User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 8

Jesus and Rabbi text

Sl, I just had my material reverted from the Jesus article by User:Silence. Could you tell me how to rephrase the following, and point out the specific problems with the sentence?

The most commonly used sources for information on Jesus are the four canonical Gospel accounts, which depict him as a Galilean rabbi and spiritual healer who was often at odds with Jewish religious authorities and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. However, the Canonical Gospels also portray Jesus as more than a Rabbi, but as someone with a special relationship with God — the Gospel of John states his divinity; the Gospel of Luke relates the Annunciation; the Gospel of Matthew details the transfiguration of Jesus; and Jesus Resurrection is extensively described in all the Gospels. The canonical Gospels focus primarily on Jesus' last few years, when he was actively preaching, and especially on the last week before his crucifixion.

This was changed from:

The most commonly used sources for information on Jesus are the four canonical Gospel accounts, which depict him as a Galilean rabbi and spiritual healer who was often at odds with Jewish religious authorities and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.

The reason I added it was because the Canonical Gospels detail Jesus as more than just a rabbi. I feel it would be misleading to say otherwise, and hardly neutral to say this — I have many many Christian friends who would not be able to use the Jesus article because it is stating that Jesus was only a rabbi and spiritual leader. I don't mean to push my POV greatly, but when I read the Canonical Gospels I can pull out many verses that state otherwise.

Could you give some advise on how to procede here? I don't want to get into a pointless revert war. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet, the Gospels don't just depict Jesus as a Rabbi and a spiritual healer. This is inaccurate! The Canonical Gospels many times state his divinity. I can even give you Bible verses, though I don't think I need to... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree (somewhat). However, where I have a problem with is the sentence that talks about what the Canonical Gospels say. It implies that he was only really a healer and a teacher. For instance, there are considerable references to his divinity:

• the Annunciation where the Angel announces to Mary Jesus divinity — "He will be great and will be called the Son of God Most High" — (Luke 1:26-38),
• the dove appearing from heaven and a voice from heaven declaring Jesus as "my own dear Son" (Matthew 3:13-17 & Mark 1:9-11)
• Jesus walking on water and being worshipped by the disciples as the Son of God (Matthew 14:22-33) - I know of know Rabbi who was worshipped!
• the reaction of the Roman army officer at the crucifiction ("Truly this was the son of God!") — Matthew 27:54 &mdash
• the whole first part of John 1 talks about his divinity (this is obviously disputed)
• the Resurrection is obviously one of the biggest parts of Christianity and is detailed in all the Canonical gospels (Matthew 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-49 & John 20:1-30, 21:1-14)
• Jesus on the final judgement in Matthew 25:31-33 ("When the Son of Man comes in his glory with all of his angels, he will sit on his royal throne.")
• the Ascention (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-51 and then in v52 the disciples worship him - evidently counted as more than just a healer and Rabbi as I don't know any of these who were worshipped!).

There are so many more verses, I could go on and on but I think you probably get my gist (or at least, I kinda hope you do...).

If we are going to claim that the Gospels say that he was mainly a spiritual healer and Rabbi then I don't feel this is accurate. If we were going to claim that others believe he was only a fine teacher and healer, then fine. Just don't try to use the Gospels to push this POV. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see what you were saying on the Talk:Jesus page. I just want make it clear that the Gospels detail that Jesus is more than just a healer and teacher (though he was most definitely both of these). The amount of times I've heard this from a non-Christian is remarkable, it sort of makes me wonder if they've bothered to read the Gospel accounts! So I just want to make sure that the text doesn't imply that it's only about the teaching and healing. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if it appears that I "preached" to you... this wasn't my intent and looking at the text in my message now it might appear that way :( - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess my problem was that the text claimed something I didn't think the Gospels said at all... that why I added the very small amount of text as a compromise. I hope it's OK! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

See talk..

... sl, I might be a bit quick on the draw, but I don't see anything on Talk:Jesus... - Ta bu shi da yu 15:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realise these things. Please don't accuse me of being unreasonable. Unreasonable would be reverting - which I have clearly not done. I was just mostly interested in what you had to say on the talk page... that's why I said that I might be being a bit quick on the draw. If you also notice, I've been very open and transparent about my edits. I have told you what I'm doing, and I can't do much better than that!

