, and it is this religion that forms the central element of the Jewish culture that binds Jews together as a nation. It is the religion that defines foods as being kosher and non-kosher, and this underlies Jewish cuisine. It is the religion that sets the calendar of Jewish feast and fast days, and it is the religion that has preserved the Hebrew language.

Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more. Although Judaism arose out of a single ethnicity in the Middle East, there have always been conversions into and out of the religion. Thus, there are those who may have been ethnically part of the original group who are no longer part of Judaism, and those of other ethnic groups who have converted into Judaism.

If you are referring to a nation in the sense of race, Judaism is not a nation. People are free to convert into Judaism; once converted, they are considered the same as if they were born Jewish. This is not true for a race --Goodoldpolonius2 02:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which definition this article uses?[edit]

First let me try to clarify some things about this article. Questions which I guess can be easily answered in Yes/No manner. With some comment if required.

  1. Is there a specific definition/concept/ 'school of thought ' which this article uses to decide which people are discussed here?
  2. Does it use a specific definition from 'who is jew'?
  3. Does it use mix of definition from 'who is jew?'
  4. Definition/concept/'school of thought' which is used here, can it be described in an article? (Please note for now the question is, 'can' it be described, it is not, 'should' it be described)
  5. You gave me four standards. Can we put these four standards in any article of wikipedia. i.e. 'who is jew' or a new article?

So please if possible give answer number by number with yes/No and comments when required. Zain 20:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zain, I would appreciate if you would answer my questions above -- you still have not articulated outside support for your approach. But I will take a crack at yours:
  1. Is there a specific definition/concept/ 'school of thought ' which this article uses to decide which people are discussed here?. I would argue that the answer is "no," outside of the very broad defintion given in the first two paragraphs of the article, and which I quote above. The article on Jews covers the basics of Jewish history, population, and culture in very broad strokes. It does not engage in debate over the semantics of who is a Jew (explicitly leaving this to the who is a jew article), as even the population figures are estimates, and their methods are explained. Again, if there is some significant segment of people who claim to be Jews that are left out, you haven't shown who they are, or why there would be confusion.
  2. It uses the broadest definition of Jew, to whit: defining Jew as "used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or a member of the Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes." and then it says "In modern usage, Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification." Otherwise, it has a whole section on Who is a Jew?
  3. I think it does, see above
  4. The four standards were my effort to try and cut through your confusion, and to distill the arguments by MPerel, JMabel, and others. Basically, that there is a concept of what Jews are that cut across all the definitions, even if details are argued with from interpretation to interpretation. Again, I do not think this needs to be included anywhere, and once again request that you demonstrate how the article leads to confusion, before we attempt to theoretically resolve such confusion....

see below for new addition --Goodoldpolonius2 03:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clarified definition of Jew and Final Point[edit]

Zain, I attempted to clarify the definition of Jew, see the Who is a Jew section of the main Jew article. Does that resolve your confusion? I really, really hope so.

Also, I have yet to see an outside source cited by you on the significance of your argument that there are significant groups of people who should be considered Jews but aren't covered by the article. Could you answer this question before we have any more discussion?Goodoldpolonius2 04:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am a little busy in some other stuff I'll answer you after 2,3 days. I haven't read ur response completely. I'll answer the 'confusion' question from your own posts. See you after 2,3 days. Zain 01:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Jewish ethnocentrism[edit]

It has been proposed that the Jewish ethnocentrism article be deleted. You can find the discussion and vote at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jewish_ethnocentrism. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Jews by country[edit]

This has not yet been submitted, and John would wig out if I submitted it myself. But I suggest you discuss this with others ASAP. I submit for your discussion with others that the author has little regard for misrepresenting the reliability of his figures, that the article gives a inferior knowledge than the Jewish population article does both of current and pass population tends. That the title is questionable in its honesty because as he shows at the top of the discussion page, following his prevuious pattern he should have used the less offensive title Judaism by country. And finally, the figures which he has published do not come from the listed reference pages as he infers but have been generated by himself by multiplying the est. 2005 populations by the rough percentage numbers for the countries.

As an example, being Australian I checked his figure for "Australian Jews" in his words. None of his references give his figure of 100,452. Nor do any of the reputable sources pretend to give percise religious numbers to six or eight digit accuracy. In fact, checking the references you quickly discover that the 2001 Australian census gave the figure of 84,000 people who marked Judaism as their religion. That all other real estimates are based upon adjustments to that figure, as is discussed on this page I found [ by a Christian Research Association]. I finally did a Google searchon his claimed figure to discover that Wikipedia is the only publication claiming such a figure. So I finally submit that this article relects badly upon Wikipedia and adds no meaningful value beyond the fine work already done in Jewish population. I am afraid this is seems to be another example of where this author has misrepresented certain details to create the illusion that he is scholarly NPOV author.--Daeron 17:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note to Goodoldpolonius2. This person is following me around because he thinks I a sockpuppet of John Kenny who he doesn't seem to like :)) I did use the title "Judaism by country" but was asked to change the title by Jaiyg, as you know. The title can easily be changed back to "Judaism by country." As for Australia, the percentage was taken from the US State Department and that percentage was multiplied to get the rough numbers for 2005. As for "precise religious numbers to six or eight digit accuracy", that's the result of simple multiplication. The US census has precise numbers of each country. That doesn't mean that exactly that many people live in, say, China OneGuy 07:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Daeron, I have found OneGuy to be very open to constructive criticism about the Jews by country page (which was indeed retitled at the the request of Jayg). I think he uses an automated script to determine the populations, so it may not match every survey. I did a lot of work on the original Jewish populations page, and though the figures may different, I don't think that OneGuy has an agenda around the numbers he is choosing. He has been happy to add any other data source people have found. Still, perhaps a brief mention in the intro about the script methodology may suffice?

