Looks nice. I'm not a graphics person myself; I suggest dropping a request for assistance to Wikipedia:Village pump. If you do, someone will probably come up with an image. In the mean time, you could just take the image out of Template:Tutorial. Isomorphic 21:16, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and welcome to the 'pedia! Isomorphic 21:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- what kind of graphic do you have in mind? Drop me a note if you likePedant 04:38, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
Biblical inconsistencies is currently a messy list. Could you help tidy it up (it is huge)?
It will probably need to be cut into sections (e.g. by part of bible) and each section moved to a new page. 00:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is reasonable to want a vote page to keep some sense of order. When someone wants to insert a long rant, it is usually because they don't recognize that need. If you look at the history of that vote page, you'll not see long interjections. Vote pages are threaded discussions. The template talk page is for explaining the purpose of the template. Your account is very new, please don't get off to a bad start by running around causing trouble. If you have a complaint about someone, please address them directly, and from the perspective of assuming good faith. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
- Please be aware that Netoholic has been disputing things with many users. Please don't let him put you off with his "your account is very new" talk. You should also be aware that you will have to dig through his edit history because he clears his talk page of all comments that could be seen to show him in a poor light. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic shifting comments on talk pages.
Can you please provide a link to the edit history of this? I would like to know where this is. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Kings of Israel prior to Davidic line
There was one King of Israel prior to the David, Saul. After David was annointed, the Kingship only came from the Davidic line. Jayjg 14:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please clean up after radical changes
If you make radical changes to a template (Template:Tutorial) used on 10 pages in Wikipedia, it is generally assumed that you will have the courtesy to clean up the 10 pages your changes have made look stupid, instead of expecting others to go around tidying up after you. Thanks. Niteowlneils 17:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. If I had thot to check your history, I would have noticed how short your active history is, and especially how short it was at the time you changed the template, I probably would have gone to greater lengths to try and soften the tone of my message--my bad. Anyway, I think the 'be bold' suggestion mostly applies to editing single articles; in general doing things that affect many articles, such as editing a template or moving a highly linked page, have an inferred responsibility to try and follow up such changes. Anyway, I'm glad you're contributing, and hope you're enjoying it. Niteowlneils 22:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
citation discussion, reply
- As it happens, I am rather closely aquainted with the status of texts versus juried journals, etc. Books, chapters in books, and textbooks are not considered on a par with journal articles in academia. They are not allowed to be considered when going up for tenure, for example, and are separated off from academic accomplishments on one's curricula vitae, as another. This seems to be an area of academia you are not particularly familiar with.
- You are correct that they have some scholarly status, particularly as overviews of the state of a science (in which use they are synthesizing currently journaled research, often for textbooks.)
- As I have repeatedly stated, biblical and talmudic studies are not my area of expertise (while my son has converted to Christianity and is a biblical scholar, I am not.) I am not at all averse to saying when I don't know something, and I usually do so succinctly. However, research and rhetoric are areas I have considerable background in, as well as some training in dispute resolution, all of which are why I am currently involved in this resolution process. I'm sure you will have noted that I have avoided adding any original text to the paragraphs in question, but instead have been inserting, moving, and editing text which has already been supplied by contributors with more knowledge than I of the content.
- Given my background, and your history of distracting the arguement and then presenting an alternative text to the compromised text (which practice I counted 3 times in the process of archiving the talk pages), I have determined to shepherd through a compromise text to get beyond the locked editing status. I do hope you will consider getting to that point with a compromise text an important and respectable goal.
- In getting there, I suggest we should avoid getting into a disagreement about citations. I have been involved in these in the past on a professional level and they are tedious, obstructionist, and expensive, and rarely resolve any differences. I'd rather focus on finding text we can agree on which reflects the contributions of everyone and neutrally presents it. - Amgine 18:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is you who made an argument about the citations. It is disingenuous of you to dismiss my sources and then say "but this is tedious, let's not discuss it" -- a tactic that has the effect of privileging your view and silencing mine. I will respond to you as succinctly as I can. In most tenure cases peer-reviewed articles count for more than books, but not in all. As you ought to know most universities allow each department to develop its own tenure guidelines appropriate to the discipline. In many of the social sciences and humanities -- like history -- writing a book is a crucial sign of scholarly achievement and necessary for tenure and promotion. In some cases, a published book is even necessary for getting a job. But your mis-stating the facts of the tenure process is but a diversion. The tenure process is only one way to measure scholarly status, and it is not appropriate here -- the process at hand is not tenure, but writing an encyclopedia. If you look at peer-reviewed journal articles in history, you will see that their bibliographies are full of books. Books are often important, credible, even authoritative sources of scholarly knowledge.