Now... I've reviewed the edit, and want to let you know that I think it's a good one. It definitely satisfies my objection that the passage implied that was all the Gospels had to say about Jesus. I was really thinking about it based on putting myself in the shoes of someone who had absolutely no knowledge of the Gospels. I know what you are saying about the word exclusive and solely, but must respectfully disagree. It is possible to inadvertantly give an impression of exclusiveness even if one doesn't mean to. But the issue is moot: I think your edit is very good and addresses my concerns anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My edit to Jesus

Steve - just to clarify, we seem to have edit-conflicted over Jesus - my edit summary 'rv POV' was not refering to your edit, but to the two awful anon contributions before that. Had I been disagreeing with you, I would have been a lot more polite. --Doc (?) 21:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Historical Jesus too? Oh god, another article to stress over!! :) FT2 22:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Photos and NOR

Hi - over on the NOR talk page - can you give an example of your hypothetical situation? I am having trouble thinking of one that isn't already covered by NPOV. Tempshill 15:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Bible

Simply to claim that there is one Bible and that Jesus appear in it is a violation of our Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy. "Jesus in the Christian Bible" does not violate NPOV, and it has no effect whatsoever on the content of the article. You said that, and my answer is, what other Bible is there? I already checked the Bible disambiguation page, and I rechecked it, and the only Bibles sited there are the ones contained in the Bible I'm referring to; therefore, it is ok for me to simply call it the Bible, and makes more sense because it encompasses all Bibles, as opposed to just the Christian one Scifiintel 04:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You said that the jewish Bible doesn't mention Jesus, which is true, but that's not my point. The point is, when I say Bible, I mean both the Jewish and Christian Bible, so I say Bible to be inclusive of Both. If Jesus isn't mentioned in the Jewish Bible, well then ok, He want be mentioned on the page as being in that Bible, but it is ok to say that Jesus is in the Bible as a unit of two Bibles, the Jesiwsh and the Christian. Because when you look at the Bible overall as a whole, saying it has both Jewish and Christian parts, Jesus is definately in some of that Bible. And because Jesus claims to be the Messiah of the Jewish Bible in the Christian Bible, there is a link that needs to be evaluated. In naming an article Jesus in the Christian Bible, you are ignoring the link between Jesus and the Jewish Bible. That is why I think it more appropriate to say Jesus in the Bible, as to include both Bibles and the link between them..... if you think simply teh word "Bible" is too ambiguous, then perhaps we should name the article Jesus in the Jewish and Christian Bibles, or Jesus in the Old and New Testaments, or perhaps since it has been suggested that Jesus in the New Testament is already around so this article should be combined with it, maybe we should have a Jesus in the Old testament, or Messiah in the Old Testament, but then the link wouldn't be established, so I suppose we will have to combine these articles and I suggest calling it Jesus in the Bible, but perhaps you would think it more appropriate to call in Jesus in the Old and New Testaments. Scifiintel 16:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Jews do claim that the Old Testament is their Bible. They do not prefer to use that name because Christians gave it that name, but they do understand and know that the Old testament is their Bible.

Furthermore, you saying that the Jewish Bible is simply the 39 books of their Bible is not NPOV because many Jews also consider the New Testament to be in there Bible, because many Jews accept Jesus as God. They call themselves "completed Jews. If you want to ignore those Jews that's not NPOV, so you're not following Wiki rules. Scifiintel 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's my point that seems to go right over your head. Some jews claim to be Christians, so we can't say a Jewish Bible is one without the New Testament, because for some Jews the Bible includes both the new and the old testament, therefore a Jewish Bible may be just the old, or both the new and the old.... also, I am not claiming anything about the completeness of those Jews, I'm am just telling you what some of them refer to themselves as. Scifiintel 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Christianity and anti-Semitism

If possible, would you mind taking a look at recent changes to the Christianity and anti-Semitism article? It would be appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Oh, also Martin Luther. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you join in the dialogue in the discussion section of Martin Luther before you edit the article with extraneous matter that has not been agreed upon? drboisclair 21:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's put a stop to this and simply revert the text to the way it was. We can reserve the derogatory matters for a new article on Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism. Martin Luther is as sacred to us as Rabbi Hillel is to you, so please stop flooding his article. We are sorry for POV violations; however, flooding this article with 20th Century misuse of Luther is also POV. IMHO. drboisclair 22:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am justly rebuked by you, why don't you join the discussion and make changes that are mutually agreed upon? drboisclair 22:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please leave out of the Martin Luther article my rude discussion of excusing the reprehensible On the Jews and their Lies as a question of anti-Judaic versus anti-Semitic. Humus Sapiens is right: there is no difference, and yes, I have read your comments in the Talk:Martin Luther page. You raise valid issues. Job 42:6 drboisclair 22:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. If you think that this distinction should be inserted here, perhaps it should be reverted. I am very embarrassed about violating Wikipedia's NPOV policies. I wish to respect those policies, and I wish to dissociate myself with anything that I have done in violation of those policies. I will review them, and conform my activities to them. I feel that Wikipedia is the best source of knowledge on the web, and I hope that this apology will at least allow me to continue in the Wikipedian family. Cordially, drboisclair 22:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Steve, discussion going on here you might be interested in, about the possibility of setting up a WP page or project where editors can make a note of good or dodgy sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude

There is an active arbitration case concerning user:Rangerdude at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence. I have presented evidence of Rangerdude's attacks about other editors, and I included a negative personal comment he made to you. The ArbCom is seeking greater involvement in their cases. -Willmcw 07:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

A big thanks for your support of my RfA, it got through with a lot of controversy, and I greatly appreciated your support! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would never think of one as naive if I didn't understand the point being made. Genesis 32-33; where Jacob is named "Israel" and returns to see his brother Esau - fearing his revenge but obtaining his forgiveness... Now you've made me curious! Ramallite ^(talk) 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to take so long to respond but I was really glad to read your response regarding the Bible - although I am pretty familiar with most stories from Genesis, and I actually knew most of what you wrote, I nevertheless hadn't thought of it in the way you presented it - that the whole thing is indeed ironic, and viewing it as such would make interpreting or explaining the teachings of the Bible very different. I don't know why, but your response reminded me of a popular quotation from the Koran, "O mankind we created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other; those among you who are most generous are the most pious before God" (Al-Hujrat 13). In other words, God meant to create different "peoples" as it were, and only through ones own generosity and personal attributes does one achieve piety. To answer your question regarding what would have happened had the Jews approached Palestine with more humility, I know what I would like the answer to be, and I also believe I would be right in saying that the land of Palestine/Israel would have been a much happier place since I believe that kindness and humility would have been met with the same. But it is impossible to assume that most would agree with me, seeing as what the last few decades have brought about. Plus, the neighboring Arab countries, who had their own ambitions in Palestine, might not have been too thrilled either. I guess it's something to dream about and wish that things had gone differently. Incidentally, an elderly Israeli fellow once recommended that I read "A History of God (The 5000 year quest for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)" by Karen Armstrong, and I found it incredibly fascinating (although for me at least, a difficult read since it's heavy with citations and she jumps around a lot). I also ended up reading a more recent book by her, "The Battle for God". I assume you are familiar with this author, but if not, I highly recommend these books. Thanks again for your response. Ramallite ^(talk) 06:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow

I just read your long comment on Ramallite's page. I'm impressed. Wow.
You displayed an amazing knowledge of the bible and a great analitical powers. Just thought I should let you know.
Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, we all learn stuff here and there, not all of us put it together nicely. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Natural selection

From a content point of view it appears to be fine, but I am a little concerned the loss of accessibility. This version of the intro is rather dense, a little odd in idiom (I'm guessing a non-native en. speaker) and does not do as good a job of answering the "micropaedia"-type question. It's the type of bad prose that journal articles get written in - very hedged, very much "stick in all the possible qualifiers up front". It needs work. And, I agree with the section above. Your message to Ramallite makes an interesting, and thought-provoking read. Guettarda 22:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther

If possible, you take a look at the latest discussion at Talk:Martin Luther? It would be much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing the "controversy" assertion from the Martin Luther article and from the Martin Luther and Antisemitism article. Please examine these articles to see if that takes care of the problem. It is proposed by User:StanZegel that we reduce the paragraph in Martin Luther to an internal link to the Martin Luther and Antisemitism page. Your help with that page would be greately appreciated. I hope that we are coming to a friendly consensus in these matters. Cordially, David Boisclair. drboisclair 17:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I also appreciate your letting me know about the different avenues of expressing dissent; however, the exception taken to the issue of controversy over Martin Luther and Antisemitism has got me to rethink the matter and see that it is the correct position. I don't think that I put in the sentences to the effect that Luther and Antisemitism is in controversy, but I see that that is only a perception felt about the discussion generated here on Wikipedia. I am a Luther scholar, not an expert granted, but one who has studied him for my Graduate Master's Degree in theology, and I must admit that I have never come across any controversy among scholars about Luther's antisemitism. I think that I would join you in your opinion that this should be deleted, and I took the liberty to delete it. I am of the opinion, too, that it should so remain. Cordially, drboisclair 19:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a challenging balance of freedom and responsibility. The invitation is given to all to edit; however, there are certain rules--good rules, I believe, but rules nonetheless--. I love this community for its freedom and its rules trying to strike a delicate balance. I truly believe that all who are old tried and true Wikipedians are trying to be as fair as possible. I respect their logic and their dedication. Perhaps sometime some of the conflict is the result of misunderstanding and ignorance. I for one need to take the time to read everything there is to read on the Wikipedian policies. I appreciate your help. I sense that you are a gentle, scholarly spirit, who wants to see that justice and logic prevails. That is what it is all about. I think that at least two of the other Lutheran Wikipedians are in agreement on this issue. They want peace too as "shalom" is a "peace that passes all understanding. Shalom drboisclair 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I also want to note that as a Lutheran I am totally ashamed of what Luther wrote in On the Jews and Their Lies. IMHO it is antisemitism, and I wish he had never wrote it. It is unbecoming of Him who said "Love one another", the one we call our Meschiach Yeshua. "lecha, shalom" drboisclair 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Could you please comment on the attempts to remove a sourced short quote in Talk:Martin Luther#Martin Luther and the Jews - the summary needs rework. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