--Goodoldpolonius2 05:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, though I did not say he had an agenda did I? I said he had created a redundant page; though I did also say he seems to have a questionable commitment revealing that his figures were manufactured rather than reported.
  • If on the other hand, the aim of the article was to calculate the number of Jewish people worldwide, then given the fact that the source figures generally had only one digit of accuracy;
e.g. the 80% for Israel & 2% for the US which according to the page makes up approx. 3/4 of the global Jewish population - the resulting total could at best be said to be between 10 and 20 million, the probability of a central figure being greatly influenced by the US 2% figure, how accurate it was, how it was determined, and by which issue did the US govt. define someone as Jewish or non-Jewish. Once you know that the US & Israel use the same definition - you might then be able to say something like the population is probably between 12 and 18 million and the percentage between 2 and 3%. Which would better reflect the source figures provided they are of the same thing.
  • In any event, as it stands, the current Jews by country page gives large lists of super-accurate numbers which do not reflect the true approximate counts or nature in each country; by the page title, people would expect it to have indepth discussion of Jewish population in each country. Where as the Jewish population page appears to give both the numbers, and attempt to provide some context for those numbers.--Daeron 02:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Daeron, I agree with you, the counts on this page seem accurate, and are not. I added a disclaimer to the top. I still think the information is valuable, though. What else would you suggest, since I don't think it needs to be deleted. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If you do feel it has worth, how about adding that information as a paragraph or section to the Jewish population page? Simple and keeps the info under one heading. I do like how that article uses a full quote from the World Jewish Population Survey to state the survey's figure of 2.19% - it is a good way for Wikipedia to report that number--Daeron 11:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't you create the article African Jews[edit]

Before creating the redirect from Jews in Congo (Kinshasa)? --Prisk 05:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops, should have been African Jew. I put in another redirect.

Wouldn't the Jews in "Arab Country" articles , Egypt, Libya, etc[edit]

Be better to redirect to Mizrahi or Sephardic or Temani rather than Islam and Judaism? --Prisk 06:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not in my opinion - those articles cover ethnic groups, but Islam and Judaism is the appropriate article (should be titled History of the Jews in Muslim Lands, but the other name is what we are stuck with) to cover the actual history, especially as there are currently very few Jews there. Feel free to expand Islam and Judaism to include more history. Goodoldpolonius2

I personally think that instead of creating redirects, these should be articles on their own, like all the articles in Category:Islam by country. Take Jews in Cuba for example. The following article suggests that there should be enough material on this topic to create a short article on Wikipedia on this topic OneGuy 06:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, as the primary writer of new articles on Jewish history (see all of the History of the Jews in... articles -- Latin America, Germany, Italy, France, United States, etc.), I would love to have specific, seperate articles on each country. But I also think that incorporating all of the material into each article is a lot of work, and the whole "Jews in ___" format is not the one generally being used before your article came along. There is a lot of material - see especially the Virtual History Tour of the Jewish Virtual Library, for really, really detailed information that could be sources for great articles, if you want. Their Cuba article is here: [1]
--Goodoldpolonius2 06:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's probably a lot of work :)) I am not saying that this should be done right away, but eventually someday every country should have it's own article. I am just suggesting that that should be the goal, i.e. a separate article for each country OneGuy 06:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jew temp sand[edit]

I have moved this article to your user space, at User:Goodoldpolonius2/Jew temp sand. It's not an article (no text at all), so it doesn't belong in the article space. -- Curps 02:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Curps, huh? I didn't write this... --Goodoldpolonius2 03:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that's a bit odd. For some reason the page history shows you as the author: [2] -- Curps 03:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Must have been something I did in error awhile ago during the discussion of the template. Anyhow, thanks for the clean-up. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Excellent overhaul of Management consulting. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I made a few more changes, also. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Caveat on the Talk:Jew page[edit]

I proposed a new wording for the caveat on the Talk:Jew page a couple of days ago, I wonder if you've seen it. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Latest change to History of the Jews in Latin America[edit]

You might want to take a look at them, and my comments on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:History of the Jews in Latin America#Cleanup for a response to your edit summary request. Guy M (soapbox) 04:52, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Definitions and criteria[edit]

See my latest entry on the talk page for the "Jew" article. It seems I did not get my point across; in any case, the current first sentence, while nicely pluralistic, is also a bit of a mess.

I've seen that the sentence I wrote on genetics has been deleted, even though I gave standard sources; if one claim on genetics does not belong in the section, perhaps other, older claims on genetics do not belong in it either? Hasdrubal 01:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Total Annihilation[edit]

Why did you edit out those last sentences on Line 109? It wasn't that biased; it didn't say "all fans"...