I mentioned the books I used not because I think every sentence in wikipedia needs a citation, but because I think every sentence in wikipedia needs to be verifiable. That I rely on books written by the preeminent scholars in the field is evidence as to the verifiability of my claims.
Your claims must be verifiable as well. I have pointed to several claims you have made and asked for verification. You have provided none. Instead, you asked me for sources. How dare you then accuse me of distracting the argument? You have done nothing but distract. For example, your continued use of the ridiculous phrase "king messiah." Every time I explained why this was a ridiculous phrase, you simply came up with sillier and sillier questions, and continued to repeat the mistake. Each time I explain why it is wrong to claim that there were many prophet/healer/messiahs, you again distract the argument (demanding I verify my claims, but refusing to provide any evidence or sources for your own claims) and then keep repeating the mistake.
When you first proposed a version of this section you invited people to "rip it" because it was a first attempt. But when I tell you what is wrong with it, you ignore me.
Then when I present a well-researched verifiable version, you complain that it isn't based on your version! How petty can you get! Like you, I invite people to tell me what is missing or wrong with my version. I specifically asked you what was wrong with it. You couldn't come up with a single defect or error.
To be blunt: although I gave you the benefit of the doubt until today, I now understand that your claim that you will shepherd through a compromise version is pompous and ridiculous. You utterly misunderstand the Wikipedia process, which is ultimately about a verifiable encyclopedia. The process invites anyone to contribute and encourages full discussion. But this does not mean that every contribution ends up in the final version. The talk page is a place to examine and debate. If a contribution is unverifiable, misleading, or simply wrong, there is no reason for it to be included in the article. Indeed, it must not be included in the article. You have made your own ignorance clear. You claim the authority to stitch together "compromise" paragraphs when you are simply unqualified to do so, since you have no idea what is true and what is not. If you want to edit merely on style, I recognize your right to do so. But you cannot admit to ignorance and then edit on content. That you want to write a paragraph on "messiah" when you do not understand the Hebrew usage; when you didn't know all priests are descended from Aaron; when you do not recognize who Shaye Cohen or Geza Vermes are; is just so absurd it blows my mind. Even now you claim that you have considerable experience in research, yet you haven't shown any sign of even knowing how to research this topic. That your claims to this ignorant authority have taken up so much space on the talk page isonly obstructionist. You have not contributed anything of value, and have only gotten in the way. Surely there is some article on a topic you actually know something about, that you can more fruitfully (and I am sure enjoyably) participate. Slrubenstein 18:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Having served as an editor on committees dealing with considerably more esoteric content than this, I feel I am aware enough of the scholarly process to serve here. That you are attempting to shift the argument to credentials suggests to me you lack of this type of experience. I believe we have fundamental differences of opinion on the "Wikipedia process" which may impede our ability to work toward a compromise. - Amgine 18:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
your version of CaHBJ
User:Pedant:CaHBJv1 if you feel it wants any editing,feel free to do so, I'll be comparing them around thursday or friday. the rest will be at User:Pedant:CaHBJv2,User:Pedant:CaHBJv3, etc. thanks again for your contributions.Pedant 20:58, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
Request for mediation
It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Slrubenstein
It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Users CheeseDreams and Amgine
Removal of Talk: page comments
I don't think removal of third party comments on an article's Talk: page is required for mediation, or even suggested by its guidelines. Moreover, I am philosophically opposed to removal of Talk: page comments, except for purposes of archiving stale discussions. Jayjg 16:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I understand and respect you philosophy regarding removing comments from talk: pages. However, since I feel it could unnecessarily risk the mediation Slrubenstein has requested and since I feel it could unnecessarily risk the potential compromise which is being developed regarding the locked article I am constrained from responding to the content of your responses. That you have now been informed of this, I would consider it baiting and uncivil of you to add personal challenges in that talk page. - Amgine 17:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I was unaware of the mediation when I posted the comments, so they were not baiting. I understand why you do not wish to respond at this point. Regardless, the comments are there, they are not part of the mediation, and you are under no obligation to respond now or ever. Jayjg 17:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have no opinion as to whether deleting some of the "see alsos" was justifiable or unjustifiable. Nor do I care whether you restored them. But I never deleted them, and for you to characterize an action of mine as unjustifiable, when I never did it, is unfair. Slrubenstein