References/external links name-change proposal

Steve, there's a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References_title_misread_as_non-web_External_links to change the References header to "Sources", and External links to "Further reading". So far, the proposal has been accepted by all the editors on the page, but because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy page, I'm putting it out for further discussion before changing it.

The reason for the proposal is that using "References" and "External links" is confusing. Sources are supposed to be listed under References, and any further reading is listed under Further reading or External links. But many editors think that any external links, whether used as sources or not, should go under External links, so then they list any material that isn't online, like books, under References, even if not used as a source. To cut through all this confusion, the proposal is to change the headers to Sources and Further reading, which are self-explanatory, and don't make the online/offline distinction. Comments would be welcomed. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Late reply

Sorry that I have not been any help on the fascism article. I keep on meaning to get around to it, hoping to reiterate your position, as I think that I'm familiar with the literature on which you have been basing your comments; but I hardly have time lately to deal with the bigger problems surrounding the articles to which I have contributed recently. For now my latest headache is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators, where it will be fairly tough to get the number of votes needed to keep the POV-pushers at bay. Take care, 172 19:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Circumcision advocacy

Would you mind taking a look at the Circumcision advocacy page, and the debate on Talk: page? From my perspective the entire page consists of WP:NOR, but one editor there insists it is not, based on the definition of the word "advocate", and on the fact that it is "obvious" that various people are Circumcision advocates. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your broken signature

See Help:Preferences#Your_nickname for how to fix it. Uncle G 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew

Hi Steve. There is some dispute going on at Self-hating Jew, primarily over whether it is a description of a condition or an epithet. Your comments would be most helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

personal attacks

I trust you are not taking a side swipe at my question on jayg's arbcom nomination page? I'm a bit distressed to see people failing to assume good faith over what I see as a real issue. Unbehagen 12:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to make it an open question - ie one which he can rebut. I've been wrong before - may well be here. Lets see. I agree the edit was was getting very silly. Unbehagen 15:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Relevance

What is the relevance of a 10-month old email associated with an long ago closed arbitration case? Bitter grudges get you nowhere. Move forward. - Xed 11:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you follow up on the "self-hating Jew"/'...in short..." matter?

I left Apeloverage a message telling him I was going to delete his addition if he didn't protest, but I expect to be blocked shortly. Thanks. Marsden 20:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. My imminent blocking, however, will be for trying to hold Jayjg accountable for dealing poorly with criticism in his ArbCom candidacy. I think your idea for the general "ethnic self-hate" article is excellent, and I hope a critical mass can develop here to produce it. Cheers! Marsden 20:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your change looks fine to me. I have no idea the extent to which Apeloverage is wedded to the clause; it is very likely that he'll have no objection whatever. Marsden 20:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied

Hi. I replied to your request for advice here [1]. I would go with Pickthall translation. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer. I just like the way it is written. Acutually Abdullah Yusuf Ali, M. Maududi, Muhammed Asad, Farukh Malik, and M. Pickthall are all very good. There is not a lot of difference between the translations. If you thinking of buying one Yusuf Ali is very good and well known. All of these scholars are good at translation. Yusuf Ali's is very clear and so is Pickthall's and that is why I would suggest either. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgot about the weaknesses. Well out of the 3 you named, Arberry isn't as well known, but he is probably the most widespread recent non-Muslim translation and "The Koran Interpreted" is better than any other non-Muslim translation and is phrased very nicely. Ahmed Ali I don't know. So Yusuf Ali is good and trustworthy in my opinion and is probably the most read. But I advise you to get 3 different translations and look through them all. It is always better to look at several different translations to clarify the meaning. That would be my advice. Top translations for me are "The Holy Qur'an: English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary", by Abdullah Yusuf Ali; (published by King Fahd Holy Qur'an Printing Press) and "The Meaning of the Glorious Koran" an explanatory translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall and the one by Arberry. And you are welcome :) for the help. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

evolution

i've made some headway on drafting an outline on the talk page of evolution. it could use your input. in particular, the splitting of material between evolution and evolutionary biology. --Rikurzhen 08:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII-II and Economic fascism 2

Greetings, SlR. I hope you have been well. I was wandering if you would mind looking into the above article/afd and offer your opinion. Thanks. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Evidence

I have removed the evidence you presented as it deals with the prior case decided in March. That case and the evidence presented in it will be considered to the extent it relates to this case. Fred Bauder 17:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support on Capitalism. Who knows if RJII and I would have had that talk if you hadn't intervened and made us stop repeatedly reverting each other's edits. :) Infinity0 ^talk 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bruno Bauer, Karl Marx; Anti-Semitism

Have you seen the article on Bruno Bauer?

What do you think?

Camillus^{talk|contribs} 23:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Judaism and Christianity#Love

I looked at it, and wikilinked a bit of it, and added Greek for the 3 kinds of love, and corrected the bit about the actual meaning of agápē/αγαπη. That said, I don't have Bloom's work, so I can't really comment on the text you added very authoritatively. My one big critique of the section is that at this point it is a reflection of Bloom's work alone, without any mention of others' views on the subject. Tomer^talk 01:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding to apple maggot in evolution--Nowa 01:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for so eloquently stating the obvious over at Talk:Evolution - what I've always wanted to say but for which I couldn't find the right words (or analogies, really). Guettarda 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oh yes thank you, we neevr have enough pro 'sceince' POV pushers here, just keep piling on, wonderful little fad--Ytrewqt 15:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a fanatic for NPOV

Thank you SLRubenstein, yes I have become a fanatic for NPOV. Glad to intervene if needed. I see there is someone wanting to bollix up the works.

I'm about to look at the talk page.

As to D.F. I think more could be made of the whole American Anthropological Association repudiating D.F.'s accusation. They had some strong things to say. I think it can be got online. One thing that troubles me about the controversy is that whether D.F. was right or wrong, it has no effect on Mead's argument about adolescence in Samoan culture. Whether the girls were having sex or not, there was still a smooth transition from childhood to adulthood due to the surrounding cultural atmosphere and the social relations. Her descriptions of these have not been questioned, as far as I know, and they and are perfectly consistent with what everyone else found in Polynesian culture in the warmer regions. By the way, was D.F. telling the truth about what the girls (now grandmothers) actually told him? Has anybody been able to check that? Any tapes he saved, etc.?

Maybe the American Anthropological Association resolution should be quoted in the article. I saw some of the discussion on that point a while ago in the article and it seemed to be written by people trying to be thorough. Arnold Perey--samivel 20:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Restored my questions at Jayjg's candidate page

You didn't see my response to you before you made your most recent comments and moved my comments and question and Jay's response. I really, really would like to know how, given what you seem to be insisting should be on the candidate pages, it would ever be discovered that a particular candidate was unsuited for the position. You may disagree with me about Jayjg's suitability, but if no criticism of his behavior can be made, how can any serious judgement be reached by someone who knows only what he sees on the candidate page? Marsden 05:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I consider it inappropriate for you to have suggested that "I want to see if he has learned his lesson." Maybe it's you who needs to learn a lesson, eh? Marsden 05:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your note

Completely understandable. No worries. FeloniousMonk 05:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: favor

I appreciate your note; thank you. I admire the detail and clarity of that page's explanation of Judaism's idea of love. As you suspect, and naturally, the Christian view is not as clear. I'd very much enjoy working with you on it, but I've been so strapped for time lately that I can't justify it right now. My only suggestion is that, it doesn't mean much to me, to say that "love is understood by Christians to refer to a sentiment of fraternity for all of Creation." I would more quickly point to 1John 4:7,8 "... beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and everyone who loves is born of God, and knows God. For God is love ...". God is not a sentiment. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would add that most (not all) Christian theologians would argue that Paul's notion of love (and more importantly, Jesus' notion of love) is so deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition as to make it almost a "subset" (my word). The "double love commandment" ("You shall love the Lord thy God..." and "Love thy neighbor...") was powerfully used by Jesus, and reinforced throughout Christian history (though not always expressed faithfully, in my view), even in the 20th century by theologians such as Neibuhr and Tillich. I would, thus, disagree with those who say that Jews & Christians have completely different understandings of love; my guess is that most Christians would say that the wonderful Jewish understanding of love found its fullest expression in Jesus Christ, whom Christians believe to be the fulfillment of the Law (and thus, love's fullest expression). Hope I've helped and not confused the issue! KHM03 03:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

