Hi, I have a question for you and your thoughts on this would be appreciated. I had recently planned on slowly going about converting the primary articles concerning Iranian history to BCE/CE, starting with the List of kings of Persia last night. I feel that I am justified in doing this since BCE/CE is standard in academia and there is no strong connection between Christianity (I am strongly opposed to BC/AD due to the Christian connotations) and Iranian history, and more and more articles have begun to adhere to BCE/CE. However, my changes were reverted by another who opposed this move, stating that this change was unnecessary and would confuse people. I strongly disagree with this user. Should I avoid any attempt at converting existing articles (of the ancient Iranian history variety) due to potential conflict (with users who strongly adhere to BC/AD)? Your input would be much appreciated. SouthernComfort 03:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your BC/BCE proposal, I thought it was for a hard-and-fast policy and that it was getting a bit out of hand. Yours, Radiant_* 07:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, the 1st thing you need to do is get rid of anything from the page that is conversations with others that should have been on the talk page. Just make another archive of them or something. At the top of the page should be an introduction, saying who you are etc. Maybe just below that put things that relate to you and wikipedia i.e major articles contributions you've made. Also photos are quite good. Then if you want to put interesting bits of information not relating to you, put them underneath, with their own headings. Don't go overboard and make a 300k article which you seem to love doing! That's my advice for now. Making it look pretty comes after fixing the content. --Silversmith 15:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your comments. i was persuaded by those on my talk page to make the change to avoid offense, and also make it easier to communicate with me. but i did keep the user/talk pages so that my pov is clearly outlined. Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 16:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...I appreciate your comments on your user page about the Bible. I am a Christian (ordained clergy, in fact) who believes quite firmly in Scriptural truth and authority and inspiration, but I also maintain that it has a powerful culturally-influenced human element, and this does not in any way demean the Bible. I actually look at it as traditional (Nicene) Christianity has viewed Jesus...fully divine yet also fully human. I am comfortable living with paradox, but understand that many are not. I hope that the sometimes unkind words thrown your way don't wound too deeply; they are not representative of Christianity in general or Christians. KHM03 18:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would obviously like to get involved, but I'm not exactly clear on how this works, i.e. where do I add my statement and is there anything in particular I need to know before I add my edits? Thanks. SouthernComfort 15:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, see Parthia (originally BCE/CE to begin with - Jguk changed to BC/AD), Hormozgan (original author User:Zereshk agrees with BCE/CE as evidenced on Talk:List of kings of Persia) - there are a lot of changes (from original BCE/CE to BC/AD as opposed to my changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE) as evidenced through his user contributions. SouthernComfort 15:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein, I've added myself to the RFAR as an involved party; after delving into Jguk's contributions, I discovered he's been on this POV crusade for quite some time. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 21:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slrubenstein, I apologize in advance for not involving myself in the case; however, I feel that the case rests on a trivial issue and should be thrown out. In addition, I don't want to waste my efforts on what appears to be a hopeless venture for both parties. For the record, I don't support edit wars; therefore, I don't support RickK, violetriga, you, or anyone else in their consistent reverting of articles for usage of any dating system. See my comment to RickK here. Adraeus 01:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry but by reverting List of kings of Persia you are merely showing your POV about the subject. The original style (BC/AD) should be maintained and your reverts to the contrary are against current policy. I understand your annoyance about the situation and would support BCE/CE if that was what the article started with. violet/riga (t) 15:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Over the weekend someon replaced all the BC/BCE with BCE on Jesus claiming vote of 31/19 was consensus - I thought we had reached a less satisfying for all but more broadly supported consensus of using both BC/BCE and avoiding AD 2005 CE except if the context does not clearly indicate before or after. Could you help out over there if you agree this is the consensus - as I don't want to stir up that again. Trödel|talk 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took so long to post something - I wanted to do some research on the usage in accepted textbooks/reference material, but just haven't been able to get to the library. Trödel|talk 03:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be misrepresenting and misinterpreting my view of this situation. I am trying to resolve the issue and stop people from forcing their POV – I have been reverting to that chosen by the original author and don't care which form it was. Please understand that before talking further about my actions. violet/riga (t) 15:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't say I like the tone you took on my talk page. It seems to me that you are annoyed that your proposal has flopped and won't see anyone trying to help if it goes against your preferences. Re-read what I have said above and you might realise that I've tried to diffuse the issue by talking about it and returning it to it's pre-war state. I was not justifying either argument, just showing you that changing from one to the other is controversial and that the policy needs to be reworded to account for such procedures. violet/riga (t) 18:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Most revert wars could be avoided if the person that did the original change stops and thinks "why was I just reverted?" and talks to the reverter on the article talk page. When it was clear that there were objections SouthernComfort should've just gone to the talk page to discuss this without continuing the edit war. Yes, I know that's easier said then done, but since it's just off the back of your proposal (which stirred up a lot of interest) it was probably just bad timing.