It wasn't that biased, but it was biased -- I liked TA as well, but Wikipedia policy requires that you substantiate your claims. Magazine articles, top 100 games lists, etc. would be a good way to prove your point. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism[edit]

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Jewish language[edit]

You may be interested in the discussion brewing at Template_talk:Jewish_language#Attention-stealing_template. Tomer TALK 17:42, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

simpletoremember spam linker[edit]

Well, at first I examined each link, to see if it was encyclopedic and relevant; some were, and some weren't. Of the ones that were, many were were actually copies of sources found elsewhere, so I re-linked to the original sources. However, after a while this person's insistence on linking to the same articles over and over on his website has grown tiresome, and I now simply revert. You can't really block, because he's using a range of IPs. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


Please contact User:Humus sapiens who wishes to start a Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel See his request below. Thanks. IZAK 08:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi IZAK (and everyone else here :), Do you think it's time to create Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Israel similar to Wikipedia:Wikiportal/India, Wikipedia:Wikiportal/New Zealand and other Category:Wikiportals? I'm writing this here because it was you who made those wonderful templates and we don't have a portal yet where we could communicate. What do you think? Humus sapiensTalk 05:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi Humus, it's only me here, but I will pass your message on to "everyone". Yes, your suggestion is excellent, it is certainly time for what you describe, but I have no experience with Wikipedia portals, and if you know how, go ahead and start an Israel portal and I am sure editors of Israel-related articles will support you and join in the effort/s. Behatzlachah. IZAK 05:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, consider youself invited to WP:WNBI. Spread the word. Humus sapiensTalk 09:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia[edit]

When you use material from the Jewish Encyclopedia as the basis of an article, as you did with History of the Jews in Tunisia, you need to note your source in the References for your article. You can do this easily using the template {{JewishEncyclopedia}}. Gdr 19:16, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Yes, I know this, I am in the process of just starting these articles now. Its only been five minutes! Give me a chance... Goodoldpolonius2 19:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Copy and paste moves[edit]

Copy and paste "moves" are not only seriously annoying, they violate the spirit and possibly the letter of the GFDL. Everyone has a right to get the credit for their own articles; copy and paste moves hide the history. If you want to do a real move, use the "move page" feature, NOT copying and pasting. Moreover, had you read the article in full, you would have noticed that it does not by any means deal only with the history of Jews in Algeria. - 23:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoever you are -- I didn't come up with the naming scheme, but if you notice, all of the articles on Jewish communities around the world are "the history of the jews in ___," regardless of whether they also cover current events. This article is the only one that does not comply with the naming scheme. So, to avoid pointless forwarding back and forth, what do you suggest? Also, I am not sure that credit is a major part of the wikipedia "free use without credit" policy. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I was a bit harsh with you there - I realize now that it was an honest mistake. To move an article, you don't copy and paste it to the new title, because that effectively hides the previous edit history. Instead, you use the "move page" button, which changes the title while retaining the history. See m:Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. Unfortunately, now that both pages have a history, it will be necessary to get an admin to delete the copied one in order to move the old one to the new title. - 16:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Now fixed. But yes, credit does matter: that's also why we aren't allowed to vote "merge and delete" on VfD. The GFDL says "this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others." - Mustafaa 18:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay Mustafaa - thanks for the policy and technical help, I have been active on Wikipedia for awhile, and never ran across this issue. And thanks fournumbers for getting this cleared up. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Social Security[edit]

Thanks for your note. I was wondering why you made those edits, especially the mass deletion. The revival of some language that had been deleted long ago should've tipped me off that you accidentally edited an old version. We've all made mistakes like that at times, no harm done. JamesMLane 23:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrians' number[edit]

See links Talk:Major world religions. Vuvar1 22:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland[edit]

Could you please respond to my June 8 comments in Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland. --Ttyre 22:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a good and civil discussion on History of the Jews in Poland. Your contributions and extensive edits, especially in up to 1795 section, have greatly improved its quality. Also, please read the discussion on the idea of moving and incorporating "ethnic" (including Poland) sections of Talk:Anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism_in_Poland into the appropriate articles - would you help? --Ttyre 20:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see my changes and comments in 1918-1939 period in Poland. I would want to stress again however, that NYT is NOT primary source, since it was widely accused of fabricating reports etc. More accurate would be Morgenthau, Jadwin and Johnson, Stewart, Cpt Wright and other reports. I wish I would have whole reports and not only abstracts Szopen 11:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are getting close to PR/FAC. Will you have time to finish summarising into subarticles anytime soon? This and transforming external links so common in the last part of the article into footnots is all I think that stands between this, a favourable PR and then FAC :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

List of massacres[edit]

There was a proposal to change dates from the familiar AD/BC Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate The proposal was made and lost. So why did you change the dates? --ClemMcGann 13:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was the first person to add events before 1 AD/CE among many others, I didn't change anything just to change it, as far as I know. Second, the proposal was to set a single standard, the vote failed and there isn't one, but according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." I went with BCE and CE because (a)it is used in most discussions about massacres (especially since so many involved non-Christians and non-Westerners) see Matthew White's page and (b) it is perfectly fine by Wikipedia standards. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Genghis Khan[edit]