About User:RJII

I have opened a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII against RJII based on his actions, including personal attacks on you. Feel free to join or endorse it if you desire. Firebug 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Link

Oops, I messed up the link. Here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RJII All you need to do is to sign under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute", since you were the subject of some of these personal attacks. Firebug 21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks SLRubenstein

Yes, thanks, I'm aware of the rule against Original Research. I will look at the MM pages. Hope I catch any POV attempts before they get too far. Meanwhile, with John Sigenthaler Sr. having been defamed, the credibility of attacks on noted persons is going way down.--samivel 03:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Love in Judaism and Christianity

Nice work! There is nothing inherently wrong in your comments on the Christian viewpoint (although there are, of course, differing Christian voices. Two Christians, three opinions!) The main point, at least from a Lutheran viewpoint, is that Love begins with God. Because He loves us, He created us. When we fell into sin, it grieved Him. Yet, instead of destroying us, as we deserve, He planned to save us, sent His Son to die in our place, sent His Holy Spirit to place faith in our hearts and thus gave us the ability to love as He loves. "We love, because He first loved us." I'm not sure how this corresponds to Jewish philosophy, however.

--CTSWyneken 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

When time permits, I'll go with C. S. Lewis' Four Loves and a few others. It may have to wait a bit, though. I need to get at a few other things first. As far as how Christians love God and others, we are on the same page as Judaism. We love God by obeying both the spirit and the letter of the law. I'd have to dig a bit before speaking for other Christians on the subject, however, for exactly the same reason you hesitate to speak for us. --CTSWyneken 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed there is quite a bit of difference in how Christians view the law. Please correct my Judaism knowledge, if I mischaracterize it. While I've studied about Judaism a fair bit, I am, after all, a Gentile. 8-)

As I understand it, Judaism, including the Reformed Rabbis, view the law as containing both the oral law and the written law, drawn from the Tanak, especially the Torah. The oral law is recorded in the words of the Rabbis in the Talmud, and it acts as a "hedge around the Torah." A faithful Jew observes the Oral Law, knowing by doing so, he or she is faithful to God and lives a righteous life. For Christians, there is no oral law. The next facet is held by a large majority of Christians, but not all.

For Christians, there is a difference between what we call the Old Testament's civil law and the universal law. By this we mean that some precepts are intended for the Jewish nation and not for all peoples. These are not intended for us.

The universal law, however, is something else entirely. Even these are interpreted through the New Testament, so that somethings are taken less literally and others more so. For example, honoring the Sabbath is seen by many to be transferred to Sunday. Some of us to mean gathering for worship weekly, hearing God's Word preached, and, for liturgical traditions, receiving the sacraments. One question I'd like to ask is how a Jew looks at Jesus' words on divorce and murder in the Sermon on the Mount. For us, it means that God expects us not even to lust after women, for that is adultery, or to call people names, for that is murdering them.

So, for us, absolute obedience to the law in this life is impossible. We believe that God in His grace forgives sin and gives us the ability to love Him. In this world, this love is also never perfect and the battle with sin never ends. Yet because of what Christians believe to be the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, these sins are forgiven and it is possible to begin to live according to His law, beginning with the law of Love: "Love the Lord with all your heart..." "love your neighbor as yourself."

I hope this is not unduly long or preachy. It's an occupational hazzard! 8-)--CTSWyneken 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Amgine Administratorship

Hello. You can vote for or against Amgine becoming an administrator of Wiktionary here:[2] See ya', Comrade Gonzalo 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Virago

Help!!! "Virago" purports to be about physical and racial anthopological concept of masculine women. But some of the terminology (and also the chief editor's) talk page comments, make me wonder if this isn't either a hoax or some very original research. If you have any time or interest it'd be great if you could take a look. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate your time, effort, and expertise. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

An editor explained that this is overflow from the German Wikipedia. [3] Same editor. -Willmcw 20:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V citations

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 16:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Request for arbitration against User:RJII