Nobody owns an article, correct, and people should defer to the people that contribute the most to the article. Controversial changes where the policy is not clear should be discussed first. violet/riga (t) 19:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support the idea of contributors to the article having a weighting to their argument, but also maintain that the edit war should not be continuing while the topic is in discussion on the talk page. Both parties were at fault for that. My opinion (and the reason for my involvement) was that it should be at the original version during such discussions. violet/riga (t) 20:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we have to go that far in having to provide exhaustive evidence - the case, as it seems to me, is pretty clear cut all around. The issue in question is whether or not it is proper for a user such as Jguk to go around to every single article which is BCE/CE (or has been changed to BCE/CE) and revert these changes, regardless of what editors of those articles may think. If most editors do not dispute or oppose the changes, then why should Jguk be allowed to revert every single article like that based upon non-existent policy? You and MPerel have provided, IMHO, more than enough evidence of this, unless we are also required to comment upon each and every instance, and/or provide every instance of reversion as well. The larger issue at hand is whether or not non-Christian articles have the right to adhere to BCE/CE if it is more appropriate and justified. I think all that has been presented, as well as our statements, illustrate all of this as clearly as is humanly possible. SouthernComfort 16:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply to my email. I will have (at best) limited internet access for the rest of the week. All the best. Guettarda 20:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A possible compromise vote has begun at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras. Please read through potential changes to the Manual of Style and vote on your preferred version. Your input is greatly appreciated, and I hope you can help work towards some kind of workable solution with this. violet/riga (t) 21:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, I'm having a discussion with this VfD. The issues are IMHO being missed by most of the voters. I don't know who the reflective historians are around here - who know the difference between literary and historical criticism - but I think some new voices are needed. You seem to have some interests in these matters - and perhaps some knowledge of whom else might be called on. Perhaps you'd take a look (and please don't be too distracted by the BC labelling here - that's another issue). --Doc (t) 09:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration matter concerning Jguk has opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence. --mav 01:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slr, can I contribute evidence in this case now, or is the roster of evidence givers now closed. Sunray 19:13, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, I'm in the process of gathering evidence (a staggering 3,000 BCE/CE-->BC/AD edits Jguk/Jongarrettuk has made since October)! I have to say I am quite shocked at the extent of his anti-BCE/CE campaign. The list is currently in html format however, so I will need to convert it to a wikipedia-friendly format. The only problem is that I will be offline for the rest of this week for my job and to attend a funeral several thousand miles away. But please make sure the arbcom knows more evidence is forthcoming. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 05:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SR, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, as I've been away on vacation for the holiday. I don't think I'm going to have the time to spend listing all the evidence though, but I'll try to make the effort if possible. SouthernComfort 14:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! But I really do think Wikipedia has a problem with them! (81.156.177.21 Cheese Deams, Fish Supper etc)
Bye forever,
Angel77
You're going to love this one, Sl. It says:
I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is not POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi there:
Over on Common Era, User:Sunray wanted a citation for this quote:
I searched through the history and found that you had added the quote on May 14. So I was hoping that you could provide the citation.
Thanks for any help you can give,
— DLJessup 23:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection Chaim Potek's Wanderings, History of the Jews (1978) has a discussion on the origins of BCE/CE, but I have been unable to locate a copy. Perhaps somebody can check it out. Thanks.Nobs01 16:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You wrote: "I also take issue with the comment on monotheism. It is likely that at an early stage of their history, Jews were henotheistic, and elements of those traditions are included in the Torah. However, this does not mean that the Jews who wrote or edited the Torah were not monotheists."
I could not agree more fully with you. In fact, my reading of the OT indicates to me that this was what happened.