It is a wonderful thing when two parties in disagreement can see eye to eye. You showed admirable civility, thank you. siafu 02:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR "warnings"[edit]

Just to let you know, it's usually best to avoid such strong edit comments as "Do not change again WP:3RR", particularly when no user is anywhere near likely to break the 3RR. It can be seen as a bit aggressive and may get someone's back up. violet/riga (t) 00:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks - this person keeps inserting an unverified religion in various pages. He has done it a couple times using different IP addresses, and refuses to come to Talk. I am not usually agressive in these kinds of things, but as the vandalism defender on world religions, I might be a little terse, so thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the situation, I think that the religion the anon is dedicated to including does seem suspicious. There are external links that seem to verify its existence, but I certainly agree with you that it isn't a "major world religion". I'll try to keep watch of the article and help you out, though I'm not around too much right now. violet/riga (t) 06:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


As far as I know, only a Developer can do that. You could ask on Village Pump. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not just move User:Goodoldpolonius2 to User:Goodpolonius? Tomer TALK 02:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Does that preserve my history of edits?
It should preserve them as edits by Goodoldpolonius2. If that's not good enough for you, I guess you'll hafta get someone w/ edit access to the userdb's (I assume?) metadata. Tomer TALK 03:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

South African Jews[edit]

Could you explain why you dropped "…the South African Jews are the largest national community of Ashekenazi Jews to identify predominantly with Orthodox Judaism." Your comment "Eliminated statement about orthodoxy of S.A. Jews, at least until what "predominently identify" and "not really orthodox" means -seems unneeded," doesn't explain much. "Predominantly" here simply means that the predominant majority identify as Orthodox. I have no idea what the phrase "not really orthodox" in your comment refers to: it was nowhere to be found in any version of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 05:16 (UTC)

My comment refers to IZAK's addition: "although most of them would not be considered fully Orthodox since most South African Jews are not totally Shabbat observant (the usual critical criterion qualifying a Jew as "Orthodox"." (history) I thought that with this qualification the question of "full orthodoxy" was getting messy enough to distract from the article - but we can add in the stat that 80% identify as Orthodox so as to make it precise, as long as we don't have to start throwing in qualifiers. --Goodoldpolonius2 7 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
Yes, please. The quibbling as to where to draw the line on "Orthodox" seems to me to be beside the point. The issue is that they are quite unusual among Ashkenazim in so heavily identifying as Orthodox, not whether they are all strict in their observance. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Talk:History of Poland (1945-1989)#Position of Jews in Poland around 1946[edit]

Hello! I'd appreciate your input in this discussion. Perhaps you could shed some light on the issue of WWII reallocation of Jewish properties. Thank you, HKT 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

More importantly, the current article suggests that Jewish involvement in communism created the anti-Semitism that led to the Kielce Pogrom. I know you've researched this more or less specifically, and I'd appreciate your input. Thanks, HKT 7 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
Thank you. Please be on the lookout for reverts, though (which I hope will not occur). If reverts do happen, you'll undoubtedly get dragged into the talk page. HKT 8 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Any luck with the name change?[edit]

I was wondering how that went. By the way, you might be interested in this VfD: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Naw, but thanks for asking. Congrats on the Arb position, and thanks for the heads-up, I voted delete on all three in the series, since it seems a doomed idea from the start. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


Hello. Please identify your sources that the Yehiam convoy was primarily civilian. Everything I have seen indicates otherwise. For example, the account here says "forty-seven Haganah people were killed". This one says "46 members of the Haganah convoy". The IDF page doesn't mention civilians. The Jewish virtual library says "47 of the Haganah fighters were killed". All these are Israeli sources with no clear motivation for distortion. I think you are wrong about the Etzion convoy too. --Zero 08:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Host desecration[edit]

Interesting expansion, but you left a paragraph starting "efiling the host or sacred wafer of the mass. on exacted by torture, were condemned and burned" -- leftovers from editing, no doubt. Could you take a look? Thanks. Hajor 13:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland[edit]

Hi, I left on the talk page of the article information about number of Jews living in Poland today. Please, let me know your opinion. --SylwiaS 17:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I know that looking for sources needs some time. In the meantime I've found numbers from IPN (National Memory Institute). The numbers seem to be in the middle between your sources and those given by me previously. I'll try to translate them soon. --SylwiaS 17:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It's ok, I'll post my reply soon. --SylwiaS 01:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Replying to User talk:Buffyg#History of the Jews in Poland:

I'll be back home from the road next week, at which time I can access my library and get to the edits. I will look at the other articles you referenced in your mail to see what contributions I can make there. Buffyg 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Yes, yes, I know you are right. To be frank, half of it was just my blowing off steam accumulated from other sources, and it felt a little fun. But you are right and I'll stop now, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You just let me know anytime you want me to drop back in, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Curious statistics[edit]

Since you are involved in the History of the Jews+country, I would like to point you to the following statistics. Number of phrase anti-Semitism in the following articles:

What do you think? --Ttyre 16:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page as well. You are making an assumption of significance that is incorrect. This difference is a result of how much particular articles have been edited from their Jewish Encyclopedia version, which only uses the word anti-semitism in articles about Bulgaria, Algeria, and, Luxmebourg(!), since the term wasn't used in 1906. Very little work has gone into the article on Germany, and I just inserted Spain a day or two ago (and never touched Besarabia), so they will not mention anti-Semitism -- though you miscounted, search for "anti-semitic" as well. I would suggest that you actually read the articles on Germany and Spain, you will see that they tell about anti-Jewish persecution, just as much as the articles on Poland and Russia, if not more so, since they have not had the goings-over that the Polish history is. I am not sure what your point is, in any case. Perhaps you can enlighten me? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
IMO, the issue of A-S in the history of certain countries (e.g. Poland) is drawing much more attention from the WP editors than that issue in other countries (e.g. Germany). I did read History... in Germany article - lack of activity there is also very telling. It is, to a certain degree, a reflection of amount of attention these subjects (countries) are receiving from the community of historians at large. Since you are committed to working on this topic, you are in a position to introduce more NPOV and balanced tone to the whole set of History of the Jews+country articles. This has been my intention of curious statistics note. --Ttyre 20:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually there has been very little attention to almost any of the articles on Jewish History, with the exception of Poland. I think that has more to do with actually having an interested Polish community on WP than anything else -- it was one of the few articles on Jewish history that existed before I started writing them. On the German side, there are huge amounts of sub-articles that have been extensively edited: Nuremberg Laws, Nazi, Holocaust, etc. I intend to keep editing the many other articles as well, but there seems to be little interest from other editors in helping, and little of the back-and-forth that has made the Polish article so educational to work on. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

recent edit[edit]

"This charter, which encouraged money-lending, was a slight variation of the 1244 charter granted by the King of Austria to the Jews." You edited this sentence out of the A-S article. I think that mentioning the Austrian charter provides important historical context. I also think that mentioning money-lending provides a little background on a precursor to anti-Semitism. Let me know what you think. Thanks, HKT talk 17:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a lot of thought went into the cut, I was just trimming a bit to cancel the NPOV tag, and we already mentioned the economic issue in that paragraph, so I cut the sentence. Feel free to restore, if you want. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

new vfd[edit]

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I suppose it's only appropriate to open a new VfD on the others, too. HKT talk 19:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I believe the Christians one was a clear keep. Just the Jews, then. HKT talk 19:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

FK free rant[edit]

Hi, I'm the guy sometimes referred to as FK and rooting about in the Weimar history that enabled Hitler . I would answer your questions with hesitation as to stuff after the WWII . I fear old man , I mean goood old you P , that it continues to stink a bit . Like I do seem to remember being persuaded that indeed the entire Nazi intelligence service was bought up and shipped out to , well , texas . That they didnt know the soviets had long since infiltrated it for obvious reasons of preparation from what since 41 was the corporals losing situation . Interesting also are accusations that the nazis funded the rise of saudi inner ligious heavy bevvy . but youve heard of the magnates and you know the brit papers belonged both times and observer to pastorial care , that the inner case against the appeasers runs from the danube all across the big pond and is a continuation of influence west there since the founding fathers . This is like the russian dolls, is it that the very bolshies first train journey across euro snow was financed-on in aquiet hedge bet , certainly west of the danube sam-ness ran all the debts and all the fine ants . Just the guys needed their pride after the war and well it wasnt stamped on , and the other interests , thats what its all about, it aint no one party of corruption nor from one place , Hitler didnt think clear enough , there are maybe races, doubtful as we increasingly know, but what were s important and still are is well ill just say the interests, if you leave them out of the pot you dont really taste the histoical stew . none of this is no good without sources , there never was a democracy but always the weimar was one long battle for the idea of one. all the problems were factored institionally - i need to broaden my view back but im only just free from 33 . Like to understand you have to read from then to now , like understanding music ( I dont know -an analogy ) actually i dont really want to know evreything , i just get forced into it . as you ask for afters well europe was obliterated culturally . like the fashions in culture and art we see now and see sometimes in a descending grade , well we are nearly blind to the cultural destruction of 33 -45 , we cannot feel it because we were simply cut off from the riches of a comparatively sophisticated cultural age . Anything since has been as a low grade re-planning and we only recognise the abysmal nature of planned cultured results of now , of our age .These quickly pall and lose their gloss and our conviction .you could say that socially as animals we fouled our mental feeding patch , or the stem was cut from the historical roots . I believe in truth and a reconciliation, as i believe in reason and the wikp may help . -hoping you forgive pre-script Famekeeper 20:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is Technology Neutral to Economists?[edit]

Can you (briefly) answer the question "Is technology neutral?" from the perspective of mainstream economic theories? What do classical, neoclassical, and endogenous growth economists have to say on this? Referencing readings to save time is fine. 13:37, 2 Aug 2005

Neutral is what way? And what is the information for? --Goodoldpolonius2 17:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I know that sociologists, historians, and *some* economic growth theorists recognize that technological change be distributive: it creates "winners" and "losers" in the economy & polity. But I don't read much in mainstream economic or political science that recognizes this. Therefore, I'm wondering what mainstream economic theories have to say on this? Is technology neutral or distributive in classical, neoclassical, etc. theory? Can it be accurately said that it is often assumed by economists and political scientists alike that technological change is neutral: that new technology acts to expand the production possibilities frontier for a society, it therefore benefits everyone, especially in the long-run. Hence, according to these scholars, the only opponents to technological progress are either inefficient rent-seekers or irrational Luddites. 18:41 2 Aug 2005
The problem here is level of analysis and what "winners" and "losers" means. Any economist or organizational theories would tell you that technology creates winners and losers at the firm and industry level, I don't know anyone who would think otherwise. Similarly, most macro-economists would say that the net macro-economic effect on the production function of all technological progress summed over the economy creates benefits for all in the long-run, but can cause disruption in the short-run, ala Schumpeter. How distributive those benefits are depends on the views of the economist, and how they view distribution working. Is this for a paper? Are you just curious? A good starting point for this might be the Administrative Science Quarterl special issue on Technology, Organizations, and Innovation (Mar., 1990). --Goodoldpolonius2 03:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed for a paper. I'm trying to argue that most (though not all) mainstream economists and political scientists tend to see innovation as neutral, especially in the long-run. And therefore they do not look deeply enough at the distributive aspects of technological change. I then go on to argue that these if we investigate these distributive aspects more thoroughly, we find that they help to explain why some countries are more technologically innovative than others. Any further advice, suggestions? 16:55, 3 Aug 2005
The problem remains that I am not sure exactly which economists and political scientists you are taking on. Any researcher who deals with technology or development will tell you that there are distributive aspects, from the diffusion curve to Austrian economical information asymmetries. I think your thesis is good, but there is a lot of work on regional technological advantage, so I would want to see how it connects, see Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. by Annalee Saxenian as well as Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks by Paul Almeida and Bruce Kogut, Management Science (Jul., 1999), pp. 905-917 as well as Hot Spots and Blind Spots: Geographical Clusters of Firms and Innovation Richard Pouder; Caron H. St. John The Academy of Management Review (Oct., 1996), pp. 1192-1225 Goodoldpolonius2 03:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Innovation I have just visited the wikipedia entry which includes also the definition of innovation which I proposed some ten years ago. Thanks for giving some order to the text. I did a minor change in the text. The definition I proposed is derived from the economics of knoledge transfer and not from social theory. In fact, there is an econometrics basis for it within growth theory. What we were trying to do was to indicate that technological change and innovation are not the same. If one takes the definition we proposed, it is possible to define innovation as a function of the derivative of indicators of technological change and thus, econometrically quantifiable. So, little to do with social theory. It is more econometric stuff. The great difficulty we had was that innovation economists do not accept the formulation as a definition, which is somewhat ironic. Thanks again, Regis Cabral

Slave trade[edit]

If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at Slave trade? I believe that User:Heraclius has been involved in a determined attempt to POV the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Ireland[edit]

The Evening Mail story is (I believe) in Ray Rivlin's book. Yes, it was during the war. Unfortunately I have lent/mislaid my own copy. --ClemMcGann 00:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (There are photographs of FCA units in the Dublin Jewish Museum)

Thanks, I wasn't worried that this was not real, I just wasn't entirely sure what the sentence meant or what is referring to, so thanks for clearing it up. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the list of those given Irish citizenship after the war? [3] (most on the list were Jewish) Take a look at one entry: FREILICH, David 33 Bloomfield Ave., South Circular Road, (he later moved to Australlia) and that address is the home of Chaim Herzog --ClemMcGann 01:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think its worth a link, certainly, though it is difficult for me to know how many might be related to the History of the Jews in Ireland -- one thing is that its strange to see how few naturalized immigrants there were during that 18 month period. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

i didnt have chance to fill in the page

mistakly marked[edit]


by mistake i marked "jerusalem" for deletion. i ment to do it on another value and by mistake edited this one.



No worries. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Abravanel vs. their Catholic majesties[edit]

I've been hoodwinked!!! I see no reason that the text can't remain in there though, with the disclaimer that it's a work of historical fiction. Tomer TALK 17:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I guess that would be fine, as long as we source it, but I am flummoxed trying to figure out what, exactly, should link to the fake article, or if it should be orphaned. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Turkey[edit]

Is this derived from the Jewish Encyclopedia or some similar PD source? It certainly reads that way.--Pharos 05:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I usually start with the Jewish Encyclopedia, then edit out as much extraneous stuff as possible, then put it into a chronology, and then try to make it coherent. The end result is hopefully something like History of the Jews in Poland, but this one is just getting started -- want to help? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
My concern was you forgot to label the source; I'll see what I can do with editing the article.--Pharos 05:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistake - I added the Jewish Encyclopedia template, I forgot the first time around. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


You might want to look at his recent edits. Jayjg (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you ok with the latest ones? Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


I moved that section because I thought you were inclined to redirect it, and that article is authored now. I only rewrote that section (see history). Please make a decision, though, of what you wish to do with the article — whether you intend to rewrite or merge/discard, tis rather confusing on your part, I find. Thanks. El_C 21:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia[edit]

Shalom! Thanks for your message. I've modified the project page to make it clear that material from the JE can be appropriated to begin new articles as well as to improve those that have already been created.--Defrosted 23:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


sheesh. I'm not sure how to pound sense into User:Vizcarra's head -- I mean, it's evident to anyone who looks at Passion Plays for a minute that they focus to a greater or lesser degree on Jewish deicide. He's been busy defending Mel Gibson recently; perhaps this is all blowover from that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust[edit]

Why the revert? and why no comment? 22:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Who is a Jew[edit]

Please see the recent edits. Jayjg (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


I will be away from Wikipedia until the end of August, so don't touch any of the pages I edit so I don't miss anything important! --Goodoldpolonius2 02:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Al Andalus[edit]

If you have a chance, would you mind reviewing the current dispute there, and giving your thoughts? Thx. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the Jews in Poland[edit]

Some issues which you can adress much better then I - please take a look as sson as you can. Tnx, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Resubmitting it should be easy, if you can just adressed the raised issues - they are more your area of expertise? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been so busy recently that I completly forgot about them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

St. Bernard and anti-Semitism article[edit]

I would just like to point out that there is NOTHING anti-Semitic about St. Bernard wanting to convert Jews. I want to convert Jews, am I anti-Semitic? You believe that your religion is right, or you believe that your beliefs are true. My point is just because someone wants to convert another to their beliefs, doesn't mean they are anti-Semitic. Democrats want Republicans to change their beliefs, does this make Democrats Republican-haters? Jews don't think Catholic beliefs are always right, and sometimes they want Catholics to change their beliefs, does this make Jews anti-Catholic bigots? By all means, no. Therefore, it is not right to claim that St. Bernard was anti-Semitic by stating that he wanted Jews to convert. Newcrusade 17:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think St. Bernard is anti-Semitic. In fact, I inserted that the Papacy tried to stop the Second Crusade from attacking the Jews, but that it was (as Carroll states) not out of altruism but because of the role the Jews were to play in being converting. Sorry, but I don't know how you got the wrong impression, I certainly don't think he is anti-Semitic. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


I've been away, I'll take a look now. Sorry for the delay. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've read the discussion, and it appears to me that you are now communicating reasonably well. Is that accurate? Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, seems to be a bit better - I think he came around thanks to other editors. Could you weigh in on the discussion though? It would be good to get other voices, though I don't know what your opinion is going to be on the topic. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Extending a hand[edit]

  • <<Vizcarra, from your old page listing my comments as being part of a cabal with other users[4], plus your recent comments in Talk:Zionism, I gather that you feel I am somehow acting unfairly or otherwise against you ("Also, it seems that the "regulars" who agree on a determined number of POV seem to stick together anyway, so I'm doing it to balance the discussion."). >>

No, I don't. You seem to take criticism as a personal attacks, I don't. I don't think that when people (Jayjg/Jpgordon/SlimVirgin) get together to regularly push a determined POV is "acting unfairly against me", but rather against wikipedia.

  • <<I really would like to resolve this, because I don't think this sort of antagonism is productive.>>

I am glad that you are now, because last time I checked this is what happened when we disagreed with each other:

  • <<My interest in Jewish topics (which is only a section of my interests) are certainly shared with other editors>>

It is not wrong to have an interested for determined topic, but to nominate yourself as a superior source of information is. Why do you employ "you're wrong" so often as a way to initiate a discussion after it has shown not to be conducive to a meeting of the minds. I felt that "because I say so and my people will support me inconditionally" was your main reason to justify the edits to Anti-Semitism. I felt that "the New Testament is one of the most dangerous" quote had no good intentions behind it.

  • <<but I am not part of any coordinated effort to push a POV, and I am in no way related to the other editors.>>

You are now, asking Jayjg and Jpgordon for help. When these users with SlimVirgin have a reputation of being POV pushers.

Asking for second opinions when you disagree with someone is fine. Asking people with a determined bias to support you is not. In that case, any group with a determined POV will be able to overcome and individual that attempts to pursue a NPOV because he or she will be outnumbered (and the group will be able to use the 3RR rule when reason fails).

  • <<My only disagreement with you that I know of was on the issue of Passion Plays in the anti-Semitism article. I thought you were wrong, and I tried to prove it with my sources, but was unable to convince you of my point.>>

You were unable to present a reputable source to sustain your "passion plays blame the Jews for deicide" the only publication you presented was CSM which is part of the controversial Cristian Science church. You presented other publications (Time) that mention a reflection of negative representation of Jews which is very distant of claiming they blame the Jews for deicide. Negative representation may be hairy, big noses, being stingy which have nothing to do with deicide. You also mentioned other reputable publications, but only by name and using no quotes of material.

  • "<<I have had no other interaction with you than that, and I am not sure why it seemed so antagonistic to you. If I in any way insulted you in that exchange, I apologize, but I would appreciate it if we could bury the hachet here and move forward. We are likely to continue to disagree, but I would prefer it to be productive and not destructive. Work for you?>>

Of course it does, my "attacks against" you were simply quotes of remarks by you that may be considered hostile. I don't think a reasonable person would find an attack.

However, I wouldn't consider rounding up against a newbie to attempt to preserve a determined wording of the article ethical.