- I'm sorry, you may have misunderstood the edit summary. I reverted to Slrubenstein's, that is, to your previous version, as is fairly common usage in revert summaries I have seen. My apologies for not being more clear in my summary, and for any misunderstanding caused. - Amgine 20:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate your apology but see now that it is unnecessary. Thank you for your explanation. I see how I misread your comment -- I am sorry for the misunderstanding but am glad that we could sort it out so quickly, Slrubenstein
You are very welcome. I developed this list by talking to professors in history and religion, and by consulting various bibliographies. Shaye Cohen is the premier historian on this period of Jewish history today; Neusner is very good and widely respected though many dispute his analyses. Concerning Jesus, as far as I can tell Meier, Vermes, Sanders, and Fredricksen are the absolute top authorities. I happen to like Ehrman a lot. Crossan is very important though probably my least favorite of the group I put down. Cohen's book from the maccabees to the mishna is very accessible, as is Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus. I love Vermes but he is much drier, and I love Fredrickson but she is very detailed and intense. Slrubenstein
Cultural and historical background of Jesus
In regards to Cultural and historical background of Jesus, you asked "Would you be so kind as to explain to me why this article has been unprotected?" Certainly. Our protection policy states that protection "is only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful." It also states that "temporarily protected pages should not be left protected for very long," and that page had been protected for over two weeks.
I share your hope that a revert war does not erupt on the page. Please remember that it takes two to edit-war, and so long as either side chooses to be patient and use the talk page instead of continuous reversion, a revert-war can't occur. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia! – Quadell (talk) (help)[] 14:08, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Dude. That's a mess. Some people are clearly not behaving well. Still, it's not a revert-war, exactly. . . and it's so chaotic at the moment that I can't tell if it's getting better or worse. I think I'll leave it be for a couple days and see what happens. – Quadell (talk) (help)[] 23:02, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I am a little confused -- did you or Pedant ask me to look at the proposed draft? In any case, I commented on it, see the talk page. Sometimes I know I am blunt, but all my comments are on good faith and I hope they are clear to you, Slrubenstein
Well, the best would be to read the article Nordisk Familjebok. Since it was published a long time ago the copyright has expired and it's now in the public domain. You can even read the entire text (with pictures) online at http://www.lysator.liu.se/runeberg/nf/ // Liftarn
Sorry to hear the bad news. It has happened to me and I know it feels awful, and is a big hassle. Good luck, Slrubenstein
Okay. Please do NOT edit the current version, except for small errors. I have included the most neutral versions of everything that people have done, and tried to do an honest job. I think its good and I think its broadly neutral but yet pays tribute to both secular and christians, and allows both to find what they need. Comments (brief and summary!!) on the talk page for now. hen see where we are at. FT2 03:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks *smiles* Might cite you on my page if you keep on that way. Seriously, it has been hard work, I only hope they like it. Please read the article and help by commenting or such. If some kind of consensus emerges maybe we can get a grudging draw if both sides feel respected and heard, and can agree it is a fairer presentation? What do you think? I'd like to move on from mass edit wars to some form of consensus on the core article, if it has in fact done anything like a fair neutral job. FT2 17:39, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Please see the article. I have left my comments on the talk page. accordingly. FT2 19:39, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Vote on which is more appropriate for neutrality? Or no point? FT2 23:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Do you mean the edit that adds the etymology of Jesus' name, that it means YHVH (we could just call it "the Lord") is salvation? If so, yes, to my knowledge this is accurate. It was also a common Jewish name -- do you think that needs to be added? Or is there another anonymous edit I missed? Slrubenstein
- No problem! Do you think it is important to mention that it was a common name (my fear is that some will see this somehow as "proof" that Jesus was a savior -- but maybe I am being unreasonably sensitive/paranoid. I defer to your judgement here). Slrubenstein
- Your suggestion is fine by me and I don't object if you want to put it in but you may want to ask other contributors what they think. Personally, I like it. Slrubenstein