As for you expressing outrage - don't stress. Apparently I did that also. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Paul B wrote the following:
I'm stepping away from this article while people believe that I am acting in bad faith. Sorry. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Steve, I'm having a conflict with User:ScapegoatVandal, who is trying to insert some sort of connection between the Puritans, Judaizers, the Rothschilds, and various other events, into a number of articles. Would you be willing to look at the issue at Judaizers and comment? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
where's with pitchforks already? ScapegoatVandal 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Knowing that we have disagreed somewhat on the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE matter in the past, I would value your input on a counter-proposal I have written to resolve (hopefully) the era naming style problem. Thanks! Alanyst 22:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A decision has been reached in the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. All involved users are warned strongly to abide by our policies. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
Notice you had dropped out of sight - good to see you back (assuming that you are). Guettarda 00:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to watch over the edits of SimonP - [1]
User:-Ril- 16:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer. This may be of interest to you as one of the alleged sockpuppets pasted a large quantity of text from somewhere the concerned you. ~~~~ 21:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting. I see it as an attempt to formalise a violation of WP:5P. Guettarda 02:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.
RIL - M.O.
1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.
2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.
3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone
4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone
5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.
PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of rewriting the communism article in order to turn into a valid encyclopedic entry, as opposed to the incoherent sampling of "original research" that it once was. But I'm having no luck dealing with Ultramarine, whose English is too poor and POV too strong to understand that his content belongs in related entries on Communist regimes and their development strategies, not in the communism article. Help will be greatly appreciated. 172 05:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand being over-committed. I am as well, but not as much as I was about a month ago. I'll try to see if anyone else is able to take a look. Thanks for the reply. 172 | Talk 09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Melissadolbeer has opened a request for arbitration against you (atWP:RFAR). ~~~~ 09:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated that you do not know why you are involved.
Melissadolbeer, as a result of my merging Authentic Matthew, has been spamming user's talk pages (under the sockpuppet User:Mikefar) claiming that various people, including Wetman (who added the original merge tag) are my sockpuppets. Similar accustions have been made by her/him against pretty much everyone who voted delete at the articles VFD.
Someone (an IP address) tried to merge it previously, resulting in similar spam across talk pages. At that time it was the sockpuppet User:Angel77. You are a principle feature of that spam (it consists of the IP address's edit history as a copy+paste, together with what looks like a request for arbitration against you) - e.g. a sample - [2]. ~~~~ 22:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When and if something comes up which actually relates to you I will notify you. Fred Bauder 21:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have just read some of the items on your page regarding myself and they are totally untrue. Not only do I not have anything against you, but as a new user could probably use some help -- thanks for your advice. As you can see, I am in over my head and seem to have become the object of Ril's wrath. I have never used a sock-puppet. Thanks for contacting me directly, as it appears that Ril is trying to cause problems for me with other users.
-- Melissa --Melissadolbeer 03:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
... put in by CheeseDreams. No wonder that was so badly researched! Finally, she has proved herself to be the nincompoop she really is. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I could not find how you got named! I tried to clean things up but may have made them worse. I do believe the Vfd was unfair but can any thing be done?
Melissa
P.S. This is the truth as I understand it.
Please limit your statement to 500 words
--Melissadolbeer 09:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has suggested adding some info from Crossan into Historical Jesus. I believe you have some familiarity with this writer? ~~~~ 17:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please send me a message via my wiki e-mail[3], so I have a way to send you an e-mail --JimWae 23:00, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
Hi; I've seen you responded (Marx talk page), but, unfortunately- my wiki time has (due to several unexpected circumstances) become pretty limited. So, maybe later...Best Mir Harven 15:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in the current debate going on at Talk:Noahide Laws. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should stop arguing with him, as it is clear that, whether he is expressing his true views or just trolling, the conversation is going nowhere, and it is just getting nastier. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Would you be interested in helping to prepare the groundwork for an article called Toledoth? My initial plan is to quote scholars who use the toledoth refrain to explain the literary structure of the books of Moses, and especially of Genesis. I want to draw special attention to Abraham as the principal figure of Genesis, and in light of that centrality the curious omission of his name from the head of any of the toledoth refrains (... Terah, Ishmael, Isaac ...). I'm thinking that then, perhaps we might show the importance of the idea in general to Jewish self-understanding. Throughout, but the latter especially, is where I would need your help - unless you think that the project is ill-conceived from the outset. Issues touching the documentary hypothesis come in here, too, but perhaps can be redirected to the article on Genesis (Hebrew Bible) I don't have much of a taste for the integrity of those theorists, or for their speculative and arbitrary meta-textual interpretations, although the most respected modern scholars invariably pay homage to them - but that's also why I've come to you, because I have perceived you feel friendlier toward them.