I opened a RFAr against RJII due to his inability to take the recommendations of his RFC seriously. Feel free to join the request if you like, since his personal attacks against you were a part of the reason why this all started. Firebug 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/Happy Chanukkah

I would like to wish you all the best for Christmas and Channukkah. Here's hoping for a good New Year too. All the best - Guettarda 15:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed this troll

Slr: I was trying to back him down. He was quiet until your last comment, now he's on again. Of course, his temporary silence might not have had anything to do with my remarks. But we both need to remember not to feed this troll. 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

He is trying to draw you out--not too happy with my cryptic responses. Let's see if he gets tired of my one-liners. 20:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus is emerging on Martin Luther and the Jews

Hi SLR. You might be interested to see if the latest version at Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews is acceptable for you. The plan is to have it as the intro in that article and as a summary in ML. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Holidays

I pray you have a very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice movie list...but no John Ford? No Clint Eastwood? No Steven Spielberg? By the way...for me it's John and Kirk. KHM03 13:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Urgent Help

Hey, sorry to bother you. I\'m currently editing wikipedia through a proxy because it\'s blocked in China. I edited Capitalism and now the proxy has gone and put \\ before every \', and I can\'t fix it. Please can you do so? Thanks.

capitalism diff also happened to this page

And while you\'re at it, please VfD Capitalism Day which was created 5 days ago and looks like a joke page.

Infinity0 ^talk 11:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies

Thanks for your help on the Martin Luther and the Jews article. Would you do me a favor and weigh in on the need for the article On the Jews and Their Lies. There is a fellow who insists on insulting me that I can hardly keep from engaging there, who has put together a very POV piece. I'm trying to decide if it is worth the effort to fix or ditch. Your opinion would be most welcome on the talk page there. Shalom! And wishes for a joyous second night of Hanukah! --CTSWyneken 19:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Judaism

Hiya, can you check something out for me that I lack detailed information on?

The article is Judaism and Christianity, the section I've just added is "Capital punishment". It's well known and sourced, that capital punishment was circumvented wherever possible in jewish law, for example by requiring witnesses before and after, and the like.

At present the text reads:

"In this manner, the Talmud seriously limits the use of the death penalty to only be applicable to those criminals who were warned not to commit a capital crime in the presence of two witnesses, and persisted in committing the crime also in front of at least two witnesses."

What I'm not sure of is if the text should actually read:

"In this manner, the Talmud seriously limits the use of the death penalty to only be applicable to those criminals who stated an intent to commit a capital crime, were warned not to commit it in the presence of two witnesses, and persisted in committing the crime also in front of at least two witnesses."

I have a feeling it was actually that strict, in reality. Any ideas? FT2 (Talk) 19:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please address my remedies for "NOR" policy

Dear Slrubenstein,

I replied to your comment in the "No original research" policy talk page. Thanks for rectifying a few of my errors, on which I stand corrected. However, I would be grateful if you could please address the remedies I suggested as well.

Also, please don't say things like: "If you don't like it, go elsewhere." I realise that existing policy cannot be violated, but they can certainly be debated in the quest for a better solution, no? Let's have a nice discussion, then! :-)

Yours sincerely, --Lapin rossignol 02:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Periodical Jewish Affairs

The following citation appears on the On the Jews and Their Lies talk page: Jewish Affairs 39, 1 (Jan 1984) 19-23. I'm having difficulty locating it in a library. I hope to get a copy of the article for verification sake. Do you have an idea where I might get a copy? --CTSWyneken 00:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, SL. I do have Luther's works at my library, but I can't seem to find Jewish Affairs in any one of the 40,000 libraries whose holdings I can search. My guess is it is some kind of newsletter. No hurry. If you can't find it, I'd understand. --CTSWyneken 01:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic Comment on User Talk page

I don't think it's a threat, but I would read it as an attempted personal attack. --CTSWyneken 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it's worth the effort. I don't suspect he'll listen to me, either. My advice would be as I am now doing on the Luther pages. I ignore all the attacks, accusations, etc. The first time a person who levels such things makes a point that calls for an explanation or evidence, I provide it, so that resonable editors will take note of it. The next time the same argument is brought up, I ignore it, as I am doing with the latest attack on my character on the Martin Luther and the Jews page. It helps with my peace of mind, but it doesn't seem to slow him down any. In fact, I expect he will see that I posted here and try to throw these words back in my face on the article talk pages. --CTSWyneken 20:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Slrubenstein, thank you for consulting me on this quote[4] I do think that it is a veiled antisemitic threat couched as a warning against inciting antisemitism. I also believe that the individual has some psychological problems as you have observed. The message is cryptic, perhaps trying subconsciously to communicate something. I guess that is why the statement to me of an administrator: "We are all anonymous here" is a defense from some of the kooks on the web. This poster bears watching. drboisclair 20:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would ignore, but let me know if it continues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarah's suggested course of action is probably right. But as another editor stated, "This poster bears watching." I'm having a hard time reading anything but an anti-Semitic threat demanding that you stop documenting ancient and medieval anti-Semitism. The reference to "proving suggestions of Kevin B. MacDonald to be true once again" is a pretty strong hint. I also think that the fact that he went out of his way to refer to you by your last name was a form of Jew-baiting, meant to show you that he is aware of your Jewish surname. Perhaps it's a good idea to get Cberlet help you monitor this person, given his professional work in tracking this user's ilk. 172 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome as always. Hopefully, I will be less tied up on the Luther page and be able to research and add the information on the Christian concept of Love you requested for the Judaism and Christianity page. --CTSWyneken 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

SL, the language is very difficult to work out; but he seems to be offering his psychological expertise, not making a threat. Beyond that, I can't interpret the comment, without offering psychological analysis of my own - which would be at least as useless as his! — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's poorly worded, to be sure. It may be anti-Semitic, but it's very difficult to understand any of what the editor wrote. I'd "document it" and report it to the appropriate WP authorities...not necessarily to request action, but to start a "paper trail", just in case. KHM03 20:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: possible request for comment?

I don't even know what it's talking about. What point is it trying to make? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• You've already wasted too much time on this editor. Writing an RfC will just fill the void with more of his excesses, and will accomplish little. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

He's a nutcase, don't pay any attention to him since it's what he wants. An RfC will only give him another platform to keep rambling. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Once Virago is gone, he'll probably wander off somewhere else. If he doesn't go on his own then he may need a nudge. -Will Beback 09:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If I could understand what he was saying...

I have no idea what the editor is actually saying! However, aren't you a professor of history? I could be wrong, if so sorry about the wrong impression. I wasn't aware that you were a member of the scientific community though... - Ta bu shi da yu 22:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Send the editor a copy of The Jew's Body by Sander Gilman. Alas, the rhetoric is all too familiar. I do know what is being said. The stereotype of thin effeminate Jewish men (with small feet), and Virago (Jewish) models with "masculinized" (Jewish) forms desired by their homosexual (Jewish) dress designers? A pulsating bundle of pyscho-sexual antipathy toward Jews, homosexuals, and women who fail to fit a Rubenesque form! Rubenesque--Rubenstein...a coincidence? I think not! OK. Like others have said, sure it is a veiled threat, but consider the source. Only other experts on the history of antisemitic stereotypes are going to understand it is a threat, and it would take a dissertation-length arbitration statement to document it. Time is better spent elsewhere. Hey, I should follow that advice. Sorry you are the subject of this obsession.--Cberlet 22:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps too glib, sorry. But the stereotype is old stuff, but few realize that the fear/loathing of the JewishCommunistHomosexual was central to the McCarthy period, especially its focus on Hollywood, the liberal media, Unions, and intellectuals in the State Department. In all these settings the idea was of the ideal (Christian) republic being undermined by subversive Jews, communists, and homosexuals. Effeminate men and their masculinized women are the Christ killers. Just ask Mel. --Cberlet 22:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it is classy being an expert on the really, really obscure: A Virago is a "man-like woman" and is thematically related to the idea of the Amazons. In the Middle Ages there arose a popular myth that the so-called "Red Jews" were forging an alliance with the Amazons (Viragos) to crush Christendom. See: Gow (1995) The red Jews: Antisemitism in an apocalyptic age, 1200-1600. [5][6]--Cberlet 23:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, I just presented a paper at the same conference on antisemitism with Gow. He is a colleague and good friend and drinking buddy. That's why the rhetoric looked so familiar to me; been reading Gow's stuff for years.--Cberlet 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a lot more than what I already cited. The Amazons of "Red Jews" myth were located in the mountains north of the Black Sea.[7] The myth travelled to the New World.--Cberlet 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I didn't know that (didn't really read the article, I'm kinda busy at work!). One thing though: if it is a myth that is notable, shouldn't we have an article that is dealt with in a NPOV manner? Just a suggestion. Perhaps it would be better dealt with in another article... - Ta bu shi da yu 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Virago

Thanks for the heads up. I've joined the vote. Durova 23:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)