Thanks for the apology, Amgine. Although I continue to strenuously disagree with your views on the article, I would hope that all of us can maintain a basic level of civility and avoid nastiness as much as possible as we continue to argue. I think that, generally, you have remained relatively polite over the course of the discussion (although, as I've said, I continue to not think much of your substantive arguments), so I shall assume that this was a momentary lapse due to irritation, which I would certainly not claim to be immune to. That said, we seem to be further from agreement than ever on the article itself. I'll just say that I really am quite confused about the nature of your substantive problems with Slr's version [pausing to revert article back to that version - no reason to unilaterally disarm], and why you feel that FT2's version is superior, especially given the rather glaring ignorance of pretty basic facts on FT's part which I think that some of the recent exchanges on the talk page have revealed (for instance, his claim that Roman emperors of the time of Christ were shorter-lived than non-existent Roman emperors who supposedly lived a century before the beginning of the Roman Empire; or his apparent ignorance of the fact that John/Yohanan and Jonathan are completely different Hebrew names.) Perhaps you could try to explain yourself more fully on my talk page. john k 07:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey Amgine, thanks for your explanation. It makes the issues somewhat clearer, although I still disagree with you. I think the process-based argument is rather deeply unfair. Slr has continuously engaged in lengthy discussion on the talk page of his version, and has welcomed constructive criticism. I find it hard to see why the fact that you and others refuse to work to improve his version, and instead work on (or simply revert to, as CheeseDreams does) FT2's version, indicates that there is something wrong with his version, any more than the fact that Slr and I have been reverting back to his version indicates on its own that there is anything wrong with that version. Edit warring is edit warring, and I don't see how all the blame can be put on one side. I will try to bring on some constructive criticisms of Slr's version, and improve, so that it's not simply an edit war, although I suspect this will not help. As to the substantive question, I really am not sure why you find Slr's version to be unreadable. I think that it's really quite good - clearly written and well-researched, although it is obviously not perfect. FT2's version, on the other hand, seems poorly organized and oddly written, and contains howling factual errors. Best, john k 07:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Amgine, I have started making various changes to Slr's version, and I have made some constructive comments about it on the talk page. I'm planning on doing the same for FT2's version (not making changes, but making comments). I will say that I tend not to try to make changes in the midst of an edit war, because I fear that the other version will get approved and all my work will have been for nothing. As soon as it settles down, I'd certainly like to try to contribute. I also do not see how it is Slr's fault that I reverted three times. On the one hand, I have the right to revert up to three times if I think it's appropriate, and I would heavily dispute that this is somehow "unethical." On the other hand, Slr did not force me to revert, and, furthermore, you have reverted a similar number of times. As to the substantive questions, while I do agree with you that Slr has probably been listing an excessive number of sources, although I would disagree that he qualifies every statement with a citation. As to the other issue, that the article is not tied closely enough to the cultural and historical context of Jesus, I would agree with this guardedly. I do not think, however, that the answer is to separate out history from culture - I agree with Slr that this would make little sense. On the matter of Slr's behavior, I would like to see some citations. From what I've seen, however, I'd note that you and CheeseDreams have pretty much consistently failed to ever cite a scholarly source for your claims when challenged on them. At any rate, let me get on to critiquing FT2's version of the article. john k 17:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you comment on the alleged (by me) abuse of adminship in protecting a POV (Slrubenstein's) version of Cultural and historical background of Jesus rather than a pre-edit war version at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Use of administrator privileges
?CheeseDreams 22:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am trying to figure this out myself. You might have noticed that on the background talk page I have apologized to FT2 (just to show you that I know when I am complaining, here is a complaint: just as I admit when I am wrong, I wish he would admit when he is wronge e.g. when translating John as "Yonatan") -- he quoted the tractate accurately (although I still think the larger point he was making is wrong). ben Tama really was a tana'itic scholar of the second century. But the quote is funny because he refers to the Talmud which just didn't exist then. So was this verse of the Mishnay screwqed around with? I really do not know. I am going to ask my friends who really are Talmud scholars. All I can tell you now is that it is a unique tractate. I will let you know if I find out more, Slrubenstein PS the Mishnah is not 200 BCE it is 200 CE
In cleaning up the discussion that had been incorrectly placed on the main Requests for comment page, I moved around some of your statements, which are now located either on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa knott or Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Theresa knott. This was done to comply with the standard format for listing user conduct disputes on Requests for comment. None of the text you wrote has been altered in any way. --Michael Snow 00:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Amgine, I sent you a reply to your email when I saw it last night. Did you not receive it? -- llywrch 23:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thank-you for the offer, but I would prefer not to have e-mail.
I have already been contacted by one fundamentalist editor trying to get an e-mail address so they can send unspecified things to me (which I suspect is viral) - see my talk page.
In addition to such paranoia, I prefer to keep my own discussions open, though I have no objection to you or other parties discussing things between yourselves by e-mail. CheeseDreams 23:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Alphabetical Index, along with its cousin Wikipedia:Topical index, are entirely manually maintained, although when I created them I used the larger Wikipedia:List of pages in the Wikipedia namespace as a source, and its content is based on running a script on the database. --Michael Snow 05:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Putting this link here will undoubtably attract Slrubenstein and Sam Spade and company to the link destination. Nethertheless, would you like to comment?
I don't see where Slrubenstein disagrees with me on Cultural....background. Could you be more specific? Tigermoon 10:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
POV and historians
I have a question about one of your recent comments:
- Slrubenstein views the article as primarily a historian's state of the science, and therefore privileging (probably correctly) academic texts and sources. While a reasonable heuristic, there is certainly a bias in this approach, not least of which is the preponderence of western and christian POV in the available literature.
I am all for including as many POVs as possible -- and I appreciate your generally supportive tone. But I have two questions. First, what other POVs are you suggesting? There are already separate articles on Jewish and Muslim points of view; I think we need a separate article on non-religious POVs. But were you suggesting adding other POVs? Which? Jewish and Muslim? Or am I missing something? Second, the POV of the article (in the current protected form, which was last edited by me) the POV is that Jesus was not the son of God, not divine, not resurrected, will not return. These are certainly the views of the historians cited (Jesus was not divine, the miracles did not occur, he doesn't redeem people from sin). So please, in what way is any of this a "Christian" POV? Am I missing something? It seems downright anti-Christian to me! What do you see that I don't? Slrubenstein
- I must say, I am a little concerned that after writing "there is certainly a bias in this approach, not least of which is the preponderence of western and christian POV in the available literature," you write "I have not examined your essay as to its specific Christian bias or lack thereof." Be that as it may, if I understand you correctly, perhaps your criticism is not of Christian POV but rather "Eurocentrism." However, I am very very concerned about the way you talk about "Christian" versus "Jewish" scholars. Now, in order to avoid a conflict I am having with CheeseDreams, I do not think you are racist and am not accusing you of racism. But I do think there is a danger in thinking that Christian and Jewish historians will have such different methods and conclusions. Surely you wouldn't say that there is a difference between Jewish and Christian physics? Now, I know there has in fact been much bias in history. I recognize that there have been historians who were ideologues for Christianity or White Europe, and that there have been historians who were ideologues for Judaism or Zionism. But these historians do not have much credibility these days in history departments. I think modern historians have really tried to overcome such biases ver self-consciously in the past fifty years. I think most historians see themselves as advocates for people who lived long ago, often far away -- scholars who are trying to understand and make understandable the words and deeds of people who otherwise seem very strange to us ... scholars who turn to history because they are skeptical of what they have been taught about their own place and times. In any event, my sources (in my version of the article) include historians who happen to be Jewish. Also, the historians who happen to be Christian, whom I cite, themselves use Jewish historians as sources (and there are Jewish historians who use Christian historians as sources, with respect for their work as historians, regardless of their religion or race). Do you really want to essentialize Jewish and Christian historians? Do you really have a basis to do this? When you read Fredricksen and Sanders, can you really tell from how and what they write whether they are Jewish or Christian? Slrubenstein
Thank you for addressing my concerns on my talk page. I appreciate your sensitivity for bias. Your example concerning readings of the Mishnah is a good one. So I would ask only that you apply your concern for bias with the same attention to specifics, here. That is, I agree that we need to be on the lookout for biases, and make them explicit when we see them -- just as long as we do not dismiss out of hand what someone says just because they could have a bias. Slrubenstein