Leadwind

I like to improve leads (wp:lead) and make cross-connections among related articles. Paradoxically, the lead should both make reading the rest of the article less necessary (because it's such a great summary) and also entice the reader to read the whole article (because the lead highlights what's interesting about the topic).

Now editing as Jonathan Tweet.

please be nice

please be nice. Leadwind 02:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm so used to people adding their white-supremacist POV to the article that I overreacted when I saw a new, unsourced section. It's actually not at all bad, it just does need some sourcing for what you say, so I tagged it, (eventually...) rather than reverting it. Sorry about overreacting originally. The template is there, people will see and hopefully add refs -- but see WP:V for why everything in wiki should have them. And again, sorry. Gscshoyru 02:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks for being reasonable. At first I thought you were an . . . jerk. Glad to have my expectations contradicted. Leadwind 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to be reasonable, and assume good faith, but dealing with vandalism I tend to forget that rule sometimes. It's (I think) my greatest failing here on wiki. So sorry for the inconvenience earlier, and glad I changed your first impressions. (And I was moving it myself, by the way, you didn't have to) Gscshoyru 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

transforming purgatory

You talked about transforming the page. I'm not sure what that means.

Lima put the old version back up. How do we restore the page to your version? Just revert? Leadwind (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we're probably better off waiting until it's clearer on the talk page that the changes were good ones. I've advertised as both RFC _and_ peer review, so hopefully somebody will show up eventually to help us out. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the above, I don't think my presence is going to be the solution to the article! More people are needed. In answer to your question, I don't see the Dragani question as a particularly important one. The policy statement that I think refers is in WP:V. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I'd say that Dragani as an associate prof in religious studies is an established expert on Christianity and in particular on his own brand of Christianity. It would be much better if he had published his interpretation in a peer-reviewed article rather than just on his website. Note that I would in no way accept this as a good source for historical fact, even for saying what the concept of Purgatory was in his own Christian tradition some centuries ago. But for the contemporary beliefs of the church he belongs to, there is a parallel between accepting this as a source, and accepting the website of, say, Greenpeace for the views of Greenpeace. The question of weight is important, though. Purgatory is mainly a concept in Roman Catholicism and while the views of other churches merit discussion they should not take over the article.

With regard to the Virgin Birth article, I'm as lost as you are. My main opinion is that the article is too long. I get completely lost in the discussion of Betulah and Almah. I'm sure that there is an attempt to push a POV but I can't even see what POV. Itsmejudith 12:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tower of Babel

re" "then a cosmopolitan city of many languages ."

how are you? nice to "meet" you :)

Can you find a page number for this source.. ?? Just the book doesn't help much at all. (also, this almost looks like it's straight quoting out of a history book and then it should have full quotations around the whole thing in order to be proper cited...)

The reason I deleted it is because [of no page number] but really because it's so vague a statement that doesn't add much info to the article. What city is not "a cosmopolitan city of many languages"?

And when is "then"? Certainly he could not have been referring to the time of the building of the Tower? (b/c "then" they all spoke one language...) So is the "then" after the building of the Tower of Babel? Then is it necessary to have this statement in the article if it's after the fact? (i.e. or you could switch the "then" to this: "by the year <such-and-such>, Babylon would become a cosmopolitan city of many languages," or something like that.)

If you have information to clean this statement up, then this wold be useful to have here. otherwise it looks a little sloppy... thanx :) Swisher6 (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

          re: your reply to me.  Fine, its a very general statement, but... what about me changing the "then" to: "later this city would grow into a"... or something like that??  Enjoy your day! Swisher6 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima

Lima is an impenetrable functionality for RC obfuscation. He eeliminates sourced matter with impunity. He did his own translation nof a Greek passage and used it in Eucharist for a while. I know nothing about purgatory, but I will help barrage him with notices of his abuse of WP:RS and WP:OR. Eschoir 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of 'Understanding the Bible' by Steven Harris? If so, would you review the quoted section from it (p 362) on Dionysos and Tireseas in the Eucharist (Origins) article (footnote 16). I fear it to be all garbled up, but it's not online. This would be great if you could manage it.Eschoir (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

I'll be happy to jump in when I can help, but I'm sort of at a loss about how to resolve the situation. You could try going through the dispute resolution process. I thought the rewrite I did would result in people all coalescing on that solution, but it didn't.

Whatever solution you have, it'll basically involve enough eyeballs getting involved. I'd have hoped the RFC would have done a better job of this, but we didn't get many people. Also, you could appeal to Bishonen for help-- she's an administrator who I look up to and who seems capable of getting things done-- she was good enough to comment on the RFC, and might have suggestions for how to make the changes stick.

Sorry I don't have more to tell ya. Wikipedia's tricky sometime, and the content-disputes can go on for a long time sometime until something happens to form a consensus. I'll help out as far as I can, because I think the Purgatory article needs a lot of help, but I'm not sure what more I can do.

Email me or post to talk if you decide to do a user-conduct RFC or if you post to WP:ANI or anything like that.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Eucharist

Congratulations on your work on this article. I wonder if you are right in saying Jesus ate with women. I think the only mention of women at the meals in which he participated are of women serving or, in one case, anointing his feet. Perhaps I am overlooking some mention. Lima (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what you had in mind was the fact that Jesus (and the apostles) was accompanied in his journeys by women, several of whom are named. I prefer, at least for some time, not to touch the article in question, since anything I do to it is likely to be interpreted as a hostile act. Lima (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot help. In fact, I don't think that, strictly speaking, any importance attaches to meals as such in Jesus' ministry. Of course, particular meals were seen as important: his Last Supper, because seen as reenacted in some way by Christians; the post-resurrection meals, whose telling seems coloured by these first-day-of-the-week celebrations by Christians; the meals he provided (and presumably shared in, though this is not stated - nor is it explicitly stated, I think, that Jesus ate at his Last Supper) by, as recounted, multiplying the food. Other meals were important not as meals but for what happened at them (e.g. anointing of his feet) or the teaching he gave at them (e.g. commenting on guests going for the top places). So the only thing that distinguished the meals that Jesus, unlike the established religious leaders, shared in, was the fact that he ate with "publicans and sinners", people whom the latter would shun, a matter you have rightly mentioned in your revision of the article. I suppose the evangelists stressed this aspect precisely because of the hostile reaction by stricter Jews to Christian Jews sharing meals with Gentiles (cf. Acts 11:3). For my part, I just cannot believe that Christian Eucharistic celebrations (which of course change in form over the years and centuries) began as commemorations of all the meals that Jesus took during his ministry. This is just one of the ideas that, admittedly, an odd modern writer proposes (take "odd" in whatever sense you like) and that other writers perhaps do not think worth rebutting, but that Eschoir takes to be plain fact. Lima (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In Jesus' ministry, I have just remembered, there was at least one "meal" in which women certainly took part. Not an ordinary regular meal, but what you might call a picnic. The occasion was that of the multiplication of bread. In one of the accounts, the number of participants is given as so many men "without the women and children". However, it is possible that the bigger male children were reckoned as part of the groups of about fifty men, and the female participants, together with the small children, may have eaten apart. Lima (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

etiquette

Thank you - I appreciate the support especially from someone disinterested in the particular conflict. Wishing you a Merry Christmas (assuming you celebrate it= and happy New Year, SR (using a foriegn keyboard, can´t sign properly)

LWOP

Could I persuade you to look at the lede in Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP)? It's rumored to suck biggishy.Eschoir (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Lima

I'm putting together a request for comment on user:Lima, and I'm logging my links here. Leadwind (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert abusing sourced text on Baptism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive33#user:Lima

Mediation of purgatory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28_Purgatory

It would probably be best if you built it in a subpage, like User:Leadwind/LimaRFC or something similar. I will share my opinion when you file the RfC, or I can help you collect and organize evidence if you would like the assistance. Vassyana (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFC/How to present a case may be helpful to you. Vassyana (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC User:Lima

At Vassyana's astute suggestion, I've started a subpage for this topic. Please see User:Leadwind/LimaRFC. Leadwind (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is too much wikilawyering to discipline Lima - thanks for the invite, but right now I'm in a forgiving mood. Eschoir (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

John the Baptist

Fancy a challenge? An editor has put a "The introduction of this article is too short." tag on John the Baptist - quite right, too. I am planning to do some work on this, but not right now, and lead sections are not my strength. Given your interest in the genre, maybe you could have a go? If you have time. --Rbreen (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent stuff, very impressive. I knew we could rely on you! Thanks. --Rbreen (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Really Old EPMs

Hi Leadwind. I left a response to your question about really old EPMs, (which includes a citation from an Evolutionary Psychology textbook), on the Evolutionary Psychology Talk Page at Talk:Evolutionary psychology#really old EPMs. I thought you might be interested. EPM (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (Ironic that my username is EPM, eh?)

Computational theory of mind

Thanks. Sorry I was practically stepping on you earlier today. I agree that the current article doesn't really cover the subject at all. Your stuff is very solid. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Help on Barnabas

Hey Lead, I was looking at this article yesterday, and the lead is really poor. It mostly just talks about his name, for way too much time for the lead. I'd say it needs to be overhauled, and was thinking maybe if you had time you might want to? I considered doing it myself, but since you're specialty is improving leads, I figured you'd do a better job of it. Thanks for any help! Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to see your work on the Circumcellions‎/Donatist articles

I've had my eye on those pages as being rather poor quality for some time, but haven't had access to appropriate sources or been sufficiently motivated. You've made a massive improvement. Nice work. John Nevard (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to revisit Eucharist

IF you have a moment, you are invited to revisit Theories on the Origin of Eucharist and see what's happening. Eschoir (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Major error

You are obviously off-Wikipedia. Otherwise you would surely have responded to the unjustified accusation that you committed a "major POV error". Soidi (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Clement of Rome

Thanks for alerting me Leadwind. Let's hope you've started a helpful discussion, and lots of people can participate and come to a common mind as encyclopedists, with readers in mind. Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude!

Perfect! What an exemplary Wikipedian! Contribute, contribute, contribute! Not merely a quality and courteous critic but a contributor as well!

When in doubt, contribute!

Although I felt lonely going into bat regarding the title, please feel free to ask me for help again in the future. I can't guarantee results, but I can guarantee contribution.

Keep Wiki-ing, dude! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep Clement I on my watchlist. I will not have much time over the next six weeks though. Keep sticking to sources and being watchful for presentations that do not acknowledge alternative PsOV. You are outstanding at both. Good luck with forming your own POV as you compare those of different sources. Regards Alastair Haines (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

I have only started one book by Ehrman, on the creation of Orthodox Scripture - I was tremendously impressed by the rigorous scholarship and his close textual analysis ... I haven't read anything by him on Jesus but I know he is well respected. When I wanted to learn about the historical Jesus I asked a couple of people I knew who were professors of religion or history specializing in the period. Crossan was on the list, but I found the one book of his I read to be too speculative and I was not at all satisfied by his attempts to use anthropological and sociological theory - I thought he was using theories he didn't really understand simply to support his speculative leaps, I was very dissatisfied. The other books they recommended, which I read, were:

• Sanders, E.P. (1996). The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin ISBN 0-14-014499-4
• Fredriksen, Paula Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity ISBN 0-679-76746-0
• Vermes, Geza Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels ISBN 0-8006-1443-7

I would definitely recommend Sanders first. I found it highly readible, and his arguments were concise and persuasive. I thought he was good about making clear the difference between a strong argument and one that he believed but admitted was more speculative, and also between his own views and those he felt most other historians agree with. He is clear about presenting his own views, but he was also clearly synthesizing a lot of scholarship by others. I think he takes the historical context (1st century Judaism, such as it was, and life in Roman occupied Palestine) very seriously, but also take seriously the Gospels as the best (which is not to say perfect) sources we have (that is, seriously, but critically) and the fact that whatever Jesus did, it made a very big impression on his followers. I really enjoyed reading it and learned a lot.

Both the Fredriksen and Vermes books are very interesting and informative and I was also impressed by their scholarship. I recommend them, but only second to or after Sanders. For one thing, they are much less synthetic works and much more about the authors' own arguments. I find them very persuasive and I know these are highly respected scholars but I do not know how far other scholars agree with the specific arguments made in the books. Also, these books are characterized by very distinct - interesting, but definitely distinct - methods, they are much more about the method by which the historian reaches his or her conclusions, than about the simple conclusions. Thus, they do not read as straightforward narratives. I don't think everyone would enjoy them as much as I did (given that I am really interested in method). I'll say a bit more, and hopefully you can decide for yourself if you would enjoy reading them.

Vermes approach is to take the principle claims made about Jesus' identity - meaning, how he is specifically identified in the Gospels and maybe also in Acts (Messiah, Son of Man, etc.) He then reviews other texts that we know of that existed at the time the authors of the Gospels lived i.e. during Jesus' lifetime and perhaps a hundred or 150 years after (and of course, before), and based on context sorts out the different meanings these titles had for speakers of Hebrew or Aramaic. He is very careful to discount or ignore meanings for these words that only first appear in sources dated later than this period. Through this kind of kalaidescope of meanings, a vivid portrait of Jesus emerges that Vermes claims is how Jesus' contemporaries saw him. I'll just add that this is not just dry textual criticism, Vermes writes well - but it is not a historical narrative.

Fredriksen's approach is to start with the Gospels as we know them. She then comes up with a method - a kind of "razor" - for cutting away material she considers anachronistic (very crudely, anything that conforms to Church orthodoxy post-Nicene Councils is suspect; anything that is consistent with what we know of Roman or Jewish practices in the 1st century is not) and she slowly "peels away" layers from the text. What is left is a vivid portrait of Jesus in what Fredriksen claims is hs historical and cultural context. Again, this is not dry textual criticism, and she writes really well - but again, it is not a straightforward narrative.

Both Vermes and Fredriksen really have a solid grasp of 1st century Jewish life, and I think they make a strong argument for the "Jewish Jesus." And they write with real insight - this is not just the banalities of "Jesus was a rabbi" or "Jesus was a social critic;" they both provide more complex and nuanced portraits. So I really do recommend them. But Sanders is definitely #1. I don't remember which of these three I read first, I don't think you really lose anything by reading Vermes or Fredriksen first and if the way I have described them really makes one of them grab you more than another, well, follow your gut. But if someone asked me to pick just one it would be Sanders for accessibility and plausibility.

Whatever you do please let me know, I'd really like to know what you think about whatever you read!

And, based on what I have shared with you, if you want to recommend anything to me I welcome that! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What a helpful post. I'll briefly add my thoughts (though I must agree with Slrubenstein's recommendations, esp. Sanders). Ehrman has one book on the historical Jesus, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. It is a relatively easy read that is not exactly a popular work, but is also light on the citations/scholarship. It is a decent overview and goes by quick, but doesn't go into that much detail. Two authors that are very serious on the scholarship that Slrubenstein didn't mention are John P. Meier's Marginal Jew series and Raymond E. Brown Birth of the Messiah and The Death of the Messiah. Both of these scholars represent a mainstream view (if not slightly conservative/Catholic, more so with Brown). These works do summarize opposing views of many different scholars and are very heavy on the citation/scholarship front. So even if you may not agree with their conclusions you can probably find a citation to a scholar who disagrees with them in their texts. Of course, the problem with Brown is he never had a work to cover the details between the birth and death (and seems a bit too willing to accept biblical accounts that most scholars question). While I may not always agree with Meier personally, when it comes to disputes on wikipedia, I always pull out Meier first because he is thorough and usually represents a mainstream view (heck even the Jesus Seminar cite him a good number of times, even in their "controversial" conclusions, which I find slightly ironic). Another great book is Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz. It is a good overview covering a broad range of topics and going into detail about various different scholarly views. Again, it seems to represent a mainstream view (not as conservative as Meier or Brown, not as liberal as the Jesus Seminar). NT Wright is also a strong scholar who represents the pretty conservative side of things. IMO, anything more conservative than Wright starts to fail in scholarship (meaning very conservative conclusions don't stand up to scholarly scrutiny). Finally, you may want to check out this webpage. There sure are a lot of different views on the HJ. Good luck and hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I think I'll go with Theissen and Merz because it would make a good overview. Next up, would be Sanders. Brown and Wright are too Christian for me, backing the virgin birth and all. Meier I don't know anything about. Yeah, isn't it ironic that the radical Jesus Seminar has something in common with conservatives? A lot of what makes the JS controversial is regular old scholarship. Funk wanted to make a scene out of historical Jesus scholarship and he did. Leadwind (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that Meier was recommended to me too, and very highly, with the alert that he takes conservative views but is very thorough in presenting other views. But I have not read Meier and cannot make a personal recommendation. The people most highly recommended to me then were, in a rough order: Sanders, Vermes, Fredricksen, and then Meier who is conservative and thorough, and Crossan who is provocative but often questionable. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

SLR asked my opinion on the topic, and I hate to disappoint everyone but I'd honestly recommend Five Gospels by the Jesus Seminar. Funk is up front about the seminar's agenda, so you can read around it. Most of the gospels are not about their non-apocalyptic agenda, so most of the book is mainstream. This book represents a massive amount of work by a lot of very smart people from a lot of specialized fields. They even produced new translations of the works, the Scholars Version. It's a huge effort and it pays off. They take you into the sayings of Jesus practically line by line. It's also amazing for looking up any gosh darn verse you want and seeing what someone says about it. Most of their "shocking" findings are just regular old scholarship. That was Funk's point. To take the shocking, iconoclastic findings of modern Bible research and get people to pay attention to them. Leadwind (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I will check it out! Have you ever looked at the Anchor Bible, which has seperate translations, along with detailed introductions and commentary, for each book of the bible e.g. Gospels? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Anchor Bible series of commentaries varies depending on who was the author. The Anchor commentary on John is very good, authored by Raymond E. Brown, whose views are very conservative, but his scholarship and notation of alternate views is very thorough, just check out the section on John 1 and the Logos. Brown warns against reading John in a post-Nicene context, as it clearly predates that council. Also to be commended is Brown's "Does the NT call Jesus God?", again his viewpoint is conservative, that it does in the later passages, but he presents a very good scholarly case for why the subject is very debatable. The "Anchor Bible Dictionary", which is more of an encyclopedia, is also a very good source of scholarship on the subject. 68.123.73.150 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, PBS Frontline did an overview on the historical Jesus: [1] 68.123.73.150 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' name

Leadwind, obviously I cannot engage with Stevertigo although I thought my first four efforts were clam, unenflammatory, reasonable, and clear. I do respect your views and hope you do not mind my clarifying tomse points to you.

Stevertigo recently wrote:

SLR baited me, first with the concept that Hebrew and Aramaic were so unrelated, that any attempt to reconstruct a Jewish name for Jesus was unscholarly.

This is not true. I did not bait Stevertigo, I just corrected his mistakes. First, I never said that Hebrew and Aramaic were unrelated. Stevertigo inserted his reconstruction of Jesus' original name and identified it as "Hebrew/Aramaic." I simply pointed out that they are two different languages. Yes, they are connected. "John" in Spanish is Juan: in Portuguese it is João. Are Spanish and Portuguese related? Yes, obviously! Are they different languages? Yes, obviously! Same goes for Hebrew and Aramaic. Second, I never said an attempt to reconstruct a Jewish name for Jesus was unscholarly. In fact, I never brought "Jewish" into this (Stevertigo repeatedly insists on turning this into a "Jewish" thing). I did say that Stevertigo's reconstruction of a Hebrew or Aramaic original for Jesus' name violated NOR, as there are no sources for Jesus' original name, whether in Aramaic or in Hebrew. Many editors at the Jesus talk page have discussed this ad nauseum, and concluded that since no scholars have any sources for supporting any reconstruction, and can only speculate, we cannot add anything without violating NOR. That is what I said.

In reality it appeared this was more an issue of OWN

No, I and Andrew C repeatedly refered to an established consensus of many editors following much debate (in fact, I told Stevertigo I think Yeshua is a plausible reconstruction, but that is just my own view and cannot buck consensus)

- not just SLR's acting like an edit ninja on this article, but his assertion that his sources are more accurate than others when it comes to Hebrew names, their association, and their transliteration.

I have no sources. I never said I have any sources. All I said is, that since there are no historical sources for Jesus' name in Hebrew or in Aramaic, any reconstruction violates NOR.

Furthermore, the etymology section mentions no issues of controversy with regard to the Yeshua etymology.

Fair enough. Maybe we should change this!

Why? Because dealing with Yeshua means dealing with Yeshu, and that means dealing with the extremely pejorative interpretation of that name,

No, Yeshua does not force us to deal with Yeshu. Moreover, there is nothing pejorative about the name Yeshu. There are stories in the Talmud about a character named Yeshu. Scholars are divided as to whether this refers to Jesus - that is the controversy, does Yeshu refer to Jesus? There is a controversy in part because no one knows what Jesus' name actually was in Hebrew or Aramaic. Moreover, if the character is not Jesus, then the stories cannot possible be pejorative against Jesus. There are some modern Talmud scholars who claim they are about Jesus, but they interpret the stories not as being pejorative but rather ambivalent and expressing Rabbis ambivalence towards Jesus and Christianity. Point: Stevertigo's claims are either wrong or distortions, and simply reveal that he does not understand what he is talking about.

not to mention the Toledoth Yeshu, which may have had some small part in inspiring a couple hundred years of academic Christian anti-Semitism.

The Toledoth Yeshu, a set of medieval texts, are anti-Christian. But if you know anything about medieval history, you would know that these rabbis were reacting against Christian anti-Judaism. To blame these texts for anti-Semitism is perverse. First, it is bad scholarship because it proposes an effect to be a cause (the stories came after anti-semitism, not before). Second, they blame the victim.

There is no point in my saying any of this on the talk page, it would only inflame Stevertigo more.

I hope what I wrote makes sense to you. I think I am expressing my views to you dispassionately. Do you think my feelings have gotten in the way of my ability to express myself clearly and reasonably? I trust you enough that if this is the case I wish you would tell me, in a straightforward way.

If you think anything I wrote was unclear please let me know and I will try to elaborate. Or you can check with other Wikipedia editors whom you believe to be knowledgable about Hebrew, Aramaic, and Talmudic literature.

On a definitely personal note, I really am concerned about the way Stevertigo slips in his first point from talking about a possible "Hebrew" name to a "Jewish" name. Yes, I realize most people in the first century with Hebrew names probably were Jewish, but honestly, who knows? Many Jews had Greek names, surely Greeks read the Bible as they read Egyptian literature, who knows? The point is, Hebrew is a language and can be analyzed as a language. Stertigo turns it into "Jewish" and tries to make this about race or ethnicity. And I am concerned about what I perceive to be his "blaming the victim" when it comes to the Toledoth Yeshu texts (texts which need not even be mentioned in this discussion since they are NOT historical texts, have no value in historical research on Jesus, and do not need to be brought into a discussion about "Jesus's original name." I did not bring them up. Andrew Card Did not bring them up. Stevertigo did. Why? They are not relevant to the issue under discussion. I can only conclude he brings them up in order to blame the victim. But why? I am genuinely puzzled. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your e-mail. I inadvertently violated 3RR though and cannot edit the Jesus page any more today (no one has blocked me, at least not yet, but I just cannot, it would not be the right thing to do, so I have to cool it). If you do want to know the whole shebang, I think what I posted, above, covers all the salient issues except as you point out the Nicene Creed stuff.

By the way, Daniel Boyarin has published some good new research on Jewish/Christian relations as represented in Talmudic literature, and Paula Fredericksen addresses this in her first book ... the way they portray it, relations between early Jews and Christians was not really that acrimoneous, at least not as portrayed (bear in mind, Jews argue a lot with one another; their point is that Jewish-Christian debates for hundreds of years did not go beyond any other impassioned debates among Jews), I think the general view now is that things only got really really bad after Constantine, when the Church came to influence or control the state apparatus. The "Yeshu" narrative portray Yeshu as a serious scholar, and the Talmud and midrash have examples of rabbis listening to Christian sermons. Talking about this stuff, if informed by the latest scholarship, need nor arouse any Jewish-Christian acrimony. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Help citing souces

Someone just added a bunch of fact tags to Authors of the Bible (and the article could need some work). I believe you have access to Harris (or some other general texts that represent mainstream views, right?) so I'm requesting, if you have time, and if you want, if you wouldn't mind checking out that article and adding citations where possible, and updating text and doing whatever else you feel would improve the article. I'll likewise try to source some of the content, but I thought it would go faster with help :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus

Lead, would you mind commenting on a content dispute at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a table comparing the accounts of Matthew and Luke. There are concerns over the use of primary sources, OR, novel synthesis, lack of explanation/context which would be afforded by prose, and even its necessity, given the section "The nativity as myth". The table can be seen at this version of the page: [2] at section 1.3, "The narratives compared". Discussion on the issue can be found at Talk:Nativity of Jesus, in the threads "The two narratives compared", "The two narratives compared, part 2", and at "Task List (January 15, 2009)". Your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, as very few persons have commented on it. Thanks Lead. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Priceless

This rocks! "Storm Rider, "it is evidence that the scriptures are not complete." Yeah, if only Jesus, after his resurrection, would have gone to some other continent and explained things further. Oh wait... Leadwind (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that it was like a flock of seagulls flying over, and most will note it as irrelevant guano.  ;)

Massacre of the Innocents

Hi, thanks for alerting me to the changes you have made here. A very thorough job, as usual. I admire the fearless way you wade into articles, especially the ones that are controversial, and put big sections of well-cited text in - always valuable contributions, too. Usually the only people who do that kind of thing have an axe to grind and no references (except direct bible quotes).

I have made a couple of edits - I realise that the Holy Innocents are claimed as Christian martyrs but I think we ought to make clearer that they didn't actually consent to that - and being Jewish children they probably would not have. Of course, since they are almost certainly mythical the question is moot, but I think it's worth saying.

One other point - the large chunk of quotation is in italics - I am not sure what the preferred style is for such quotes, but I would not favour italics for such a large body of text, especially in a sans serif font - it makes it harder on the eyes. Personally, I would avoid this. --Rbreen (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bart D. Ehrman

Hi, I know you sometimes edit this page. Could I ask you to have a look at it today? I have been dealing with some POV edits, and I don't want to get involved in an edit war. My feeling is that it's just plain apologetic POV-pushing, but you might see something I don't. --Rbreen (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion eclipse

If you have a moment and you would not mind, perhaps you could offer a third opinion in a dispute on this page. As I see it, it's about 2 things - (a) whether a reference to one particular article suggesting the crucifixion took place on 3 April 33 represents undue weight in favour of that view; and (b) whether a citation on the issue from a book on the Gospel of Matthew is sufficient because it is only a book about Matthew and only mentions it 'in passing'. (Although from the context it appears to me to cover the issue as a whole and in reasonable detail).

Any contribution from you would be very helpful if you could manage it. Thanks.--Rbreen (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

History

Are you still reading books on the historical Jesus? I am curious to know about how your research is going. In the meantime, I came across this, which my be of interest to you. It is written for a Jewish audience in the spirit of ecumenacal understanding but in the process has lots of interesting views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed some references you've been adding to articles. Looks like you got some of the books we had discussed. And you are putting them to use to boot! Thanks for your work. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeshu

I watch that article but seldom participate in it. I once added considerable content, which is still there, and removed some material that violated NOR. I think there is a potential WP:OWN issue. There is one user who without a doubt is very very knowledgable about the primary sources (and whose claims about primary sources I generally do not doubt) but who I think often violates WP:NOR or WP:NPOV by inserting his own views based on his (admitedly well-informed) reading of the primary sources, and excluding other views from reliable sources. To tell you the truth I have niether the time nor the energy for a fight. However, in my experience if you point out a blatant NOR violation (this claim is unsourced) or stand firm on NPOV (you have to have an impecably reliable source e.g. book published by a university press, or article in a peer reviewed journal) he will back down - argue it on policy grounds, and be open to compromize about how the material is framed and phrased. If you delete OR that he keeps restoring, or deleting a properly sourced (and again, it has to be absolutely clear that it is a significant view from a notable source, stress significant and notable) view, you can go to AN/I or file an RfC. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, with this comment I say pretty much all I can constructively say on the Yeshu issue. Frankly I appreciate KG's desire to be inclusive of extremely divergent views. I think there is a problem in how different views are contextualized: Jewish versus Christian; Amoraim, Medieval, or modern periods; orthodox (or fundamentalist) vs. non-orthodox are all key distinctions and I am not sure the article is well organized to make this clear. But KG is right that "Yeshu" may likely refer to many different people and even if one of them was "Jesus" not all of them may be and this is another issue that the article needs to make clear. I wish it were organized in terms of debates over these issues rather than topics, frankly.

I highly recommend this book to you, I know you are tired of reading about Jesus but this highly didactic/pedagogic book provides a very very good framework for understanding the complications in any example of Jews talking about Jesus (and expresses a view on "Yeshu" or at least one of the Yeshu narratives): Modern Jews Engage the New Testament. Given your editing interests, I think you should look at this bok - some chapters you will skim or skip but some will be of interest and probably of some use to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Contributions from Radu Comanescu

Thanks for your reversion of the POV/OR essay on Beatitudes. Judging from your contribution history, you seem to know a bit about Catholicism/Christianity. I was wondering if you could take a look at Palm Sunday and Pentecost, particularly the contributions by Radu Comanescu from last year. Many of those contributions are still there but are beyond reversion because of many good-faith edits in the intervening timeframe. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

Only today have I discovered the existence of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise. It is perhaps the best response to the request you made of me yesterday and to which I was unable to give a good response. Lima (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch

I had totally forgotten the Septuagint was written by Hellenistic Jews for some reason. --Tznkai (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

can you help me?

There is an article on the cultural and historical context for Jesus (really, it is meant to be about how historians reinterpret the Gospels and other parts of the NT based on histrical knowledte - as opposed to reinterpreting history based on the theological claims about Jesus ... does this interest you?)

I have recently comeinto an edit conflict with another user inb this section (which itself has four subsections I think)[3]. This ias the section accounting for a split between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity (the idea is, thse two POVs color our view of Jesus today, alothough, ironically, the come right out of the same historical and cultural cauldren that produced Jesus.

The way I see it, this story involves two complicated issues: Christian views about Jesus (is he a great teacher and miraclke worker, or messiah) and about Jewish law (you do/don't have to obsserve it), and the composition of Christians (are they mostly Jews or mostly gentiles? From hat I have read, changes in both these things account for Christianity ceasing to be a Jewish sect and becoming an independent religion.

If this makes sense to you, I'd appreciate your going through the section just to make sur eit is well-read. If yo think it is an inacuarate account of what the sources cited claim, make changes. And moswt important, if you know of important sources that are not draw on here, would you consider giving some time to ading those views you find important?

Second, another user flagged the last (or second-to last) sub-section as having NPOV problems so when you get to that section could you go over it careflyy to make sure that it is well-wrtitten and again if there are any major, and relevant, views you think are missing, could you add them?

Just doing these thingw would help a lot; if you really want to know what the edit war is over specifically just checdk the edit history and most recent talk. I am not trying to hide these things from you but I think more important than a specific argument between me and another user is just making the article better and I think you might be one person who has read enough to judge what is there. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

help needed

this is a long argument between just two users. (I made a few commnts to try to steer both towards some path of compromise, but failed.) They are in depserate need of another voice. I hope you can take the time to read and comment or even edit the article. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of John

Hi Leadwind. I spent considerable time last evening doing clean-ups and a few textual edits to Gospel of John. Then today I happened upon the history page and saw that you have been the mainstay for the article most recently. I find myself not overly pleased when someone makes quite a few changes to an article in which I have significant investment, and want to check with you out of courtesy. If perchance I have made edits with which you disagree, please let me know. I appreciate and respect your significant investment in this article and mean no offense. Thanks, ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leadwind, I want to echo what AFA said. I appreciate and respect your significant investment on the Gospel of John. Also I am no great fan of the CE except when I need to put foreward an outdated position like the Traditional View. I am going to follow your good example and take a bit of a break from John. Reading and reflecting can be as important as editing. All the Best - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Leadwind (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

Thanks for your work. I believe we now have a second paragraph of the Jesus article that provides a superb summary hof how critical scholars view Jesus. Most people who read this paragraph carefully will be blown away - atheists too, because even many people who elieve Jesus existed, but was not God, have very convenional understandings of him that have more to do with their own contemporary values two thousand years later, than their understanding of life two thousand years ago in another part of the world.

Now, I know nobady likes a somebodywho asks others to do more work. But I think you are the obvious person to lead a necessary discussion about what linked articles should explain the claims made in the second paragraph. We currently have three articles: Historical Jesus Quest for the historical Jesus Cultural and historical background of Jesus. These were coreated through a complex process involving spinning articles off of the Jesus article and reconciling competing articles that developed independelty. It involved turing POV forks into content forks. Now, you may think that they are fine, but I am really aware of the ad hop process through which they formed. And i think there is a lot at stake. Some believing Christians (like a young Geza Vermes) may be open minded and wish to unerstand the methods scholars use, and how exactly they interpret certain verses and passages.

I think I can come up withan a posteriori justification for the three artilces we have: one is mainly on the history of scholarship, one is on the "text" i.e rerearding the NT, and one is on the "context" i.e explaining everything Jewish from a Jewish (or really from a historian's) POV rather than a Christian POV.

But do we need three articles? If so is this the best way to divide it up?

All I know is what the end result should be - someone reading the second paragraph of the Jesus article and understanding every word, and nodding her head and thinkng, yes, this makes sense. I am just not sure that the main articles on the historical xzJesus do this effectively. It is time for a discussion and i think your two new sentences show that you have what it takes to lead such a discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. Off-hand, I like the three articles, but I would take CaHBoHJ and change it to the intertestamental period or something. Make the article a subset of Jewish history that includes Jesus, not an article about Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's nothing - I mean, you deserve anything positive I may have said; I am mostly reporting facts. About the CaHBoJ, I can see your point; we certainly need to improve all Jewish history articles, most of which are based on Orthodox myth and not what any historin says. I wonder how many Jewish editors would object to a Jewish history article featuring Jesus (obviously, it hould, but most people who are about Jewish history articles are orthodox and won't get it). Analternative is an article on "The Jewish Jesus" but i dno't like the way that suggests other articles are NOT on the Jewish Jesus, i.e that Jesus was not Jewish. I think we just need to think about these things. We have three articles that are clearly realated, but in hindsight is this really how we would have organized them? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

When you have time, can you add citations to the second paragraqph of the Jesus article - specifically to the two sentences you wrote, but which I copied and pasted into the article? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Collaboration

Leadwind, I thank you for your collaboration proposal. To be honest, things are looking a little hectic for me right now (I shouldn't even be spending this time on Wiki), so I'll have to decline, but your offer shows your good faith, and I appreciate it enormously. In spite of our differences, I sense that, like myself, your purpose is to create quality articles on Wiki, and the changes you've already made to Revelation are very promising. When I first encountered the Revelation article, there was so much contention and negative editing, and I guess that's what's fueling my fears now. The article at that time was a bit of a mess (partly as a result of that contention), and I made extensive contributions and revisions to it, but I didn't feel like I could go much farther without stepping on people's toes. Perhaps you're the person to take it to the next level. Regardless, thanks again for your offer. --gdm (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Favor

Would you have time to read through [this discussion] concerning the Ten Commandments article, and see if you have a comment? There are two basic issues. One is, many common reference works (some annotated Bibles or Bible dictionaries) refer to some part of Exodus 34 as a "Ritual Decalogue." This is attributed to Wellhausen, but when I actually read through the literature on and from Higher Criticism, it turns out that this is part of some argument concerning a hypothesized "book of the covenant," and the relationship is not clear. WP has articles on these topics, but they are both confusing and I think poorly researched. What is clear is that this is an idea that makes sense only the context of a wider debate among scholars. But what is this wider debate? The more I research this (and the only major source I have not yet had time to go through is Propp's volume on Exodus for the Anchor Bible), the less I find - and I begin to wonder whether this was just a phrase one of the Higher Critics proposed in some other context, or I do not know what. So I am concerned that by relying on one sentence from an annotated Bible, editors who wish to include a discussion of this are misrepresenting a complicated scholarly debate.

Second, the question is how to incorporate this material into WP? Thefre is an article on the Ten Commandments - does this title refer to something in people's minds that include lines like "honor thy father and thy mother" and "thou shalt not kill?" Or is it about anything someone calls a "decalogue?" Should one article cover all this stuff, or different articles for what are (in my view) distinct discussions about really different things?

I hope this makes sense, if not you may wish to do a little research on your own but I know you take sound research on scholarship seriously and are experienced with edit conflicts and I hope you will bring your experience and wisdom to this argument, if you have time. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hippolytus of Rome

Would you mind looking at this page, and comment on what's going on there. Thank you, Lead. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus

Are you avoiding this page? I am involved in a conflict and I think it would only stir up trouble if I made some edits - but I think there are some edits that can and should be made (and which would appeal to people on all sides of the conflict) and you are one of a small numbe of people I think could do the job efficiently and effectively .... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am cutting back too. But there is a section that has become a big source of controversy. I have some ideas about how to fix it but I have been in the middle of this conflict ... if you have the time and desire to look at it let me know, I will share my ideas (which I also posted on talk, but which were pretty much ignored, I think because the conflict among editors overshadows everything on the matter) and if you think any of them are constructive maybe you can do some editing - I ask you because I think you know the sources involved and if you do it shouldn't take up too much time. But if you don't want to get involved well, I understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with your latest comment. I can sum up the conflict (which is carried on also at the Historicy ot jesus article, and the Christ Myth Theory article, and a closed AN/I against Andrew c and the RfC against me) in two points: first, Noloop is focusing on the Historical Views section of the Jesus article, and this section does not present the views of all the sources you named, let alone th sources whose views we present in the introduction's paragraph on what critical scholars/historians thing. Second, Noloop identifies most of the sources in the Historical Views section - including many of the sources you name - as "Christian" (and he has even implied anta anyone who claims Jesus really existed is a Christina) and therefore biased and we must make clear (regardless of the specifics of what they say) that they are representing a Christian POV.

I am sure you agree with me that the second point is ludicrous. However, the incomplete and inconsistent use of sources in the Historical Views section really does make it hard to argue against him.

So this is my proposal. Leadwind, I do not have time to make these changes and because of the conflict Noloop and several others will descredit them. But precisely because you are uninvoled, you have the credibility to make the changes, and because you know the sources, you should not need much time to make them.

If you do not agree with any part of my proposal, fine, but if you think what I suggest has sense I am asking you if over the next week you can try to implimnt whatever parts of this proposal you agree with:

I think we need to rectify the inconsistency between the sources used in the introduction (that introduce all major views) and the subsections.

• When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, I think that the crafting of the accounts of the major views, and the sourcing, in the introduction is superior to that in the historicity.
• I think that among critical scholars we should consistantly be sure to include the views of Sanders, Fredricksen and Vermes who are at least as well-respected as Meier and Ehrman
• In the historical views section, I think we have to be much clearer in distinguishing between critical scholars and religious scholars. I do not agree that all Christians (or scholars who were trained or teach at seminaries or divinity schools) are "religious scholars." But some are and right now the section is not clear who. We do have to make the distinction clear. Books or articles in which the author speaks as a believer to an audience of believers should be distinguished by books in which the author speaks as an historian to other historians or students of history.
• And any sources that do this that are currently used in the Historical Views section should perhaps be moved to the Religious Views section.
• I think it is reasonable to provide a summary of how historians themselves distinguish between a properly historical argument and a theological argument. There should be a way to do this without inflaming anyone on any particular side.
• Also, when it comes to historicity (I mean the first three paragraphs) there are several distinct debates: debates among non-specialists starting with the Enlightenment, that might reasonably extend to include Bertrand Russell; debates among Christian theologians who are reacting against or responding to the work of historians; and debates among critical historians. I think an account of each of these debates belongs in the Historical Views section, but I think each one merits a separate paragraph and should be kept distinct. I think we need an elegant explanation not of specific views so much as the contexts for these views; an explanation of what makes these different "conversations" (between an author and his or her audience, or among authors) different.
• The Constructing a Historical View section probably should say more about the principles and methods that definee one as a critical historian. Meier begins his work with a summary of principles, Fredricksen does to, maybe we could be more explicit about this, more pedagogical.
• I am pretty proud of the introduction, but the section on the debate over a historical Jesus, and the section on Jesus in his historical context, are by comparison pretty messy.
• I think the section on Jesus in his cultural and historical context (in the Jesus article, currently called Descriptions) really should (1) be clear that it is more about Jewish history than about Jesus ... and (2) be clear that the point is that historians read sources in their historical context, so that written texts like the gospels are one kind of "source" (which we describe at length) but all information - from written or material artefacts - about Jewish life in 1st century Judea and Galilea is another kind of source, used to interpret the first kind of source. I think this needs to be clearer.

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

You may be interested in this discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

I find a request for citations to be friendlier than a wholesale deletion. Leadwind (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be but unfortunately the content you are trying to adding is clearly biased and seems like an attempt to discredit the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar rather than informing us who they are in a neutral manner. --Loremaster (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

First, when you think the other editor in question is politically opposed to you, it's especially nice to be nice. Second, if you think I'm biased against the JS, then I must be doing a good job at NPOV because I'm their biggest fan. Leadwind (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think you are politically or religiously opposed to me cause I don't know you. I honestly haven't done anything that I would consider not nice if it was done to me.
2. I don't think you personally are biased against the JS. However, the content you added clearly was especially when you use terms like “eccentric”. That's why citations are important.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

John

Sure, I have no problem with editing another article as well. I did read what you wrote on the talk page of Gospel of John and I am sure you wouldn't be surprised that I disagreed with what you said.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to help you on that article, but I don't know much about that guy so I wouldn't be much of a help. Any other suggestions? People (unless they are very famous) are probably not topics I would be much help in.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I hadn't thought about it that way before. How do you work on an article you know little or nothing about? By the way, I am probably not going to participate in the edit/discussion on Gospel of John when it becomes un-locked. These articles can sometimes get too contentious and there are plenty of people who know more than I do on it.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I would still like to help with the article, but may have to wait a few days first as my schedule is a bit limited right now. I might be able to do bits and pieces in the mean time however.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made some changes to Francis of Assisi. Let me know what you think.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made the proposed changes to Francis of Assisi. Let me know what you think.RomanHistorian (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you said on my talk page. By the way, I think we should rename the article "Saint Francisco" or even just "Francisco". I think the current title is a bit peculiar for English readers. I was aware of Saint Francisco from past readings, but had to read the article before I realized that "Francis of Assisi" was the Francisco who founded the famous Franciscan order and from whom the city was named.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I am no where near being burned out. Your edits are abusive, and you revert my changes totally against RS policy. I don't have a problem accepting your sources, but when you use them out of context, and then delete my edits, I do have a major problem. I have already consulted other editors and will continue to do so.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

RS policy makes no distinction between "sectarian" sources and non-sectarian sources. RS policy relies on the substance of the scholar, and that is measured by how broadly he is published. I have seen this fought elsewhere, and the side that says "sectarian" sources should be excluded always lose.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I know you are sure you are right, but it won't be hard for neutral editors to see your blatant POV pushing.RomanHistorian (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(FTR, the other half of the conversation is here.)

I see you have been causing trouble on Historicity of Jesus too for the same reason you have been causing trouble on Gospel of Luke. Why do you have such a problem with scholars or publications who lean Christian? You put up a claim for a bit that they didn't fact check but apparently have abandoned that. It seems you think Christian scholars are biased and typically cannot be trusted to see past their bias, and scholars who are personally secular have no bias. Being an atheist/agnostic is just as much of a bias as being a Christian. Why don't you get that?? Often scholars who lean Christian publish in Christian-leaning publications, and for reasons that have nothing to do with their showing shoty scholarship. Often these Christian-leaning publications have better business deals, deep ties with the Christian community, or a whole host of reasons why these scholars would choose to publish with these publishers. By excluding them, you introduce a massive POV bias into these articles. What turns me off to your edits so much is not individual edits but your style and wholesale dismissal of a massive class of scholars and publications. And then you 'allow' the views of these scholars to remain to a limited degree, but only if they are qualified as "Christian scholar" or "minority scholar", whereas scholars like Ehrman need no qualification. I understand if you want to introduce the views of scholars who are more skeptical, and can of course work with that. But you have defined the playing field so narrowly, and judging from Historicity of Jesus I am not the only person you have antagonized.RomanHistorian (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You are going to have to accept "sectarian" scholars, otherwise this back and forth will keep going.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete RS's from articles.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I would have reverted the counterproductive edits on Gospel of Luke, but I've made a point of limiting myself to 2RR or even 1RR, especially when there's controversy. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, I'd be interested in your response to this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Luke

We appear to have capable editors. If we can now only calm them down and focus on the article instead of trying to score points off each other! :) Student7 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

Dylan, Roman; I have already asked you once; I would be very grateful if you conducted your disputes outside of my discussion page. If it helps, I am clarifying my own views;

- Wikipedia articles are intended to be contually edited and improved; and improved; in particular through having scholarly references added in to statements that as yet lack them; and also in improving existing scholarly references by including the published views of scholars with high standing in the specific field covered by the article in replacement for those of popularisers or of recognised scholars who are nevertheless not specialists in the field in question. So long as the updated reference does not materially redirect the point being made in the article, such changes need no prior notification on talk pages. If the changed references also changes the thrust of the article, that should be discussed and agreed on the relevant talk page.

- The only criterion is current public academic standing, not confessional or ideological labelling. In particular, in relation to biblical subjects, most recongised authorities are likely to be Christian or Jewish believers, and many will also have written apologetic works. That in no way should count against them. Equally, there are many recognised authorities who are agnostic or non-believers; and the same point applies. Hence it would be proper - in my view - to include a reference on the Synoptics to JD Crossan (who is an acknowleged authority) and excise a counterpart reference to the Jesus Seminar (who as a collective body are not an acknowledged authority). It would be equally be proper on Mark to include a reference to Morna Hooker (a current authority on Mark) and excise one to Dennis Nineham (formerly an authority, but no longer active in the field).

- As I understand it, what Leadwind is claiming to do accords with what I myself would consider legitimate. I would only consider it proper to enter into any consequent debate where I regarded by own (albeint partial) knowledge of current academic standing to be potentially helpful to resolve disputes.

(copied to Leadwind) TomHennell (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

majority viewpoint

Tom, if I'm wrong about WP:WEIGHT and how to tell whether a viewpoint is "majority," then I really need to be disabused of my error, and maybe you're the one to do it. The policy seems to say that we should take what we find in commonly accepted reference texts to be the majority viewpoint (unless commonly accepted reference texts themselves disagree with each other). Leadwind (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, I think you may have glossed the policy incorrectly. The full Jimmy Wales quote (with respect to Physics) is:

What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream scientific community on this point?

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.: If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

The full quote I think makes it clear that "commonly accepted reference texts" should be glossed as 'standard reference texts on the subject of the article'; rather than as 'encyclopedic texts of general reference'. I would understand that to mean that e.g. on an article on a musical subject, the views of Grove's dictionary would always be citable; but that the views of the Encyclopedia Britannica would not.

in respect of Biblical subjects in the English language, the equivalent of Grove is probably the Anchor Bible Dictionary; but that has the disadvantage of not readily accessible except in specialist libararies (you may be lucky to have it on your shelves, I do not). Failing that, many (perhaps too many) Wikipedia articles refer to the 'Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'. Personally, I would prefer the "Oxford Companion to the Bible"; in that its treatment of Biblical subjects is fuller, the contributions are signed, and the contributors are all, by definition, prominent scholars wihtin the scope of Jimmy Wales definition (albeit with slight a bias in favour of Bruce Metzger's mates).

but the world of New Testament critical scholarship is not that extensive - basically Gottingen, Tubingen, Oxford, Cambridge, Aberdeen, Princeton, Notre Dame and New York (Union Theological Seminary). Pretty well everyone 'prominent' in the field has some connection to one or another of these institutions; and most contribute to a relatively small circle of journals in English - Journal of Theological Studies, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

If I were to venture a view of what might then be taken as th 'majority' view on the subject of the authorship of the Gospels; I think the following would be a reasonably safe statement of the current consensus.

- that the enterprise by the early church (following Iraeneus) to establish the four canonical gospels as uniquely 'apostolic' is not grounded in any historical findings. Matthew and John are not the memoirs of two members of the twelve, Mark is not recording the memoirs of Peter, Luke is not recording the memoir of Paul.

- that none of the synoptics is an eyewitness account; Matthew and Luke rely on Mark for their historical narrative, and Mark is neither an eyewitness, nor does he have personal knowledge of the geography of Jerusalem and Palestine.

- that the author of the narrative sections in John knew Jerusalem (before 70 AD) well. The majority view now is that at least the accounts of the Trial and Passion of Jesus in John utilise eyewitness sources - which is not to say at all that they are neutral history or intended to be.

- that the author of Luke is most likely to be identified with the person referred to accompanying Paul in the letter to Philemon

- that author of Mark may be identified with the person who travelled with, and then split from, Paul; but that 'Mark' is so common a name that no absolute identification can be made; there being nothing in the text itself to confirm or refute such a speculation.

- that the author of Matthew had little of no knowledge of Jerusalem before 70 AD, but had some contact (mainly antagonistic) with participants in the rabbinic project to reconstruct Judaism following the disaster of the Jewish War.

- that Q existed soon after 70 AD as a collection of teachings attributed to Jesus; but there is no evidence of its having been compiled or circulated earlier, and in particular no reason to regard it as prior to Mark.

- that Mark must have been writtern during (or possibly immediately after) the Jewish War of 66 - 70 AD. TomHennell (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

I disagree with your choice of references, but even so you've generated a statement of the majority view that I can work with. If we establish these statements as the "majority view," that would solve a lot of arguments on a lot of pages. Leadwind (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

I am taking it that your reservations/disagreements relate to my restricted (and perhaps snobbish) listing of institutions and journals that are to be considered as neccessarily 'mainstream'; or are you rather disagreeing with my shortlist of 'mainstream' works of New Testament reference? It is true that there is an extensive reference literature of conservative evangelical scholarship (for which there is always a ready market), but I had rather imagined they were not your favourite reading. I am not aware of any substantial reference series of current 'mainstream' critical biblical scholarship in English outside of the Metzger/Brown/Hooker axis. But you may know better. TomHennell (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Lima/Esoglou

I read this with great interest. Lima has since changed his name to "Esoglou", and continues to try and dominate both the "Baptism" and "Immersion Baptism" pages. I encountered him over a year ago on the "Baptism" page as "Lima", and I've had exactly the same problems with him in the last month as "Esoglou".--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How did your RfC go? I am almost at that point myself, and would be glad to reference yours.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus

Hello, I was wondering what you think of the Nativity of Jesus article. It seems like most scholars find the narratives problematic yet the article presents it as though their is some significent debate over weither it's historical. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am new to this activity. I am not sure how we communicate on some of these points. My background is in History and Literature. I am an agnostic. I think that there is some significant debate over whether it is historical. The debate is probably more about what is historical. Whether one believes that Jesus is the Messiah or that he is divine is not necessarily tied to whether he was born in the place the Bible reports at the time that the Bible reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tederose1943 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Immersion baptism dispute

Since you've been involved in the "Immersion baptism" article, you may wish to comment on the current dispute I have with Esoglou over the 'Archaeological evidence' section. Compare my edit here, with his edit here. I would appreciate your comments on the Talk page.--Taiwan boi (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of the Bible

You otta check out the New Testament section on the Authorship of the Bible article. It presents support for traditional authorship as if it's 50% and has biased lines like; Many scholars, from a wide range of theological viewpoints, do agree with the traditional accounts... 24.180.173.157 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Lost Caesar

You wrote the following on User talk:Taiwan boi

"(Lost Caesar) who also got in a dispute with me and also dropped out, changed his name, and returned"

Really? I wondered whatever happened to Lost Caesar. What's his new name?

--Richard S (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth bothering about?

This edit of yours has now been reverted twice. On my own, I don't intend to restore it again. So, if you are not interested in it, I will let it stay reverted. Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Last Supper

I have been scared off making adjustments or public comments on the Last Supper article for fear of again being thought not to be "nice". (Not the only sign, unfortunately, that distrust or resentment of years ago still lives.) So I am just putting before you here a few thoughts on the opening paragraph. Don't you think that the sentence "This new covenant, embodying Christ's sacrifice on the cross, allows people to gain salvation outside of the covenant of Moses" needs a source and an explanation of what "this new covenant" refers to? Isn't it true that Christians "observe the Last Supper" (whatever "observe" means) not only on Maundy Thursday, but also every time they celebrate what they call the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper and various other names? And isn't "the Lord's Supper" (like "the Last Supper") usually capitalized and not written as "the lord's supper" (which lord's?)? Just some thoughts that I am putting before you here, without wishing to raise them more widely. Esoglou (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still afraid of seeming to aim at offending. Would you please first attend to the "This new covenant ..." sentence? It would be hard for me to deal with it except either by completely replacing it or by attaching a "what?" to the first words and a "cn" to the sentence as a whole. If that is first attended to, I think I would be in less danger of giving a (false) impression of hostility. Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You ask: "What is the significance of the new covenant that Jesus institutes at the last supper?" My short answer is: "I don't know." I know that there is discussion about the word "new": equivalent to "made new" or to "replacement"? Was the new covenant instituted at the Last Supper, or on Calvary, or more generically? The New Testament references to a covenant associated with Christ are interpreted variously. You can look up the Catechism of the Catholic Church and see if it is helpful for you (I doubt it). The main mentions of "new covenant" in it, including its one mention of the "cup of the New Covenant", are in sections 610-614. I have an index that would allow me to indicate other parts of the CCC that mention the new covenant, but I believe that, after looking at sections 610-614, you will have no appetite for more. Esoglou (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan boi's very good edits to the article have set me looking up the ODCC. I find it has no article on "new covenant" and the one on "covenant" will not help you either. Esoglou (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If it were not for Esoglou's reluctance to be involved in potentially contentious discussions, I would move this discussion to the article Talk Page where it belongs. I agree with Esoglou that the sentence starting with "This new covenant..." starts too abruptly and assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader. However, I am flabbergasted by Esoglou's assertion that he doesn't know what the significance of the new covenant is. I wonder if there is a level of complexity and understanding that I am not aware of. At the risk of opening my mouth and removing all doubt of my foolishness, I will ask: Why isn't Leadwind's question answered by the article on the New Covenant? There are several Christian interpretations of and disputes about what the New Covenant is. Perhaps the earliest one was the circumcision controversy. Two major concepts related to the New Covenant are Supersessionism and Dispensationalism. So... because all this seems so obvious to me, I will ask "What is the issue that is being discussed here?" Why isn't this a more straightforward discussion than it appears to be? Am I missing something? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I frequently find articles on religious issues to be frustratingly vague, especially leads. I have a hunch that vagueness protects a topic from criticism and from modern scholarly analysis, and so editors are sometimes eager to prevent an article from achieving clarity. Vagueness also prevents one from having to figure out which specific viewpoint is most common, etc. In addition, amateur writers (as most Wp editors are) tend to be vaguer than professionals (unless the professionals are doing it on purpose). Vagueness is easy and safe. Leadwind (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. This is why I cite consistently from the relevant scholarly literature. When you see articles filled with POV citations from liturgical and devotional commentaries, you can be sure religious editors have been there making a mess.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Leadwind and Taiwan boi about the need to go to scholarly literature rather than liturgical or devotional commentaries. I will add that even the works of scholarly theologians can be an issue if they are polemical in nature rather than taking a more detached, objective stance.

That said, we have strayed from Leadwind's original question. The other half of the conversation can be found here. I still don't get what the problem is. AFAICT, the new covenant instituted at the Last Supper, the resurrection, Jesus' assertion "on this rock, I will found my church" and Pentecost are the foundation on which the Christian Church justifies its existence. Without the new covenant, Christianity has no basis to argue that it is separate from Judaism. If we are still bound by the "old covenant" of Hebrew Scriptures, then Jesus is just another Hebrew prophet and Christianity is just another Jewish sect. It is in Paul's apologetics about how the "new covenant" is different from the "old covenant" that Christianity becomes defined. Some even argue that Pauline Christianity is thus different from the original Christianity of the apostles but that's another kettle of fish.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou's recent WP:3RR vio

In the past 24 hours or so Esoglou has committed another WP:3rr vio. This time on the Immersion baptism article. I have archive on the talkpage of at least two other articles whenever he committed 3RRs on those articles too. I wonder why Richard whom worked on those other articles did not go to Esoglou's talkpage with another editor and confront about that. Esoglou's 3rrs from just the past day or so here on Wikipedia. 1/11/11

Example just a day ago of Esoglou's citation abuse.

[4] This is an example of Esoglou's citation abuse I keep complaining about and am told that I am not being Civil Note Esoglou is doing this to another editor not me. Why is this source Sanford La Sor, 1987; Lothar Heiser, 1986; Jean-Charles Picard, 1989; Malka Ben Pechat, 1989, Everett Ferguson, 2009 just not good enough? So much for good faith.

Esoglou's insistence on his interpretation of things.

[5] Here Esoglou engages in some pedantic wrangling and rewrites a good chunk of article additions and posts sources that are not in the majority as equal to the sources that the previous editor added and contradicts the previous editors addition. As is pointed out
[6] Here's more Esoglou pedantic wrangling even though the wording was just fine. Esoglou had to have it say what Esoglou's interpretation thought it should say. Esoglou can't allow the opinion to be ID'ed as Minor.

Esoglou WP:3rr in adding WP:OR and WP:SYN, You tube videos as sourcing to article.

1. [7] And then here's where the editor had to remove Esoglou adding his own personal opinion into the article. This is where Esoglou tell everybody what the official Orthodox Church of America comments REALLY MEAN not what they say but what Esoglou interprets them to say.. Also here is where Esoglou starts adding YouTube videos to the article as sourcing.
2. [8] Esoglou restores the YouTube videos even though it has been pointed out that they are not valid sources.
3. [9] Esoglou restores them again.
4. [10] Another editor whom is not Taiwan Boi again removes the videos and again notes that they are not WP:RS. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, I don't pay attention to 3RR violations except to make sure that I myself don't come close to violating it. I try not to edit war at all but I'm no saint. My standard response to edit warring is to ask for it to stop accompanied by a threat to request page protection. If it doesn't stop, I follow through on that threat but I tend to avoid the 3RR noticeboard. Frankly, it's due to laziness. I can't be bothered to waste my time counting reverts. Edit warring is easier to spot in the edit summaries. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you sure did notice for Leadwind didn't you Richard. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have confused who wrote what. The warnings are from History2007. My comment was to tell History2007 that, while WP:BRD is a really good idea, it's just an essay and not an enforceable policy or guideline. 3RR is the enforceable policy with a bright-line rule. "no edit warring" is also a policy but with no bright-line rule. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou doing a WP:3RR vio by way of deleting my contributing sources to the theoria article

Here is the diff of where I noted this 3rr on the theoria talkpage. This is the same article that both Richard and User:Phatius McBluff worked on and have ignored AGAIN me pointing out Esoglou's behavior [11]

1. Esoglou ignores me providing him with the sources in good faith that Esoglou requested on talkpage and rather then add them goes into the article and adds citation tags [12]
2. After I start adding the sourcing to the article Esoglou deletes,reverts the sourcing. [13]
3. After I restore some of the content Esoglou deleted, reverted saying that I have to get consensus on the talkpage to source the article, Esoglou again deletes the sourcing content. [14]. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou doing a Wp:3RR vio by way of deleting my contributions to the Divination article (theosis)

Here is the diff from where I pointed out on the talkpage for the Divinization (Christian) article about a month ago that Esoglou had done a 3rr vio where Esoglou was reverting and rewriting my edits today.. As I did not know at the time Leadwind was not necessarily in agreement with Esoglou and I apologize for that now. [15] These edits are a showing of pure ignorance of the actual subject matter were Esoglou actually in the know he would have known about what these edits where saying from an Eastern Orthodox perspective but Esoglou thinks that there is no difference between the two communions and is willing to Edit war to show that his opinion and interpretation are right when in reality they are misinformed. Richard again didn't notice the heading on the talkpage saying that Esoglou was committing 3RR Richard doesn't ever seem to notice.
Here are three times that Esoglou keeps insisting on using the inflammatory sentence "Western heretics cannot ... speak about man's deification" and I keep trying to keep the less inflammatory "and the Western attacks on the Eastern interpretation are heretical." In the intro to the article in question.

1. Diff 1[16] Esoglou reverts where I tried to add the sourcing and got caught in an edit conflict error. And replaced inflammatory sentence.
2. Diff 2[17]reverted back to inflammatory interpretation of source.
3. Diff 3[18] Along with the inflammatory interpretation and sentence being restored Esoglou is also again playing games with text that is translated as Lossky was not writing in English.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of deleted talkpage comment

I deleted your talk page comment to signal that the talk page is not a forum for general discussions of the merits of EP, but a place to discuss improvements to the article. You are doing good work on the article, please concentrate on that rather than discussing personal views of EP with AndytheGRump or other editors.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

3rr

You have now reinstated the same contested material three times with in few hours. Continue this way and the Evolutionary Psychology talkpage will soon become a lot more quiet while you are blocked for editwarring.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

EP

You wrote: "it's no surprise that plenty of well-informed people haven't noticed that EP has basically proved itself in the last 15 years" As long as this is your attitude, I will continue to slam you for disruptive editing. You know that this statement violates the spirit of WP policies, just as your specific comments violate specific policies. The only conflict between us is I wish WP to be edited following core content policies and you do not care about them. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

SLR is fine. So far, all I have ever suggested is that we provide multiple, including conflicting, views as long as they come from reliable sources, and present them accurately. And not use the talk page to discuss our own beliefs. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

EP

Sure, I would be happy to send you an EP textbook (probably the 3rd Ed. of Buss. Feel free to email me with your smail address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memills (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Game designers

Thanks for your recent help in sourcing some of the game designer pages that are up for deletion. If you have the time, other articles in need of sourcing include Marcelo Del Debbio, Paul Drye, Ann Dupuis, Pete Fenlon, Joseph Goodman (was redirected, but could be restored if sources are found), Geoffrey C. Grabowski, Gary Holian, ‎Jeff Koke, Christopher Kubasik, Scott Leaton, Chris Wiese, Ken Lightner, and Clinton R. Nixon. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your revert

Your latest revert is simply a blatant lie. You started two twxts at the Rs notice board about whether the source supported a claim of majority opinion. Every editor who commented agreed that it did not. Every editor who commented on the EP talkpage said that it did not. I don't know how you snuck it in in spite of this, but having the audacity to now claim that I need to establish a consensus to remove it is simply out of line. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA

I have posted a Wikiquette Alert about an issue in which you have been involved.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Review Request

There is an on-going discussion on Talk:Gospel of Matthew between Ret.Prof and In ictu oculi that you may have been following over the past 2-3 weeks. As it has gotten to somewhat of an impass, I and another editor (PiCo) would like your official input. Please go to the referenced page and scroll down to the thread entitled "This needs other Wikipedia editors", read lead to this section and then scroll down to the two drafts that have been proposed. Thanks much for your help! Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

we liberals

It is really annoying and inappropriate when you make statements about "we liberals". By doing so you appropriate the voice of all "liberals" and I am left with the choice of either agreeing with you or being un-liberal (and frankly I lean towards thinking the first is worse than the second). It also comes across as condescending and possibly unsincere and sarcastic. Please speak for yourself only.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Abraham's intro

Hello there... I've seen that you tagged Abraham's intro with two "cn"s. I wonder why, while the whole article's citations are referring to the same meaning of the intro. I can link any reference if you want, but just don't prefer so. I didn't want to remove your tag and start on an edit-war with you, hehe jkjk. I love the "The Anima Sola" pic on your userpage :)... I'll follow-up here, but try to write my name on your edit summary. Take care and happy editing ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Leadwind. You have new messages at Adamrce's talk page.
Message added 07:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: My talkpage

If you genuinely want to expand your horizon send me an email and I will send you some literature to let you know where I and the other "reasonable" non-cultural determinist EP critics are coming from. But you have to promise to actually read it. Then afterwards you can do the hard work of convincing MEmills to include it in the article. I am done with trying that myself, the next time I make my views on EP public it will be in a peer reviewed journal (not immediately forthcoming). Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely want to expand my horizon. See my email. Leadwind (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

NLP and RSs

Hi Leadwind,Would you be willing to collaborate on improving the article on NLP? In one of your posts you supported characterizing NLP as "largely discredited" in the opening paragraph. Have you seen this done before on other articles of similar level of discredit. None of the comparable topics Dolphin Therapy, Equine therapy or Psychosynthesis begin in that way. --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Leadwind. You have new messages at TortoiseWrath's talk page.
Message added 01:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — TORTOISEWRATH 01:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Leadwind2

Good to see you around again. Here is a link to Jonathan M. Marks' blog[19] - Being a geneticist and an previous president of the American Anthropological Association he is one of the few people who understand genetics and anthropology. And he also writes in a catchy polemic style, like Wade, except as i said he knows what he is talking about. Well worth a read.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Also I cannot recommend his books enough. Particularly "What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee" and "The Alternative Introduction to Biological Anthropology".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Here[20] is an official statement by AAA specifically accusing Wade of misrepresenting the discipline and its views.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Here[21] is a letter to the editor at NYT by the current AAA president protesting Wade's misrepresentations of the discipline and its internal debates.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And here[22] is a piece about Wade's plugging of sloppy statistics used as a substitute for thinking and data handling in speculations about the origins of linguistic families.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding finding "common ground", one thing that I have been trying to get across to you in various ways is that I think if we are going to have a meaningful discussion that you you shouldn't get your opinion of the "other side" through reading summaries written by your own side. What infuriates me most about writes like Wade, Pinker etc. is not that they are wrong, but that instead of arguing with the arguments anthropologists actually propose they paint a caricature that they can then ridicule. I read Pinker, Dawkins and their friends, heck I even read Wade when I can stomach him, I even read Rushton and Jensen and Lynn. And then I see what is wrong with their arguments and I critique what they actually write. If you read Boas and Margaret Mead and Marshall Sahlins, and Jay Gould and Jon Marks and then proceed to show me the holes in their arguments then it will be much easier for me to take you seriously and to have a dialogue (at least with Sahlins and Gould it's not too hard to find some holes, although the edifice is pretty solid in my opinion). But if you simply accept Wade and Pinker's caricatures and sort these people and their complex arguments into the non-existing "nurture camp" before having read them, then we are not even having a dialogue to begin with.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have read Gould, Mead, and Lewontin. In fact, I totally believed them. This was pre-1992. I studied race as a sociology major and was really happy to believe that natural science denied any biological basis to race (or gender roles). But now we know more about genes than ever before, and it turns out I was wrong. If we liberals don't accept the role that genes play in human differentiation, then only conservatives will have access to the latest science, and I don't want that. Leadwind (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the three authors you mention believed that genes play no role in human differentiation. You should maybe read them again - go back reread Mead and Gould and then tell me where they say something concrete that has since been disproven by genetics. As for race, not even Dawkins believes that genetics is vindicating the race concept in the way you apparently do as a kind of natural and objective groupings - genetics has in no way supported or endorsed that conclusion, and very few geneticists would agree with you on that. (in fact didn't you yourself just a little while ago say that genetics had dispelled the race concept? to which I objected that it was already dispelled before the genetic revolution). I don't know of any liberals who don't accept that genes and biology plays a role in human differentiation. I do know some conservatives who deny biology has any relevant knowledge whatsoever. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I know from experience that me telling you where these authors went wrong won't bring us any closer to an amicable, mutual understanding. It seems like the way to forge a meeting of the minds, but in practice it doesn't work that way. Humans are better at taking sides than at assessing their own conclusions, as you no doubt know from experience. On the Race and Genetics talk page, I tried to find a way for both sides to agree on something and work together, to build trust. But that attempt was shot down quickly, revealing my attempt to have been naive. I'm intrigued at the possibility of trying to find a common ground with you, but the process would have to be something different from what we've been doing. The proving/disproving mode of discussion clearly fails. Leadwind (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For me common ground is not the same as agreeing or even agreeing to disagree. I don't have a problem with people holding views other than my own - or with them trying to convince me that their view is right. I live like that everyday - in a multiethnic, multireligious and multilingual family construction. I don't think anything you say will convince me that I am wrong and you are right - but common ground is built through rational critical discussion in which we take each other's arguments seriously and not try to shoot them down as strawmen. That is what I am doing when I am asking you to show where the authors I mention are "wrong" or espouse "cultural determinism", which I claim has never been espoused by a serious anthropologist. I think there may be places where you will read Mead and see cultural determinism, but I will read it and see something else. When I then try to understand why you interpret that piece of text the way you do, then I will be building common ground. Btw. you've got mail. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Leadwind

Hope you are well. Interesting discussion above with User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·.

He and I are at it again. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Evolutionary_psychology

Cheers, Memills (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not at anything. I wouldn't edit your article if you paid me. Its all yours. Lavo manus meas.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Deal. In return, I'll stay away from Cultural Anthro / social constructionism (always have). Now, let's go get some beer. Memills (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Memills, Maunus, are you two boys fighting again? Boys will be boys! Honestly, some days I think I'll have to separate the two of you! :-) Or maybe you've already arranged to separate yourselves, which might be for the best all around. If you two can't edit nicely together, then maybe the beer suggestion is the better bet. Leadwind (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Of course, I would chalk up the conflict to intra-sexual competition, Maunus would chalk it up to cultural socialization... Memills (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We evolved to fist-fight around the campfire, but we learned to edit war on Wikipedia instead. Leadwind (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Richard Garfield at NYU, 2013.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Richard Garfield at NYU, 2013.jpg, which you've attributed to Koni Garfield. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I like your username

I love usernames that have multiple meanings. As I was reading your recent edit on talk:Asperger syndrome it made me smile. See you around, —Soap— 14:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your willingness to advise the students in Darwinian medicine. Sanetti (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Venus figurines

While I'm not wholly convinced Eller's removal was correct, Leroy McDermott's removal definitely was and I've commented on the talk page. Enough academics have discussed it so that it has now become an important part of the dialogue about these objects. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Clement of Rome

Hi I was interested in your comment on the talk page of this article 'Rome didn't have a single, monarchical bishop until 50 years after Clement'. Do you have any background material on this? I am trying (with difficulty) to document the transition from co-equal presbyters to a single ruling bishop at Rome. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Clement_I#The_word_pope_is_irrelevent . Clivemacd (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Clivemacd, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that the major cities didn't all have their bishops until mid-100s. The practice started in the provinces. Adolf Harnack said that the Roman congregation was conservative and thus among the last to adopt the new "bishop" role. I might have had something more at the time, but it's been years since I've looked at that material. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)