  • " (intervening against me when every other editor mentioned the other user in the dispute as acting belligerently)"

Yes, Jayjg and Jpgordon, enough said.

--Vizcarra 00:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I guess my attempt at trying to end your feud with me were not successful. As for the many factual errors in your statement:
  1. I was supported against the other editor by four editors, inculding by User:BrandonYusufToropov, who hardly shares a common POV with the other editors that you have so much dislike for, and by Brian Tvedt, whomever that might be.
  2. Your assertion that I only provided a quote from the Christian Science Monitor (which, with seven Pulitzer Prizes, is not usually considered controversal in any case) is just plainly and obviously wrong, sorry to say. Looking at our discussion, you will note extended quotes[5] from Christianity Today, Time Magazine, the Catholic Boston College Guide to Passion Plays, and the peer-reviewed journal Judaism. You are also not correct in your assertion about the the Time magazine article, which said "Passion plays presented Jews as money-grubbing Christ killers," which seems pretty direct to me.
  3. The quote you objected to came from Christianity Today, not from me, and hardly an un-Christian source. I did not quote it to insult you, but because it was in an article entirely about passion plays. I apologize if you took it as an insult, certainly, but I thought we hashed this out on the Talk page at the time. Interested readers can look at article[6] and draw their own conclusions.
  4. If "huh," "this is silly," and "your reversion criteria are ridiculous...please provide sources" are insults to, as you say, a reasonable person, I would be surprised, but I tried to apologize anyway.
I tried to bridge a gap in good faith, you responded with the above. I guess we are done, sorry that my effort to reach out didn't help.
--Goodoldpolonius2 01:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
1. "I was supported against the other editor by...User:BrandonYusufToropov".
On September 2nd, I posted my remark on September 1st.
2. "Christian Science Monitor... is not usually considered controversal". I never said that, I wrote was "CSM which is part of the controversial Cristian Science church."
"Your assertion... is just plainly and obviously wrong, sorry to say."
This is what you had quoted: "Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive that theologian and Holocaust survivor Eliezer Berkovits concluded, 'the New Testament is the most dangerous anti-Semitic tract in human history". I see no mention of charges of deicide in this quote. This was my remark <<You were unable to present a reputable source to sustain your "passion plays blame the Jews for deicide" the only publication you presented was CSM which is part of the controversial Cristian Science church>>.
3. "The quote you objected to came from Christianity Today, not from me", I never said it was. I just questioned the inclusion from the quote that the New Testament is dangerous.
"I apologize if you took it as an insult"
Once again, I don't take things personally, I didn't take it as a personal insult, but rather as a proof of non-objectivity, going out of your way to show a negative and biased opinion (an assessment the publication agrees with) about the New Testament.
"I thought we hashed this out on the Talk page at the time"
No, the first two members of the Jayjg/jpgordon/slimvirgin tag team reverted my changes and cause me to break the 3RR rule, SlimVirgin blocked me which prevented me from expressing my disapproval.
4. <<If "huh," "this is silly," and "your reversion criteria are ridiculous...please provide sources" are insults to, as you say, a reasonable person, I would be surprised>>
Which strengthends my position that you do not act like a reasonable person. Since you don't consider "huh?" to be an antagonist remark, while you consider "These, however, may be considered hostile: " to be an "attack".
"but I tried to apologize anyway."
You tried to apologize? I must have missed that, could you show me where you attempted to do so?
"I tried to bridge a gap in good faith, you responded with the above. I guess we are done, sorry that my effort to reach out didn't help."
Your efforts would help more if they were accompanited by humility as well as your acceptance of previous negative attitudes rather than showing arrogance. Once again, you have showed that "you are wrong" (now it is "plainly and obviously wrong") is your favorite argument of defense.
If your intention is to "start over", then bringing up my faults in the past is not the most effective approach.

--Vizcarra 21:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, I still don't agree with your points, but our back-and-forth is not terribly productive, though, if you'd like, we can continue the debate started on my Talk page and I can reply in detail to all of your points. Failing that, I am not sure how to start over with you however, since I don't think I am incorrect about my interpretation of events and facts, and I know you also think you are in the right, even if I disagree. Can we indeed bury the hatchet on the discussions to date, and try to work together more harmoniously in the future? --Goodoldpolonius2 23:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Vizcarra, I still don't agree with your points". This doesn't tell me anything, since I don't know which of my points you don't agree with. The problem has been the lack of clarification as to "who" says "what". If we base our edits on facts from reputable sources rather than on public opinion our contributions will lead to less misunderstandings (I'm not implying that your sources are not reputable, but rather generalizing the issues). If we cite different sources and explain a little about the background the reader can wheigh each opinion accordingly.
"Can we indeed bury the hatchet on the discussions to date". We sure can, provided that you assume good faith and don't start an argument by saying "you are wrong". I'm ready to do the same, I'm not bitter (not implying that you are, this is not an attack).
I would prefer if in the future you asked for second opinions from editors out of the realm of users that have a history of agreeing with your POV. This is my opinion and you don't have to agree .
I don't know how productive would be to convince me that you are right about your points. If you'd like to respond to my points about the contents of articles, or anybody else's points in the appropriate talk page of such article, that would be better. I rather not get personal. --Vizcarra 23:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)