It's the sort of thing that I would have asked RK to help me with in the past, but he doesn't seem to be around right now. It's not that you're second-class, mind you, but rather, RK always was so willing to set me straight about things Jewish, which I appreciated. If I was concerned that I might unintentionally offend, I would go to him first as the most likely person to jump on me if I did offend! Perhaps telling you this will remove some of the sting of being thought of second :-) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. They are helpful. I have some resources to gather, myself. If by then one of the folks you mentioned hasn't started (an|the) article, I'll stop by and ask you to look at it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it will interest you, as you editied the relevant article some time ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, you have not offended me. Crossan, Spong and people like them who use their apostasy like a credential, are more obviously motivated by malice than you seem to recognize, however. He speculates that the body of Jesus was eaten by wild dogs, and the world pretends to believe that this opinion arises out of honesty, faith and a noble commitment to scholarship. He pretends that it's an honest view of Christianity to see it as a scheme concocted for the overthrow of Caesar, and he's called brilliant. He says that the Church cooked up the story of the betrayal of Jesus in a plot to destroy the Jews, and he's called enlightened.
I understand why Paul is perceived as hateful toward the Jews - but he was no flatterer when he professed to love his kindred, and set himself openly against them. If you don't see why Crossan is seen as hateful by Christians, that's a blind spot. The greatest acts of hatred are accompanied with a kiss. A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is up for deletion. I would like to have it kept as he is a significant critic of The Two Babylons. Would you care to vote on the VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a dispute with User:VizcarraatThe Holocaust article. He seems to be very focussed on me, as his comments indicate [4]. Would you mind taking a look? Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wonder if you could take a look at the Icon article. It's turned into a slow-moving edit war, but the most frustrating thing is that the anonymous editor(s) refuse to discuss anything on the Talk page, and keep editing using different ip addresses. Do you have any suggestions for working towards a resolution in this case? Wesley 16:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've read several of the books listed on your userpage...I also found Bernhard Anderson's Understanding the Old Testament to be a very well written history, albeit from the perspective of a Christian scholar (probably not much in it that's distinctly Christian). Are you familiar with it? At any rate, I commend it to you. KHM03 17:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, maybe you can check the actions of anon 4.240.150.203 on Jew.... I think I'm about to violate WP:3RR. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello...Mkmcconn (Mark) and I have been observing some ongoing edit concerns at Biblical scientific foreknowledge. Aside from the fact that the two of us have ZERO interest in the subject, an edit war has been taking place between MickWest and Kdbuffalo (also known as Ken). The page was protected briefly.
It seems to me that Ken's tone has grown increasingly unfriendly toward Mick and, at times, Mark. Both Mark and I have warned him about this.
If you have the time, do you think you could review some of the discussion there and, if you deem it appropo, see what you can do about Ken's tone and approach to editing? Mark and I aren't sure there's much more we could do.
Be prepared...the content of the article is, in my view, pretty silly (and in no way representative of evangelical Christianity!).
Thanks for your consideration...KHM03 23:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a bit curious, why aren't you signing your entries with four tildes any more? Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a request for a favor from you at Talk:Yom Kippur War. This is just a reference to it so you wouldn't overlook it. Please let me know if you could do this for me. Thanks. Unfocused 22:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I visited my user talk page for the first time today and saw your 10/9 note to me. I didn't understand the function of talk pages to communicate back and forth or that user talk pages could even exist if I had not created a user page. Every time I had clicked on my talk page, I found a long list of Wikipedia guides. So, I assumed that that was all that was there unless I created my user page. On a whim, today I scrolled down to the bottom and found your note.
Now I understand why you seemed so upset with my repeated interpretation of your statements. Double apologies.
I never challenged the notion that judges' decisions are often more important than editors. They (judges) terrify me. As an expert witness in civil commitment hearings in which I witness the indefinite incarceration of people (often for decades!) because of judges' beliefs (that are known to be empirically invalid), you don't have to convince me that judges decisions have great import. The point is that the form of the logic and verbal reasoning used to make decisions about what others are allowed to do or not do is almost identical. In this sense, editors act as authorities, make judgments, and apply rules. As far as I can see, this is done with greater success in the Wikipedia than in the courtroom. Despite vandals and kooks and deep conflicts, the Wikipedia has produced a remarkable compendium of human knowledge in a the wink of an eye. I have yet to see any such rational productive process in the courtroom. Our system of justice is bizarrely random, so bizarrre that few people can imagine how arbitrary it is.
