User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 3

Hi, I don't know whether you've been keeping up with the Race article or not. Somebody put some unrepresentative pictures up and labeled them as members of various [races]. That addition was reverted by Peak, and several more reversions have occurred without any discussion other than in the edit summaries.

After checking the photo credits I added the following caption to the photo to try to properly contextualize them:

Fugitives categorized by the FBI into different "races". From left to right: White, Black, Hispanic Mestizo, Asian. Top row males, bottom row females.Does asserting a racial identity give any more information than is contained in the photographs? See the discussion below.

The original pictures were a nasty practical joke, I think, but Sam Spade likes them, and several other people have aided him in his reversions. I don't want another edit war, so I am hoping that you will watch developments and, if you agree that my way is a compromise that will not propagate disinformation, you will perhaps freeze the page in my version until the combattants come to the bargaining table.

Thank you. P0M 15:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ The pictures are back, with a new/old caption. I am not in favor of having those pictures there. I would have deleted them myself except that I anticipated the start of a revision war and had hoped to get around it somehow. P0M 05:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I contributed the mugshots. While the image is not perfect (american centric, people with a criminal history), I believe it is acceptable, at least until there is a better image. The people shown look like normal everyday people you could meet anywhere in america. Not the prettiest ones, but they don't look like criminals. Its definitely better than a caked-with-makeup celebrity photo. Please keep the image until there is a better photo to replace it with. However, feel free to change the caption if you like. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. Would you like to do a poll on Talk:Race about including or excluding the image? If the majority is against the image, then I'll be happy to remove it myself. -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ I give up on trying to nudge things toward some compromise and will revert from now on. I think Peak would be helpful too. I've never heard any rule about captions with no content of consequence, have you? P0M 19:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

§ I saw your note on my talk page. I'll see what I can add. At least I can say that I agree with what you have said. P0M 17:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I noticed your comments on WP:RFM - Ive been interested in modifying the WP:PP rules for a while, and wanted to know what you thought of the idea of requiring sysops to protect a page, even if they are involved in the dispute, rather than let it get trashed by reverts and personal comments etc. -SV

I am looking for a mediator between me and Jayjg for the Maimonides article. For some time now Jayjg has been reverting a lot of what I write, despite the fact that I am citing many academic sources. The problems I am having with Jayjg are seven-fold:

• (A) Jay demands that I offer multiple citations for every point I make, which is a demand that no one else on Wikipedia has to follow. However, I do comply, offering multiple citations, often from peer-reviewed academic journals. Yet Jay offers zero sources for his own edits! He never does, yet he doesn't see this how unfair this is.

• (B) Jay demands that I offer quotes to justify my edits, but the second I add quotes he deletes them, claiming that they are unnecessary and that I should paraphrase them. But when I do that he demands again that I add quotes to prove myself...He does this over and over, and it is now verging on harassment. He seems to be doing this to avoid dealing with quotes that he finds uncomfortable.

• (C) Everytime I add information, he assumes that this information is meant to attack Orthodox Judaism. He insists that we reframe all discussions as Orthodox verus Reform/Conservative. His claim is false; I simply am not attacking Orthodox rabbis, and in fact I explicitly told him that I would be happy to include Orthodox Jewish points of view. He just ignores that.

• (D) The way he wants to reframe is impossible, for there is no Reform/Conservative consensus that is uniformly at odds with the Orthodox consensus. I certainly can't find any indication that this is true, and Jay has offered zero sources to back up his own claim. Jay has somehow convinced himself that all beliefs are either "Orthodox" or else must be Reform/Conservative. Yet he has done absolutely no reading on the topic. In contrast, I have studied this topic in detail for years, and I have found no such divide. The only divide I have found is that critical-historical scholarship of Maimonides is fully accepted within Modern Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Judaism, and is fully-accepted within the non-religion affliatd academic community. The only exception is within parts of the ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Judiasm. (And not even all of Haredi Judaism; most of Haredi Judaism has little to say on this topic.)

• (E) Every time Jay sees a citation from an Orthodox Jew who has a point of view that differs from his preconceptions, he claims that they are really not Orthodox. He then makes ad homenim attacks, claiming that they are really "Conservative" or "Reform". Note that withing Orthodox Judaism, the charge that someone is really "Conservative" or "Reform" is a charge of heresy, and is widely sued within Orthodoxy as an ad homenim attack to delegitimize someone.

• (F) Jay never offers any citations to rebut any points; he simply makes up charges off the top of his head, such as "Well, no one else agrees with Professor Marc Shapiro", even when the position of Professor Shapiro is the mainstream position held by most of the academic community on this point. Jay makes these grand statements with no citations whatsoever, despite a massive amount of counter-citations to the contrary.

• (G) When discussing fine points, he keeps making tiny changes to the wording which totally destroy the argument. Example: There is a difference between Orthodox dogma about the Torah and the Tanakh, but he switches between them. Second example: There is a difference between generally saying that God inspired Moses' writing of the Torah, and that every single letter in the Torah is from God, and has never been changed in the slightest. Yet Jay acts as if there is no difference between these claims, which is very imporant to the issue at hand.

I feel like I am being bullied by someone who is unread on these issues, and who is contemptuous of any source that is not from an ultra-Orthodox rabbi. RK 14:53, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

The "bullying" is entirely due to RK's approach - citing immense amounts of material from "historical scholars" and expecting us to review all his sources. Many of these additions represent POVs not being held by most Orthodox authorities (I refuse to disambiguate between Modern Orthodoxy and Haredim in this matter). Editors with other interests end up having to review mountains of material that are irrelevant at best and smokescreens at worst. Meanwhile, vast amounts of Orthodox scholarship representing the "traditional" view are being ignored in the face of vocal fringe elements who dominate certain journals, websites and discussion groups. This has happened not just on Maimonides, but on many other pages (see Artscroll for a recent edit war). The only redress will happen if RK changes his approach. JFW | T@lk 01:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since when is contributing factual information to an article suddenly "bullying"? In any case, you are making incorrect claims: (A) I never claimed that the information I added was the view of all Orthodox rabbis. (B) As for your admission that you refuse to differentiate between Ultra-Orthodox and Modern Orthodox Jews, this is astonishing. These are two very different groups, with two very different ways of looking at Jewish theology. Just because you are not happy that significant differences exist does not give you the right to pretend that they really agree with each other. They do not agree. (C) Your describing the mainstream beliefs of Conservative and Reform scholars, as well as many Modern Orthodox rabbis, as "vocal fringe elements" is both factually incorrect and insulting. I am again begging you to stop your attacks. (D) You claim that "vast amounts of Orthodox scholarship representing the traditional view are being ignored in the face of vocal fringe elements". Untrue; in fact, this never happened. The only person who has refused to add information from the Orthodox point of view (on the subjects in question) has been you. I have been repeatedly agreeing with you, time and again, that we should include such points of view. Over and over, in many places, I offered my hand in friendship; I told you that I will support edits you make. Yet you refuse to make any edits, and demand that I include POVs from Hebrew books that I cannot find, and that I cannot read. That is astonishingly unreasonable. No one makes such demands of you. Why not read these books and add these POvs yourself? I do not appreciate the way you accused me on the Wiki-En of having some such information, and that I have dishonestly kept such info secret. These charges against me are unkind and false. You are creating a fight where none exists; learn to take "yes" for an answer. If you have some material to add on this subject, please do so. I have always agreed with you. 01:06, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the Capitalism talk page. Perhaps its just as well to thrash out certain points here as to capitalism, and Susan's point about its ancient character. On the talk page there I commented that certain features were present in ancient Babylonian and I said that this may show that capitalism is the "recognition of enduring realities." You reacted by saying that capitalism itself isn't an enduring reality because, etc. In the discrepancy between the wording of the suggestion and the wording of the reaction may lie the key.

What I would say, and perhaps this is what Susan would say as well (although one of us would have to ask her) is that the law of supply and demand, the inherent limits of arbitrage, etc., have always been facts, although they have become more-or-less explicitly recognized as facts only in recent centuries, and modern capitalism's distinctiveness is its greater level of self-consciousness (recognition!) about them.

This puts me in roughly the same position as a Freudian in certain respects. (FWIW, I'm not a Freudian, but invoke this as an illustration). Obviously, Freudians don't believe that the unconscious and the Oedipus complex came into existence in the late 19th century. They believe them to be enduring realities, much older even than the play that suggested the terminology, and that these realities to some extent at least have come to consciousness sporadically throughout human history -- which is how that play, and Hamlet, etc., came to be written without Sigmund's assistance. But they do believe that Freud created something new and valuable, by ratcheting up the level of self-consciousness of these processes. Pro-capitalist ideologues (a POV in which I do include myself) believe much the same thing about the ancient and the modern aspects of what we defend.

I don't know whether this semantic proposal justifies any change in the intro to that article or not, but it is something to which one might want to give some thought. --Christofurio 13:01, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

(After receiving your reply): Thanks again. As to the analogy, it wasn't between Freud and Marx at all. It was meant to apply between Freud and pro-capitalist theorists, i.e. Adam Smith, Milton or David Friedman, etc. Their views seem to me to have the same general structure as Freud's -- "there is an invariant human nature, and my theory discloses it better than other theories." Freud says certain works of art exhibit the underlying dynamics better than others. Smith and the Friedmans say, likewise, that certain social systems have harnessed the underlying profit-seeking energies, and other invariant facts, better than others.

You also asked me why I'm pursuing this although "Susan" has dropped it. Ah, good question. Analytical exuberance, I suppose. I agree I have better things to do. For example, Henry Grady is a sadly neglected important figure in U.S. history and he doesn't have a wikipedia article at all yet. Work for me! See you around. --Christofurio 19:40, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

You may want to keep an eye on Racism and Talk:Racism -- it's Sam's current focus for his apologetics.

Peace, BCorr|Брайен 00:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please explain to User:VeryVerily why editorializing on the USSR and PRC does not belong in the Marx article? He keeps on restoring that paragraph because User:Shorne was the first to remove it, and VV reverts at random all of Shone's edits. (I can't do it, as VV will disregard anything I say.) Thanks. 172 08:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the future, please restrict personal comments and observations to my user talk or email. Thanking you in advance, Sam [Spade] 16:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you consider weighing in on the edit war at Jew Watch?AndyL 04:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your edit to my talk page asked for my input but gave a red link -- has the page moved? Or did you mean Talk:Jesus? If the latter, I've commented. If it's another page, I'm more than happy to have a look -- just give me a blue link to the article in question. :-) All my best, Jwrosenzweig 23:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, the link doesn't work. Does the article have a different name? Jayjg 23:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to return to the pre-edit war version, which I thought yours was, I didn't realize you had been editing too. See WP:RfAR for more details. Jayjg 17:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I notice you are trying to bring people whom you see as supporters of his POV into the discussion (by looking at your contributions list). I do not think this is a very NPOV thing to do. CheeseDreams 00:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User_talk:The_Rev_of_Bru#Slrubenstein

Sam [Spade] 15:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've had a recent barrage of difficulty regarding individuals such as these, and I'm not precisely sure what to do. As far as something general ... I think the answer is a Meta one, requiring policy change.

Honestly, I want some sort of "wiki-cop" or "wiki-911" emergency option to report suspicious activities, individuals, rule breaking, incivility, what-have-you. I think that’s a long time in coming, and will requite alot of debate and subtle alteration before it ever takes shape. I just know that it’s badly needed, and lack of proper rule enforcement is the main cause of missing editors, IMO.

Anyhow, regardless of differences you and I may have on some random POV, or other subtleties, I get the impression that you respect the M:Foundation issues and have the encyclopedias best interest at heart, and am available for any assistance (or certification / endorsement of complaint) you might need in dealing with those lacking the proper respect for civility, policy, and/or the project ideals. I have little patience for those who disrespect our purpose here, and fail to serve the best interests of the project, and all importantly, the readers. Sam [Spade] 16:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the most neutral editors I know have already discussed some things w them, including User:Jwrosenzweig. I suppose that sort of thing might help, if they are indeed new. My primary concern is that they seem like they've been around awhile, and are fairly familiar w policy and personalities, and other nuances. Sam [Spade] 16:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know him well, but whatever works, works. Alls well that ends well, etc... :) I too prefer making valuable contributors out of others rather than squabling with them. Sam [Spade] 17:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think Sam should be aware of the comments about him on Grunt's talk page. This gives me a pretty clear idea of his willingness (or lack of it) to obey Wikipedia policy, and his POV campaigns. CheeseDreams 17:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IMO this statement, while perhaps nominally racialist or religiously discriminating, suggesting (as far as I can tell) that you (Slrubenstein) are not Jewish, and that we'd be better off finding a Jew to ask the question of, and / or perhaps that he felt your statement was incoherant to him as a non-jew, and that he felt culturally unable to understand it?

Its a very obtuse communication, typical of those I have suffered thru w this user myself. For what its worth, I don't think it was a personal attack, but I do think it was a foolish and ignorant comment on many levels, not the least of which being how difficult it was to understand. Sam [Spade] 22:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think your comment required a certain level of understanding of the subject perhaps, or at least a certain level of reading ability ;) I'm pretty sure I'm not Jewish, but that’s actually alot more complicated a question than you might think. Lets just say I am Irish-German (Keltic - Teutonic) ethnically, my family is Catholic, and my religion is non-specific (I like to call myself interdenominational ;). I don't speak Hebrew or attend temple, keep kosher, etc... That said, I do find the kabala particularly agreeable, and have been asked if I was / assumed to be Jewish many times in my life, particularly by Jews, mainly due to my taste in formal clothing (black shoes, etc...) ability to grow a long beard, various habits, and my knowledge on the subject of religion / history generally, and near eastern religion / history specifically. What I am I leave to others to judge, but as I said I am pretty sure I'm not Jewish ;) Here on the wiki I have had the "joy" of being accused of anti-semitism, so I suppose I have come full circle? Anyhow, back to the point:

All of that said, I found your statement to have been highbrow, not ethnically / religiously exclusive. There are many, many Jews who would have had no clue what you were talking about, while most English speaking intellectuals would have at least got the gist of it. Mr. Cheese probably ment no special offense (altho I do think he ment to be rude and disparaging to you, if only slightly), and likewise prob. had no idea what you were saying, and assumed it was some special talmudic "Jew talk" which he couldn't possibly be expected to understand ;) Anyhow, good luck w him, I have been avoiding him and his "sort" ("new users" w an agenda, and a seeming familiarity w the wiki process) for a while now. Thanks for fighting the good fight, to keep our articles factually accurate, NPOV, and (not by any means least) coherent! Sam [Spade] 22:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nothing wrong w being highbrow (and your wern't overly so anyhow), this is an encyclopedia, not a "Jesus for Dummies" pamphlet ;) That said, of course I'll review for readability, thats what were here for, group editing process and all ;) Sam [Spade] 23:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strikes me that Cheese Dreams has been trolling through the whole discussion, but I think the statement was too vague to be seen as necessarily anti-semitic. john k 03:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL. I dont think this one is going to be figured out in a day. I have read a few of the comments by others here (Sam, John, FT2) and they seem to be quite on the right track. As an example, [1] The choice between the two versions and their perspectives on the subject is a material issue, and you are the one percieved as interjecting a bit too much clinical "anti-supernaturality" (theology and encyclopedia are kind of a contradiction in terms, eh?) into what is for more than a few people a spiritualistic (I dont like the term supernatural as its like extra-sensory; really just a misnomer for "extra-scientific" or "beyond materialistic research").

I had been thinking a lot about something that you wrote about the contrast between the ethnic inclusionism (and theological exclusionism) of Christianity and the theological inclusionism (and ethnic exclusionism) of Judaism. Its an interesting dynamic, I think; one that makes for very interesting discussions between what are apparently very different points of view. I dont think Cheese is necessarily a bigot, but rather that religious society in general is bigoted, and his comment was perhaps designed to irritating to those who he may think are taking this issue too clinically, hence forcing a reaction (!) and forcing some distance. I dont agree with the tactic, but a little distance can be good, when people are so overly-engaged that they forget what the real issue is. This really seems to be a debate about the attitude and character that this article should have, (and in general). I kind of like the idea of creating small committees or boards that craft policy on certain issues - an editorial policy for newsworthiness and NPOV terms, a theological board too, maybe for handling of sensitive religious matter. I can't really comment on the specifics too much, but for example this one seems like a good example where the clinical tone can be exaggerated to be dismissive or even anti-religious:

"Although many (meaning "most, if not all" legitimate scholars...) skeptics question whether Jesus ever existed, (This is not clear at all) those Christians and academics who accept his existence (nutty as they are) often seek ("often seek?") to understand his life and teachings in terms of the cultural and historical background in which he lived. Some scholars have argued that such an understanding suggests an account of Jesus' life that is different from that provided in the Gospels."

This last sentence is vital, but it comes accross like a mistatement: "some scholars (?) have argued..." I would rather read:

As the topical context of Jesus of Nazareth's "historicity" deals with the material factuality of a religious figure from ancient (nearly pre-historical) times, there is naturally a debate with regard to both the ability of historians to "validate" the theological view of Jesus,' and the degree of value that such a claimed validation might have. As with other religious figures, the materialist context of "history" tends to be obscured by the contexts of supernatural "theology" and "faith," and (particular to Christianity) Jesus' ascension from mortal (material) to spiritual form is often the theological answer to the historical question. Therefore the purposes of the theology and history cannot be reconciled, even if it is the work of religious historians.

So, I hope you kind of see my point. Ive said it from day one that Ive been editing here: the perceptions of academics have to be reconciled with the perceptions of regular people, who are no less privy to their opinions and attitudes toward... stuff. But the debate is actually far more interesting than the article itself, so if you can sort of deal with these different points of view toward the proverbial elephant ("Its a snake!"), then that would be... interesting. Sincerely, -SV 20:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS: The Jesus super-historicity matrix - in progress:

                        Believers    Atheists    Non-Christians
Material historicity  :    Y,N         Y,N            Y,N  
Spirituality          :     Y           N             Y,N
Supernaturality       :    Y,N         Y,N             N
Literality            :    Y,N         Y,N             N
Theocracy             :    Y,N          N             Y,N

-SV 20:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2 - do you have access to wiki IRC? If you want to talk some time I'd be OK to. Otherwise, points noted, I think cheese is able to be reasonable if he feels you are - thats the crucial thing. Time'll tell if you can sort it out mutually :) FT2 00:55, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

<grin> A telling point in the discussion! I was wondering if I was going to have to invite you or not... - Amgine 20:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Amgine is simply revealing his ignorance. Most books are not peer-reviewed (not in history or the social science), peer-review is a process used usually for journal articles. This does not mean books have no scholarly status. Each of these authors have published in peer-reviewed journals. Moreover, these scholars are well-recognized and frequently cited authorities. As Jayg suggests, if Amgine doesn't know who they are, it just shows two things: first, he is ignorant; second, he has not tried to overcome his ignorance with serious research. Some time ago, Amgine rebuked me for not working in good faith. I believe I have treated Amgine with good faith up until now. At this point, however, Amgine has amply demonstrated that this good faith is ill-deserved. Good faith means I start out assuming that if you are working on an article it is becuase you have done some serious research. But Amgine has now demonstrated that he has not done any serious research, nor does he even know how to do serious research, at least on the topics discussed in this section. Amgine, you simply don't know what you are talking about and are in no poisition to judge content."

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. - 24.86.206.227 18:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Amgine

It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#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 20:19, 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

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at User:Amgine/Resources to add additional text you would suggest which address the question? Do you know of any free access to ATLA, since I'd really like to keep the cost of this extra research down (also, would you like any of the texts once this discussion if over with, since I do not have room for any more references?) What specific journals would you suggest, since there are three seminary schools on campus here and the libraries should be fairly well stocked.

Thanks! - Amgine 22:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions! I'm heading out to see what I can find right now... - Amgine 19:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was a huge brain dump of stuff today. We may want to discuss some of what I found today, as it may have a rather large bearing on the discussions we've been having. I have notes from Neusner (very dense writing!), Bultmann, Vermes, and Knohl, plus an entirely new logic chain to follow on for Wise.

One of the primary findings, three sources, is the agreement/disagreement regarding "messiahs". That is, at the time in question the term "messiah" was taxonomic and used loosely compared with post-Constantinian Judaic writings. Basically my impressions from the texts is the comparison between other priests and generals and messiah priests and generals is the difference between scouts and Eagle scouts.

Anyway, later for other lessons, will be back on later. - Amgine 23:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to talk with you about elements of this article. I have just noticed that the protection notice has been removed from the article, and would prefer to discuss edits I would like to see in the near future without developing any disagreements. Please see version at User:Pedant/CaHBJv1 (which includes all the vote text I could find) knowing that we are in disagreement about the Messiahs section.

The messiahs section, after my current research, needs to be reworked. But exclusive of that section, do you see any specific problems? It is, for all intents, an exact copy of the current plus the consensus vote texts.

I will probably not be able to work on this for a day or so. My passport and documents were stolen from the car last night, so must deal with RL for a bit... - Amgine 18:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, could you please take a look at that page for me and tell me what you think of it? I posted on its talk page maybe a month ago, maybe two, and no one has responded. It's an extreme right editorial with no encyclopedic value in my view. Thank you.--Che y Marijuana 16:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Of course I don't intend to delete it without going through the proper channels. I was just wondering what you thought of it. I think there is a place for the "anarcho"-capitalist critique against Anarchism, but a seperate article isn't it, and definitely not in this form. I do think it should be moved to the main artical, but in this form I fear there's no point. Anyways, I'll keep you updated on what happens, thanks. --Che y Marijuana 03:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation when you can please. There is more discussion on the choice of mediator for you to comment on. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 21:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Histirocity of Jesus article has been protected by RickK so I can't do anything. Not sure if this is the version you think should be protected, I'm afraid I haven't had time to delve into the article and am not sure I really want to :) AndyL 16:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)