User talk:Mathsci/example

A comment by AndyTheGrump

Can we have diffs please? The section that Neolander has written seems to contain the same sentence repeated twice, which makes me wonder whether something somewhere has got scrambled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking again at the original article, I see that I've misunderstood what exactly is being quoted. It is this sentence of Neoloander's:

Marvin Perry states that the Talmud deviates widely from the early Christian approach to money: whereas the New Testament viewed money and profit as "filthy lucre" (1 Tim 3:3), the Talmud took a positive view of money and profit because the Talmud "was written, compiled and edited, taught and interpreted for centuries by rabbis who were merchants, artisans, and professional men, knowledgeable and accepting of business and finance, in theory and practice."

Though Neolander's use of the word 'because' is a little simplistic, I can't see how it is actually "conveys exactly the opposite meaning to that intended". The section from Perry states (a) that (in his opinion) "the Talmud... takes a positive stance with regard to economic activity, in sharp contrast with the New Testament and Patristic theologians who were vigilant against, as they thought it to be, filthy lucre", and (b) "The Talmud by contrast was written, compiled and edited, taught and interpreted for centuries by rabbis who were merchants, artisans and professional men, knowledgeable and accepting of business and finance, in theory and practice". Are we not supposed to think that Perry does not see some connection between (a) and (b)? Yes, Perry also notes that these same rabbis were "living as merchants and the like, so as to serve the community without pay", but he also argues that "It may be that Judaism's affirmative outlook on the world—Weltbejabung, what Weber called being "accomodated to the world"—made Jews more rational, less mystical, and more focused on life, and thus more likely to engage and be successful in economic activities in some degree. Perry seems (in the section quoted) to be suggesting that there is a link, and Neolander has noted this link. Yes, Neolander has omitted the qualifications that Perry makes regarding the ultimate motivations for this "positive stance", but I can't see any evidence of an attempt to convey an "opposite meaning".

As for the suggestion that the omissions by Neolander constitute WP:OR, I don't see the logic. How can leaving something out be 'research'?

On this basis, I cannot see how the relevant sentence by Neolander can be taken in itself as evidence for anti-Semitism - instead, I'd say it is evidence that he/she needs to be a little more careful with sources. Not having access to the other sources cited in the section, I'll reserve judgement on whether this was evidence of a more general trend, but I note that this sentence is being cited as 'evidence', and as such ought to show the bias alleged. I don't think it does. Yes, the article that Neolander has created is controversial, and needs improvement if it is to properly reflect the sources cited, but isn't that true of most new articles? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd echo Andy's comments above. I really don't see how Neoleander conveyed the "opposite meaning" here. At worst, I think he changed the tone from a slightly positive outlook on Judiasm and economic activity, to a mostly neutral one. This strikes me as being very far from clear evidence of anti-semitism. Very far... NickCT (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)