But I thought I made it clear that I was not equating the impact of the typical editor's decision with the typical judge's decision.
So regarding the content of our differences, while I can imagine that if we talked this out at length I would come to understand that you were saying something completely different from what I thought you meant, I still don't see any clear contradiction between the words you used and my interpretation. That is, while I take your word for it and accept the fact that I misunderstood you, I don't understand why you thought it was an obvious, to the point of intentional, misunderstanding---even before I repeated the interpretation (not knowing of your note to me).
No need to explain. I just wanted you to know I did not mean to insult you, and did not know about your note to me, and that I still have a hard time understanding why my misunderstanding seemed so eggregious, even the first time.
BTW, is there some way of having an automatic email sent when someone edits your user talk page? Damn. The solution is so obvious I realized it before I saved this: Just put my page on my watchlist. Kriegman 01:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I value many of the changes you have recently made to this article. And I want to apologize for having been overzealous in reverting some of your earlier changes. I know that in one case you were — as far as my research shows — wrong about one of your edits, concerning killing in self-defense. But in reverting that I reverted other changes of yours. I am sure that as I continue to work on this article there will be times when I revert or edit other contributions you have or will have ade to the article. But please know that I will be more careful in the future, to make changes more judiciously. I think several of your recent edits have really improved the article, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that."
I appreciate that. What's always irked has been the sense of editing "if its not 100% then overrule and wind back, and 100% is based upon how I think it should be". If thats no longer how its working, I value that, and value the working together to jointly draw into articles the best we can all add. I know when I add information I know or believe are accurate, if they are wrong, then fixing them is exactly what should be done. But if they are completely wrong, pausing, thinking "whats trying to be said" and using your own deep knowledge to put an amended version that tries to correct the error or make the same point better, works too. I don't mind reversion here and there, we all add things others will differ on. Wholesale "its not how I see it so wind back to my version" done too often, appears to be something quite different. I'm probabkly not saying this well. So simply, I appreciate much the gentler more thoughtful approach recently, its much enjoyed and it's making working on the article a pleasure. FT2 13:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Question: are ArbCom rulings considered decisions concerning specific disputes between specific partices, or more general findings concerning policy that apply to all editors?
A section of this archive has been blanked as a courtesy. |
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at /Evidence Fred Bauder 13:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you have just added a passage to the discussion about Jesus and race in which you refer to "Paul's invocation of the ideal race". I wish to make it clear that the "invocation" of an ideal race – or rather the use of the term – is entirely Silence's. I know it is hard to keep track of convoluted edit histories and debates, so I am trying to make this clear to all participants. You can see what I wrote in contrast to what Silence wrote here [5]. Note that all the phrases about an "ideal race" and "racial suprematism" were added by Silence in this specific unexplained edit. And yet, bizarrely, his recent comments on the Talk page imply that these statements are mine, not his, since he devotes some effort to arguing against them!
Here is my original edit that led to the dispute. The first part is the previous version. My additions are in italics: "Jesus was most likely a bronze-skinned man of Middle Eastern descent, based on the area in which he lived; see Race of Jesus. However there is scarce information from the time on what Jesus' racial background was, and many choose to envisage Jesus as white, black, and dozens of other, less common possibilities. Of course, according to orthodox Christian theology his birth was wholly miraculous, bypassing conventional genetic laws of inheritence, so ordinary arguments about race have no relevance to anyone who accepts the doctrine that Jesus was literally the Son of God. This belief was generally taken as given by the most artists who portrayed him, and whose portrayal reflected the views at the time about the ideal male physiognomy." Note that there are no comments about "racial suprematism" or references to specific races. The main purpose was to add the important point that orthodox Christian theology has produced a wholly different type of argument about Jesus's appearance than the naturalistic one previously discussed in the article. I thought it important to add this fact. I also thought that the last sentence I added was useful as a lead-in to the next section discussing artistic portrayals of Jesus. I still do not understand why Silence declared this addition to be "POV". It could certainly do with some copy-editing, but that's another matter. Paul B 17:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My reply to the request for references appeared on the talk page as follows: