Talk:Arthur Drews/Archive 1

Needs a lot of editing
This article has several problems. A lot of the arguments that Drews made are put in bold which is unnecessary and so far as I can tell from other pages, abnormal. I'm not so sure about the neutrality of this article either. The person who wrote it seems to favor the arguments of Drew even though Jesus mythicism is not accepted by the majority of scholars. It also seems a bit long. I think a lot of this article could be summarized.24.196.64.131 (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Writing about Both Arthur Drews, a German Philosopher and his Philosophy
Arthur Drews is a German philosopher, a direct follower of Eduard von Hartmann, whose major idea was Monism. They were both distant disciples of Georg Friedrich Hegel, who influenced all German philosophers who came after him in the 19th century until WWI. Drews occupied himself with the philosophy of history, mythology and religion. His trajectory in life is much more complex than most staid academics. He was a religious activist, and a generator of controversies. He does not fall easily into the mold of a stereotypical philosopher.

My article is written about this German philosopher. So, it has, perforce, to touch upon all the branches of philosophy and history of philosophy Drews was involved in, but the article has to remain centered on the man, his thoughts and his life. It is both about a philosopher's life and work and his philosophy. It has to go into the historical roots of his ideas, and the reactions to them in the West.

I have studied philosophy, the German language and German history. I am fully conscious of the difficulties of presenting Drews's philosophy to a public that knows nothing about him, nothing about German philosophy, and a bare minimum about German history. I am aware that the reactions to his ideas have often been negative. Especially the Christ Myth theory has been subject to extreme hostility and criticism from Religious Studies and Biblical Studies professionals.

The article has to mix general guidelines for biography, philosophers life and activities, theories, concepts, arguments, contemporary and historical context.

General Guidelines

 * The lead section establishes the notability of the subject within philosophy.
 * The goal is clear, consistent, encyclopedic, attractive, and interesting articles.
 * Philosophy is about clarification. Subjects are abstract, complex and difficult for unfamiliar readers to understand.
 * Do not write with jargon, nor terminology favoring one in-group of academicians over another''.
 * Terms must be clarified, use wikilinks
 * Wikilinks specialized words at their first instance.

Keep the audience in mind: int'l and reasoning

 * Beware that an encyclopedic tone can make advanced philosophical topics more difficult to learn.
 * Philosophy articles should be written not from any particular POV,
 * Aim at an int'l audience of average reasoning persons who should gain an excellent understanding of the topic from the article and its wikilinks.
 * Take a meta-perspective, outside of the philosophy and the publication embedding it.

Make context and history explicit

 * Need for the use of both primary and secondary information.
 * Topics in philosophy are inextricable from the historical context. Discuss the context of the original concept, and the subsequentcontext.
 * If a later publication of the concept is involved, discuss the original source.
 * Details of the conception, development of an idea are necessary to appreciate the role of concepts in history of philosophy. This involves providing "literature summaries, biographical information, or direct quotations.

Philosophers

 * Biographical articles included in that category, and in any appropriate sub-categories.
 * Consistent format: Philosophus (birth date - death date) was a nationality philosopher. He/she made notable contributions in field1, field2, ...
 * Write for the general reader. Details are expected to accurately explain the view of the philosopher.
 * Judgement needed for the placement of arguments.
 * Ex.: Karl Popper describes falsification briefly, linking to falsifiability; whereas John Searle presents detailed arguments.

Philosophical theories

 * They attempt to explain an assemblage of concepts, two or more.
 * Format: T-ism is a [U-ist] V-ological theory in field-W which attempts to explain X concept. It is based on the concept that Y is the case, a concept which is called Z."
 * For Religious/Spiritual [Theories]: T-ism is a [U-ist] V-ological theory in movement/religion-W which attempts to explain X concept. It is based on the belief that Y is the case, a concept which is called Z."
 * Identify the theory within the category structure and vice versa.
 * Give exact formal definitions, in the terms used by contemporary philosophers.
 * The formal definition may not be satisfactory to all perspectives, but must be supported by reliable authority. This serves as a starting point for further elucidation.

Philosophical concepts

 * Subject matter is an idea, concept, or abstraction, related to other concepts identified by wikilinks.

Arguments

 * For specific arguments, the emphasis is on depth,.
 * Ex.: It is reasonable to assume that the reader of Raven paradox is familiar with inductive logic, and be able to make sense of Bayes' theorem.

Categories
Metaphysicians, 20th century, Platonism, Continental philosophers, German philosophers

MOS Formatting

 * Commas - Except if not in original quotation, preserve the Oxford comma in all lists
 * Ex.: "I need to buy milk, eggs, flour, and sugar."


 * italics - in quotations only if in the original and to add emphasis. [Emphasis added] noted after the quote.

This article is as long and complex as required
This is paraphrasing Mozart in his famous response to Joseph II. The length of the article is required by its complex and important subject. This article is aiming at justifying its place in the list of Wikipedia's 500 longest articles

I have finalized this completed my article on Aug. 19 23, 2012.

Yes, following the Manual of Style/Text Formatting, I removed any bolding inadvertently used for emphasis, a leftover from a different formatting style. I have harmonized the use of italics and quotation marks to the recommendations of the Manual of Style. That was a big job, which could have been avoided had I known the very specific and complex rules of Wikipedia styling. It's like learning a new layout language. Writing those Wikipedia articles and getting the formatting right according to the immensity of rules of the Style Manual is a tremendous time consumer.

Yes, this article could be summarized. A lot of articles could too. That is the way I found this originally — a fragment of a sketch of about 10 lines. There are many wisp-of-the will articles on Wikipedia, so schematic as being useless. Arthur Drews was one of them. On another hand, there's room for long, meaty articles that give the lowdown on a given subject. The famous 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (the best one ever) had articles running for dozens and dozens of pages on important subjects. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also carries very long articles, but they pay their writers well for their texts. They give them freedom on account of their expertise, and do not constrain them in a pre-programed format.

Nobody is obliged to read the full article. The article is organized in clear sections, and the Table of Contents allows the reader to jump directly to the section of interest. My article is not for uninterested readers, only for researchers who need solid information without having to scout WorlCat to borrow copies of Drews's books (mostly in German).

Much easier and more rewarding is writing an article for a magazine or a book. Not only is there no reward here, but once the immense work is done to produce something of quality, you then have to confront the hostile readers whose only seeming interest is to modify or destroy your article to their own needs or preferences. Only a sense of noblesse oblige keeps us in this ungrateful game.

The major problem of this article, and the only real one, is its very subject, Drews. Drews is a very complex philosopher to describe accurately, and so versatile in his interests and so prolific in his writings, that a short article can’t do it. It involves biography, philosophy, theories, concepts, arguments, religious controversies, his activities as a religious advocate, and history of the 19th century Germany, international resonance, with Karl Marx, Lenin, and finally the Nazi era. This article is written more in the perspective of the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy for people who want the susbtance, not a Cliffsnote, nor a handful of labels. My article is not a critique of the validity of Drews's ideas, but a clear, accurate and objective presentation of what his thoughts actually were, and what the meaningful objective reactions to these thoughts were.

He was a Monist — something most ordinary people don't really understand — and a follower of von Hartmann, a philosopher who also was difficult for Germans to understand, as he was a proponent of the "Unconscious" before the concept became accepted with Freud and Jung. Carl Jung, an advocate of the Collective Unconscious in culture and religion, showed a high respect for the Monism of Hartmann and Drews.

Drews, a prolific writer, touched on too many things, and he is difficult to unravel. Paraphrasing or summarizing his quotes deepens the difficulty of understanding his thoughts. It is far clearer to present his own words. Direct quotations were necessary to get a clear understanding of his views.

Chances are that many readers may not be very conversant with Germany and German philosophy and the German language, and that some may be only expressing the views of specific sets of American scholars, especially those of academic "Religious Studies" or "Biblical Studies" scholars, who have been extremely vocal about their rejection of Drews, a reaction that may not be exactly the same as those of other scholars in the US and world-wide.

Certainly not those in Germany or France, where a strong interest in this article has been evidenced (with the expressed intent of copying it). I have had already good reception for this article, including top scholars in Germany. They were amazed this came from an American site, instead of a German one. I think the German reception is critical as a gauge of quality, as they are naturally closer to the subject and his history. They also appreciate what is called "Gründlichkeit" (thoroughness). No chichi or hot air for them. Only solid stuff, including in scholarship. Some readers may not be that interested in Arthur Drews. Some reactions are bound to be negative. It is expected that some will not want to acknowledge the work invested in this article and its quality. Some will be moved by personal beliefs that are opposed to the views of Drews. As in the past, some scholars will try to belittle Drews.

I certainly did not undertake this big job for the sake of reflecting the particular POV of the majority of scholars in theology or Religious Studies dep’ts hostile to the Christ Myth theory. They don't know this philosopher and most don't have the training in philosophy to understand him. I have read enough of their opinions to realize that what they know of Drews could be contained in a thimble. Their ignorance and prejudices cannot be any guide for an objective study of this protean thinker.

As an example, I had to chuckle when I read the superficial evaluation of one such major NT scholar, who likes to pose as the pope of the "majority of scholars" in NT studies in the States, but proves to be incapable of any objective evaluation of Arthur Drews, whom he's never read. That didn’t stop him, on the force of his ignorance and personal blinders, from glibly badmouthing Drews. But this scholar emeritus likes to sound off as a know-it-all, which can impress only the same majority of scholars who know even less about Drews than he does.

Drews was subjected to the same kind of superficial judgments when he was producing perceptive analyses of Nietzsche or Wagner. And now the top German experts on Wagner simply lift their arguments from Drews without giving him credit. This kind of silent raiding does exist among scholars.

I scanned the whole world of the Internet to check what's being presented of Drews as of today. Nobody has made anywhere a full objective presentation of the man and his work. An approximate one in French, a little more but not much in German, practically nothing in Italian, nothing in Dutch, an immense surprise, and some in Russian. And that's it. This article here is the only online resource world-wide (and in any other media, by the way) for any accurate and in-depth information on this strange philosopher, covering all the aspects and activities of this energetic and prolific philosopher who lived through a momentous period of history in Germany. He articulated a rare form of philosophy, German Idealistic Monism, that was extremely important in the 19th century and early 20th century. This article is written in a perspective of historical reliability and objectivity, to provide the real facts and thoughts of this puzzling man as usable and verifiable data. But there's no place on the Web to get a full picture of his life and work other than this article. It is going to be a fundamental resource for all scholars and researchers writing on the subject. It is unique, and extremely valuable. I wish it existed before I started my own research. At least now this new article can serve as a public source on the many aspects of Arthur Drews. I strove to present Drews objectively, as he was, and as he thought, not according to any preconceived ideas of the majority of scholars who have never read him, never studied him in depth, and have little or no knowledge of German or Germany.

Drews, remarkably, was a religious advocate, like Luther, like Hegel, like David Strauss, like Martin Luther King. There's no way to present the thoughts of those religious advocates by simplifying them or worse, distorting them. Their words have to be quoted. They have to be presented as they were, warts and all.

Some readers may question the neutrality of my article. The question then will be: What expertise do they have? What degrees, in what field? Have they studied Drews, even read his books, which ones? Do they understand German? Do they know anything about German culture, history and philosophy? Or will they just be reflecting the special interests of Religious Studies academics?

I have studied German philosophy and history for years. I have spent years learning German and German culture, studying Nietzsche and Wagner, two of Arthur Drews's battle horses. I have gone back to the German texts many times when the English translations are not clear enough or not sufficient (there are only a few English translations, but enough for the average reader). So, how can a reader offer a knowledgeable judgment, if he is not an expert on German philosophy and history?

Some will claim that I seem to favor the arguments of Drew. But this is not the case: I present the arguments of Drews as he himself presented them, without distortion of falsification. Ecce Homo -"Here is your man", as Jesus said; Hier Stehe Ich - "This is where I Stand", as Luther said. I am not presenting Drews to suit myself, or my views, but only according to Drews's views. An objective, neutral POV interested in the facts and the contents of ideas. When you want to study any philosopher or theorist, this is the essential first thing to do. This is what Socrates advocated, this is what a good Encyclopedia must offer: a trustworthy unvarnished picture, as SEP does. Then you can step back and criticize all you want.

Of course, I have read too much of the critiques of Drews not to know that some readers would prefer that this article were presented as a critique of Drews. But no, I only present the harsh and violently negative critiques by third parties when they were made: by the New York Times articles, by the 70 theologians who published refutations against Drews after the publication of his 1909 book, by Albert Schweitzer, by Nikolai Berdyaev, etc..

Some readers may not be really interested in a historic and objective presentation of the man and his thoughts, but only in a critique, even a repudiation or rejection of Drews’s arguments. What they want is a refutation, or a rebuttal. But that is not the point of this article. There are enough refutations on all the bookshelves of university libraries. Any academic professor of Biblical studies or theology worth his university salary is capable of debunking Drews. This article gives any reader the chance first to get to the man — before the Biblical scholars have a chance to denigrate him — get to his unusual ideas, study his real thoughts, those of a versatile mind, and then, gives the reader the material he needs to write his own critique, warn his students against Drews, post his refutation on his blog or include it in his book. Not one is interested in a neutral POV. For classical theology, Drews's ideas are evil, demon-possessed, and you are not allowed to have a neutral POV towards evil. This article is not prejudiced against Drews even though the Christ Myth theory is not accepted by the majority of scholars in the States. The situation is slightly different in Germany, Britain, and even France, Russia, Holland, and Italy, all countries where "Religious Studies" are much less popular. In addition the Christ Myth theory is only one aspect among many of Drews's pursuits. His critique of Christianity was only one aspect of his religious advocacy and activism. He resembles more Martin Luther King. There is no reason to eviscerate this philosopher/activist just to reflect the lack of interest and curiosity from conservative theology scholars. They know very little about Drews because they've never read him nor had access to an article like this one. At least now, they can start criticizing him "en connaissance de cause", as the French say.

Some readers may not share the spirit of the Enlightenment and of the founders of the Encyclopedist movement, of which Wikipedia is but the distant offshoot. The article shows the reactions of scholars world-wide in his own time. But it is not written to satisfy the views of the majority of "Religious Studies" scholars who do not accept Drews's views. In fact, nobody accepts Drews's views entirely but himself. This article is a presentation of the basic facts on Drews.

It is important to note that the word "mythicism" was never used by Drews, who always spoke only of "Denial of the historicity of Jesus". "Mythicist" was popularized by the two British writers, A.D. Howell Smith and Archibald Robertson, in their books from the early 1940s, from which "mythicism" was derived. But this journalistic coinage is not a word ever used by Drews, and it is not one that reflects Drews's thinking accurately. It is ambiguous and injects some distortion in Drews's original concept. Drews's wording is more precise and accurate. Right now, there's a huge interest world-wide from theologians and Biblical scholars in writing about the question of the historicity of Jesus, originally introduced by 19th-century German scholarship (die Frage nach der Historizität Jesu). A lot of books have recently appeared on this subject, and many more are in the works. Drews is part of that history. And they all include Drews in their contents.

The number of writers contemplating studies of the pros and cons of the Christ Myth Theory, or the question of the historicity of Jesus is large. Nobody knows them all. George Albert Wells, an English disciple of Drews, has written many books, and is still writing on the subject. Bart Ehrman just published "Did Jesus Exist?", which made a big splash in some circles. He would have been greatly helped if this article had existed before he was writing his book. R. Joseph Hoffmann is preparing a massive study that should be an important work. This article gives him a chance to get a better grasp of Drews's ideas. Robert Eisenman, the Dead Sea Scrolls expert, is planning more works. Many theologians are planning their own version of the history of the non-historicity idea. This is a new craze, repeating the craze that erupted 100 years ago during the 1909-1930 period. Many writers want to join in, as publishers are aware of the favorable market. This article becomes a fundamental resource for any scholar interested in writing or teaching about the historicity of Jesus and the validity of Drews's theory.

Drews became famous world-wide in 1909 because he brought to the world's consciousness the idea of the Christ Myth, that is the claimed denial of the historicity of Jesus: Jesus Never Existed. The whole theologian profession was upset and rose up en masse against Drews to deprecate his work and vilipend his reputation. The wave of writing about Drews was all negative, and it was immense. No doubt about it, this effort to silence and ignore the man and his work is still going on (Das Ignorieren and Das Totschweigen are in full force in academia).

In addition, Drews was a religious activist and propagandist, but for a religion very different from the popularly accepted ones. He thought that denouncing Jesus as a myth was necessary to purify religion and restore an authentic belief in God from the primitive superstitions of Judaism and Christianity, and from the materialism of modern science. That is a very complex stance that is very difficult to understand, and that few people have ever fathomed. It is not popular nor understood in many areas of the world, nor by biblical studies academics who are too narrowly focused.

In addition, Drews lived until 1935, and was a witness to Germany being engulfed in the violent cultural conflicts in the 1920s and early 1930s aiming at recovering some self-confidence in the future and hope for a rebirth and transfiguration of the great German nation. Many social, cultural, political and religious movements were furiously vocal and competing in this troubled period of German history. Most people, and all intellectuals, scholars and artists got involved in various aspects of the search for a new Germany and a way out of its depressed state. The NSDP triumphed in this contest for popular support.

Drews was involved in his last few years in the Free Religion movement, an effort to purify religion and beliefs, and withdrew from the aborted German Faith movement, as it wanted to politicize the popular interest in new forms of religion, and was aiming to become endorsed as a new state religion by the Nazi regime.

Drews wrote his last book, titled "German Religion", for a renewal of modern German religion. A few critics have pounced on this fact to misrepresent him as a Nazi ideologist, which is a patent falsehood. Critics have tried to represent him as a Nazi (which he never was), or a “proto-Nazi”, to undermine his notoriety as the propagandist of the "Christ Myth", stain his character, vilipend his reputation, question his integrity, and disparage all his writings.

But in writing this encyclopedia article — taking an objective view on who was the man, and what were his real thoughts — one cannot take sides and support the misrepresentations. This article needs to present the fundamental facts, that all critics can then use at their will. It is not a work of defamation or rebuttal, but a work of scholarship on the man himself. The article does mention the negative critiques of Drews's work.

This article is long, because the man was immensely complex, he went through many phases, and touched many subjects, a protean mind, and one of a kind. He was polyvalent and a polymath, and there is a need to cover all the aspects of his involvements. As a German, he was also persistent, as most philosophers tend to be. Granted, the article is longer than most, but there is room on Wikipedia for long articles (see the list of the 1,000 longest articles in theLong Pages article, as there is room for very short ones. In fact there are too many very short ones, which are practically useless, as the original Drews article was when I first looked at it and realized what a lamentable caricature it was. And there are too many long ones allowed for pop singers — whose contribution is only ephemeral and soon forgettable — but who are sustained by millions of fans.

Drews must be shown as the lone maverick who rose to take on modern Christianity by denying the historicity of Jesus; who took on Nietzche and defended Wagner; who promoted the Monism of Plotinus, Hegel and von Harmann; who felt the need for an urgent reform of religion to salvage the divine conscience of mankind and its connection to the existence of God; and who had to navigate his way through the cultural maelstrom following the disaster of WWI on Germany, and the takeover by the NSDP — yes, Arthur Drews was a unique case, from a unique phase of German history, and an extremely eloquent witness to those times. Which is why he is such an important subject. It is a great value for Wikipedia to be able to offer such a comprehensive article for all scholars and researchers worldwide. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My conclusion about this experience is that writing for Wikipedia is not really writing free-flowing English. It's applying the impressive master format Wikipedia has devised to control this immensity of articles and the immensity of anonymous writers. Writing Wikipedia articles is good for Wikipedia, but not recommended to writers who want to write good, striking, interesting English. SEP is much more tolerant and accepting of good philosophical writing. So was Encyclopedia Britannica in its great days (11th edition). But only expert writers were invited (and paid) to write for them.

While Wikipedia has to surround amateur writers, even ignorant writers, with a powerful robotic program to instruct them in how to develop, write and edit an article. This Manual of Style is absolutely needed for the purpose of this gigantic Encyclopedia.

But I don't see a bona fide writer shooting for literary or history Prizes, or acceptance by top-rated magazines, submitting himself to the thousands of rules imposed by the Manual. In addition, there are no rewards, no money, no notoriety, and a lot of subsequent aggravations. Smart writers must likely avoid giving their time to Wikipedia.

In the long term, there's the risk that future generations of children will resort first to Wikipedia articles on any new idea, concept or enterprise, and will unconsciously absorb the implicit rules of Wikipedia English. Robotic language for robotic minds.

It is too bad that we don't have George Orwell and Raymond Chandler, or even Jacques Barzun and William Safire to observe and comment on the new type of English that will ineluctably be produced by all the new generations of children raised on Wikipedia English. Their minds will become controlled by Wikipedia's MOS. Reading great writers on the side will become even more imperative to maintain any originality, vitality and creativity to future English. David Crystal or Noam Chomsky may already have some thoughts about this. Will those future generations produce new Henry L. Mencken and Robert Ingersoll? The use of computers in shaping and editing written language is certainly going to have a tremendous impact on the structure of future English. And Wikipedia will bear a certain responsibility in this change.

This could provide the topic of a humorous magazine article on "The Joys and Drawbacks of Writing an Article for Wikipedia". --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A Contemporary Resurging Debate - "Jesus Historicists vs Historicity Deniers"
WWII put a stop to the public debate initially set off by Arthur Drews, until George Albert Wells (b. 1926), a professor of German at Un. of London, reignited it in the 70s with a series of books directly influenced by his readings of Bruno Bauer, Kalthoff and Drews in their original German. Here is a list of scholars involved in re-igniting the debate against Drews's Christ Myth theory:
 * Ian Wilson,  Jesus: The Evidence (London, 1984).
 * R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (London, 1986), a respectful but uneven indictment of the mythicism of G.A. Wells. This came out during a time of rising public interest in non-traditional research, with Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and the new Jesus Seminar underway.
 * Morton Smith, "The Historical Jesus" in Jesus in History and Myth (Amherst, 1986), edited by R.J. Hoffmann & G.A. Larue. Morton Smith concluded that the myth theory is “almost entirely an argument from silence".
 * Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford 1989). This is a part of the Oxford Bible series.
 * Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the Gospels (Grand Rapids, 2000), considered as the most current "refutation" in print of Arthur Drews's "Jesus Denial".
 * Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, Conference “Scripture and Skepticism” (Davis, CA. January 25-28, 2007), with the participation of Robert M. Price.
 * James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009), with “Jesus at the Vanishing Point” by Robert M. Price.
 * R. Joseph Hoffmann, editor, Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth (2010, Prometheus).
 * Center for Inquiry (CFI) Conference, Religion Under Examination (February 20, 2010)

Various conferences have been held in the US and Europe, notably by the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (2007), and theCenter for Inquiry CFI (2010), with authors like Robert M. Price making contributions. Major committees have been formed for communal examinations of the topics of historicity versus non-historicity, including: the famous Jesus Seminar, (started in 1985 by Robert Funk) as a project of the Westar Institute with twice-yearly meetings still going on, the Jesus Project (Dec. 2007-June 2009), the Jesus Process (May 2012), with the participation of well-known scholars, including R. Joseph Hoffmann.

With the spread of the Internet, the old debate that was raging 100 years ago has known a recrudescence. Both academic and independent scholars have ridden the new boom in the popular and scholarly interest in theological controversy with new publications, all aimed at discussing Arthur Drews's Christ Myth and its aftermath:


 * In Aug. 2011, Robert M. Price published The Christ Myth & Its Problems, setting off a new wave of textual inquiry detailing themidrash of Septuagint passages in the New Testament, directly dealing with the questions first asked by Arthur Drews in his Christ Myth (1909-12).
 * In March 2012, Bart D. Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, putting together all the arguments for the "case" of historicity of Jesus against the historicity deniers, a book extensively reviewed and criticized.
 * In April 2012, Richard Carrier published Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, emphasizing the impact of probabilities in historical judgments and conclusions, and the use of Bayes' Theorem for making explicit the probabilities used by historians to assume historicity.
 * In July 2012, Thomas Thompson and Thomas Verenna published Is This Not the Carpenter? - The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, a compendium of thirteen articles by members of the Copenhagen International Seminar, focusing, according to publisher Equinox, on "what has been lost through this wide-spread assumption of historicity [of Jesus]."
 * In August 2012, Maurice Casey, a world expert on Aramaic, takes the time to step out of his specialty and join the current vogue of refutations of historicity denial with a new book on the question of Jesus historicity. Jesus - Evidence and Argument, or Mythicist Myths?(Bloomsbury, London), trying, 100 years later, to answer Arthur Drews. With a striking face of Jesus on the cover. The argument will be likely based on Aramaic, that Casey reads and speaks. His dismissal of the Christ Myth could be summarized thus: "Drews? He wasn't even a competent Aramaist!"

R. Joseph Hoffmann, the arch-critic of Arthur Drews's Christ Myth
R. Joseph Hoffmann is a reputed historian of Early Christianity. Educated by Catholic nuns, he has been a sentimental defender of the Church and a vocal advocate of Jesus Historicity, and at the same time a standard-bearer in the forefront of the refutations against Arthur Drews's Non-Historicity. His contributions have been in books, conferences, committees, and his Internet blog, the New Oxonian.

His latest production has been "The Jesus Process: A Consultation on the Historical Jesus". In his basic current list of major refutations of the Christ Myth, he does not mention Albert Schweitzer's 2d edition of the Quest (1913, translated in 2001). Hoffmann has systematically used the New Oxonian for striking rhetorical flourishes to denounce Drews:

Hoffmann has announced a major book on the subject meant to be the master refutation of the Christ Myth in order to block the insidious increase of its popularity, and to safeguard the integrity of New Testament studies:

Many more are in the works by other scholars. The new wave of interest and publications is similar to that of a 100 years ago. It is a fair bet that every major publisher will want to have one book on his list dealing with Drews's The Christ Myth, that is the question of Jesus's historicity. The timing of my article on Arthur Drews couldn't be better justified. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Long Pages - List of 1,000 Longest Wikipedia Articles
See article Long Pages, with its list of the 1,000 longest articles in Wikipedia: This article is gaining a spot in the "500 longest articles" list. I would say around 400-450. Still a long way to the top. At least I have produced an article that has no equivalent on this subject anywhere else in the world.
 * No. 8 The article Character Mask is 48,900 words long (Marxist concept of disguised role)
 * No. 76 Jesus 35,000 words
 * No. 83 Larry Norman, 36,200 words (Christian Rock musician)
 * No. 209 Michael Jackson 23,000 words (musician)
 * No. 214 Solomon Burke, 31,800 words (soul musician)
 * No. 218 E. H. Carr, 33,300 words (British historian)
 * No. 234 Taylor Swift 23,000 words (b. 1989, country music star, 23 years old)
 * No. 276 Mark B. Cohen, 31,700 words (Pennsylvania politician)
 * No. 247 Nicolae Iorga, 28,800 words (Romanian scholar of Byzantine and Slavic culture)
 * No. 327 Ion Antonescu, 29,200 words (Romanian military man, wartime dictator)
 * No. 399 Mircea Eliade, 27,100 words (Historian of religion, Un. of Chicago)
 * No. 405 Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography, 22,300 words (writer)
 * No. 418 Whitney Houston, 21,000 words (music artist/singer)
 * No. 431 Lyndon LaRouche, 21,600 words (political activist)
 * No. 447 Mariah Carey, 21,400 words (folk singer)
 * No. 465 Joseph Smith, 26,400 words (founder of Mormon religion
 * My article Arthur Drews is only about 25,000 words, finalized completed on August 23, 2012

Ranking as of Aug. 23d, 2012: #327. Based on total KB, not number of readable words in the "Article" text itself.

This article compares with the Mircea Eliade article (27,100 words) both on historians of religion. It is fair to underline that Arthur Drews was much more significant in the history of ideas than the Chicago professor. The article on Drews can also be compared to the E. H. Carr article (33,300 words), with same comments. It can also be argued that Drews's contribution to world culture was much more significant than the popular singers honored with long articles in the above list: Mariah Carey (21,400 words), Whitney Houston (21,000 words), Taylor Swift (23,000 words), Solomon Burke (31,800 words), Michael Jackson (23,000 words), Larry Norman (36,200 words). Popular musicians command a disproportionate share of long articles. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A monumental amount of work
I simply didn't know what I was getting into when I started this article. The amount of work required by this article has been monumental. Not just the subject matter, that touches upon a huge variety of concepts, times, people, connections to so many facets of a troubled historical period of Germany, connections to the past, etc... Plus the problems of editing, applying the rules of the MOS, of Wiki-markup, the gigantic number of links, the pitfalls of disambiguation for so many abstract words, etc... I am afraid that I shall never undertake again a work of such scope and complexity for Wikipedia. I carried on only out of a sheer sense of responsibility, to finish what I had started. But I now understand why nobody else had been foolish enough to tackle this article. The rewards are not in there. I hope that Drews somewhere merged into his absolute Unconscious of the World Spirit has a chance to glance at this article and start relaxing, in the new reassurance that his work has not been completely forgotten nor obliterated.--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your hard work on this interesting article. The article is presently too long though, and needs to be split up. You wrote above that you've "finalized" the article: please note that articles on Wikipedia are never finished. The section "Drew's views on religion", for example, could be split to another article. You correctly noted above that there are other, longer biographical articles on Wikipedia. Many of those could also be trimmed or split: Larry Norman and Mariah Carey in particular are stuffed full of WP:Fancruft. Many of the sections here, for example, "Re-evaluation of Arthur Drews by Bernhard Hoffers — Ein Netter Kerl (A Good Guy)", consist mainly of unreferenced or under-referenced analysis: I suggest that we could start by paring those down, and removing WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. Lone boatman (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Part or all of some of the sections dealing with Christ myth theory, such as "The denial of the historicity of Jesus in past and present (1926)" could be merged to Christ myth theory. Drew's influence on or from various writers and works can be noted without going into so much detail about the writers and works themselves. Lone boatman (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've stopped by twice simply to remove stray markup text but I have read the entire article. Anything in this article that is not strictly biographical about this person but that strays off into all your other subheadings regarding his religious views and what transpired historically regarding that (such as those mentioned by lone boatman) should be merged or become other articles. I'm not revealing anything about who I am, but I am complex, intelligent and have many interests and beliefs. So please don't make assumptions beyond what I have typed here. What makes you assume lone boatman has no interest in his views on religion? Nothing that is stated gives an indication one way or another. Oh, and even though I removed text at the very top of the article, I scrolled all the way down to the end to save my edits. That alone should earn me credence. Regards,  Fylbecatulous  talk   17:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I know what you guys are all up to: you want to make me lose the hard-won ranking of No. 327 in the list of the 1,000 longest articles in Wikipedia. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Joking aside, you are correct, what I have done is only COMPLETE my version of the Arthur Drews article I prepared from my reading his works and his critics. R. Joseph Hoffmann is coming out with a thoroughgoing critique of Drews's Christ Myth (not the "Christ Myth Theory", in which Hoffmann has no interest whatsoever, as shown by his acerbic comments on that article.) Once again, the article is about the totality of Arthur Drews's life and activity, not about the Christ Myth alone. That's where the ambiguity and confusion lie with average readers, who see this article as competing with the Christ Myth Theory article. No competition. The Christ Myth developed organically in the context of Drews's life, and that is where it belongs.

The denial of the historicity of Jesus in past and present (1926) is the TITLE of a major book by Drews to answer the Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer. The section using that title is an analysis of that important book, inserted in its place in Drews's work and life. It is a history book, like Schweitzer's was, and certainly should stay with Arthur Drews and not be swallowed by the "Christ Myth Theory" article. It is really sad to see the major works of an important philosopher ignored and misunderstood, and removed from his biographical article. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to "Lone boatman" Concerning the Self-Sufficiency of this Arthur Drews Article
The "Lone boatman" sure likes to row a lonely boat. I am not sure if you have any real interest in Drews as a philosopher and religious activist. I am not naive, and have been around that block many times. I know what to expect from the readership.

Let's not begrudge the Long Pages
Thanks for the kind remarks. I suggest one can live happily without ever looking at this article. Everybody was well satisfied with the 5K version of it existing as of July 1, 2012, which was obviously satisfactory to all.

And why begrudge their adoring articles to the pop singers who justify 25,000 to 35,000 words? As Wikipedia recommends, let them be. They provide more pleasure and real happiness to millions of people than those dreary articles on Arthur Drews, the "Christ Myth theory", etc...There's room for all kinds to make an Encyclopedia world. Whom does it disturb if a sweet 23-year old singer like Taylor Swift rates an article as long as Arthur Drews, who threw down the gauntlet to the whole world of modern Christianity and threatened its very foundations? Nobody, there's room enough on those servers.

Why should we amputate the Drews article and overlook his driving motivation, religious activism?
Of course, it is tempting now to apply the mechanical rules of Wikipedia's Manual of Style and start amputating with alacrity this article any way a reader would prefer it. When Seth went after Osiris and dismembered him into 14 parts scattered all over the Egyptian desert and into the Nile, Isis, as a faithful spouse, went about collecting all the parts and reassembling her beloved Osiris. She found 13 pieces, but never was able to find the penis, so she confected a male member of wood, and rebuilt Osiris the best way she could. Osiris never came back to the beautiful desert but stayed for ever in the Underworld with his artificial penis.

I don't know how much you know of the German language, German history, and German philosophy. But Drews was essentially a German philosopher and a German religious activist, and his whole life was driven by the engine of his views on religion. He went after Christianity and Judaism only motivated by his views on religion, in which you seem to have no interest. By the way the name is Drews, not Drew. Ironically, the section "Drews's views on religion" is the brain of the article. Removing it would mean killing the article, killing Drews's life and Drews's contribution to German history. It would be like destroying Osiris's penis. Your suggestion is unthinkable and detrimental to the integrity of Drews's life.

The Christ Myth books were only one chapter in Drews's long and active life
There are too many readers who've only heard of the so-called "Christ Myth Theor

The Christ Myth books were only one chapter in Drews's long and active life
There are too many readers who've only heard of the so-called "Christ Myth Theory", and that is the only thing they are interested in. As you so pertinently observe, they could all go and flock to the Christ Myth Theory article, which is a confused and disorganized hodgepodge on all the suggestions that have poured in from readers who are not professional historians. They've already raided my article many times, which is fair. I gave them even more material to beef up and organize their article. I am happy to help them, but they have no interest in Drews himself, like you, and that is why their POV is totally opposed to mine, all focused on the objective reality of Drews as a living philosopher. He was of the generation of Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, Shirley Jackson Case, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, Maurice Goguel, etc...Wiliam B. Smith, J. M. Robertson, Thomas Whittaker, died practically the same year as he did.

Arthur Drews did not use this "Christ Myth Theory" phrase, he called his book the Christ Myth, and that is the phraseology used by professional historians. Conybeare, Goguel, Couchoud, Loisy, Guignebert all used historicity denial or non-historicity thesis. Using "Christ Myth Theory" is an argument with a POV, meaning that Drews's Christ Myth is also a myth. It appeals to the popular mind without graduate instruction in history or philosophy.

What you fail to appreciate is that the Arthur Drews article is NOT about the Christ Myth only. If that is any reader's interest, he should drop this article and run to Christ Myth Theory. This Arthur Drews article is a biography/philosophy/history article about the life, thoughts, and actions of the German philosopher Arthur Drews. The Christ Myth episode was just one chapter of his life. There were many more, including Eduard von Hartmann, Richard Wagner, Nietzsche, Adolf Hitler, Gnosticism, Monism, Peter and Paul, and more. And covering them all those angles was the goal of this article. Some first-class German scholars have already expressed their interest in this article, the first one in the world to cover all the facets of the man. True, many facets are of no interest to average readers, who only want the sensational bits. As said, the popular Christ Myth Theory article was designed for such popular tastes.

Bernhard Hoffers is the top German expert on Drews, proselytizing for his re-evaluation
In the same vein, the suggestion of dropping the vital final article on Bernhard Hoffers's evaluation is contrary to the historic re-evaluation of Drews presently taking place in Germany, and tangentially in English-language countries, especially the UK and the States. The assertion that the observations contained in the last section, #10, "Re-evaluation of Arthur Drews by Bernhard Hoffers — Ein Netter Kerl (A Good Guy)" simply "consist mainly of unreferenced or under-referenced analysis" is totally unfounded. I am not a popularizer, which is what most readers prefer. The section is an exact rendering in English of the German text of Bernhard Hoffers's epoch-making eulogy of 2003. Bernhard Hoffers is the most knowledgeable German expert on Drews. He is at the forefront of the actual movement in Germany to restore the legacy of Drews. He has been presented with my article. And so far, I have not received any corrections from him.

This Encyclopedia article is meant as a unique resource for research on all aspects of Drews's life
This article is not meant for average American readers, but it is a resource for anybody doing effective research on any aspect of his life. It is the only resource available world-wide online. German researchers can use it as well as French (they've come to my article to raid portions of it for their undernourished French article), Australians and British. The average American popular view is not the only one which can use this article. It is meant for researchers and graduate students, world-wide, not just America.

This article has already been raided, including by the team behind the "Christ Myth Theory" article
I was amused to see that the team of writers on the Christ Myth Theory article have come to raid many facts and lines, even my own phrasing from this Arthur Drews article. They will come to raid some more, I am certain. Their article is their toy, and they are at total liberty to organize their article the way they want it. They even have simple facts totally wrong. I have, moved by a generous spirit, pointed out to them a few glaring mistakes in their lead section, and made some suggestions in their TALK page. But I would never go beyond, nor correct anything, or touch their text, nor put my name to any editing there. It's their thing, their own popular POV on what their article is about. They do whatever they want. Nothing to do with Arthur Drews here. No professional historian in that team.

Drews conceived his Christ Myth as a thesis, not really as a hypothetical theory
Bruno Bauer/Albert Kalthoff/Arthur Drews/Paul-Louis Couchoud/George Albert Wells is the authentic line. All the rest is accretions from traffic and time, the work of compilers and adapters, and university critics. There are hundreds of them in the historicity/non-historicity business. Bruno Bauer, the founder, and Arthur Drews, the propagandist, were the real MacCoys, and the Christ Myth, the original form of the concept. The "Christ Myth theory" as a word, is a popular, journalistic jargon, as an abstract concept that has no existence anywhere. The reality of the World Spirit or the World Culture has been expressed in individual scholars and theologians. The Christ Myth became such a cultural reality with Arthur Drews. This is the thesis that top scholars have adapted for their versions of the Christ Myth (Smith, Robertson, Bolland, Van Manen, Couchoud, Wells, etc..).

The Arthur Drews article and the Christ Myth Theory are two different animals
The "Christ Myth Theory" looks vaguely like an artificial, abstract assemblage where are stuffed all kinds of bits and parcels, disregarding accretions and degradations of ideas, not unlike what has happened with the confusing concept of "mythicism", by the way. This is what is now presented on Wikipedia as the "Christ Myth Theory". As Wikipedia says, it is better to salvage the variety of approaches, abundance and redundancy rather than forcefully restrict it, cut, chop, dismantle, condense, or break down into little pieces of many new articles and sub-articles.

There's room for the "Christ Myth Theory" article and there's room for the historical approach based on a full Arthur Drews article, with its sections on the Christ Myth and Drews's followers and successors. The perspectives are different, and the articles only superficially related. There's room for both. A long, solid, meaty article is welcome as a research resource by researchers who cannot find anything else on the Web. Arthur Drews is a kind of article not meant to be read in one sitting. You select your sections, and that's it. You can always come back for more. To be honest, only professionals are seriously interested in Drews.

The Christ Myth is not a party, or a community. Every advocate proposes a different interpretation
Drews said it loud and clear: "The Jesus Denial" thesis is not a creed, a dogma, it is not a "party", not even a "community" of self-help and friendly support as some claim it should be. It is the fact of individual brains, all different and all developing their own understanding of the origins of the Christian movement. This is a point that Hoffmann has recently emphasized. Jesus non-historicity proponents do nuances,. They don't necessarily approve of all the variations proposed by other scholars, and are engaged in all kinds of petty internecine disputes. In fact, what would be needed, but it could be another gigantic piece of work, is to trace the origin and development of the use of the "Christ Myth Theory" phrase through the scholarly and popular literature and media. From a scholarly viewpoint, it is better to stick to the language used by the clear-thinking pioneer scholars, Denial of Historicity of Jesus, Jesus Non-Historicity Thesis, Ahistoricity, Non-Existence thesis, Did Jesus Exist? (George Albert Wells), Jesus Never Existed, Jesus Never Lived, etc..which all are English translations of the language used by the German school of Historical Criticism.
 * Drews and the pioneers of the Christ Myth didn't want to use the term "Christ Myth theory":

Average readers are mostly interested in the Christ Myth episode, while the whole article is addressed to students of German philosophy and history
It is becoming clearer, as if it was not already so, that average American readers are only interested in the sensational "Christ Myth Theory" bits in Arthur Drews, and have no serious interest whatsoever in the rest of his real life, his real work, his real activity, and his real place in the history of Germany and German philosophy. Why should they after all, unless they have some external obligation to do so. This is par for the course. I expected no less, and this is why I have done the research for this article not for the average reader, but for the specialist and interested historian. I was trying to be more in line with the spirit of the Encyclopedia Britannica 11th edition, or that of the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Both were produced without any MOS.

Most average readers should simply ignore this article (Das Ignorieren), as they have done so happily until now, and find all their fun with the "Christ Myth Theory" article, which is after all, the only thing they are looking for and excited about. In the same fashion, there are tons of Wikipedia articles I have no interest in, and I am happy to let them be. Perhaps we could have a quick look at the wisdom expressed by many editors in the essay Abundance and redundancy.

Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy
Abundance and Redundancy is dealing with similar material being shared among separate articles, and debates over the removal of said materials on the basis of context: It is a preferred solution that material be included rather than excluded to resolve an edit war. In many cases, edit wars are based on a premise, that: "such material doesn't belong here, because it belongs in another article". Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.

Size and ease-of-reading issue
Since most articles are very small (under 10k) there is no bandwidth need to exclude material on the basis of its redundancy across articles. Ease of reading is facilitated by the inclusion of relevant material, rather than disinclusion. If we weren't redundant, general articles would be chopped up into tiny little bits – each of which would link to specialized articles that you had to piece together.

Solution to NPOV disputes
More often this situation involves a disagreement about the validity of facts and/or their sources. Or, often, it's about the inclusion of points of view that differ. These tend to be examples of where materials that contradict the material already present in the article are contested. It's a reflex tendency of someone attached to a topic to want to exclude facts that seemingly contradict other facts in the article. It is often a flaw of human nature to want to simplify contentious topics by merely excluding points of view that disagree with it. This in fact, is the reason for the NPOV policy. Even in these cases, Abundance and redundancy as a rule of thumb can lead to a solution.

A hypothetical example
"The 'Geminye Cult' article: The Geminye Cult claim to have recently produced a working model of cold fusion. 'User:JoeX1000' adds this claim to the article, under the lead, as a claim. A anonymous Geminye Cult member, however, '555.454.x.x', has removed this information to the 'ColdFuzers' article; about a subsidiary company of Geminye. A small 'revision-war' erupts over the inclusion of this material..." This represents a common scenario: In these cases, an enormous amount of time and energy is wasted on the exclusion of something, as opposed to simply including it. "555", claims that this would be" redundant", but he is incorrect – "redundancy" only detracts if it's on the same article. As a rule; if the material is factual, and if it's not entirely irrelevant to the topic, it should not be excluded.

Editing is just as much about exclusion, as inclusion
"555" wanted the facts to be handled in a discorporate way: to isolate elements that are controversial: So that if they eventually are found to be false, can be disassociated from the "Geminye cult". Although it doesn't seem to be logical to worry about a Wikipedia article, people do battle over history and the way it is written all the time.

In a completely different context, this is the basic idea behind Enronomics; the moving of accounting deficits from the main company to subsidiaries in order to make it appear as if there are no conflicts. All particulars aside, this type of confusion of issues is a form of fraud.

Some Additional Comments
The statement in the Wikipedia essay, "It is often a flaw of human nature...", could be debated, of course, because it is "focusing" that allows us to grasp concepts and facts. It is a "flaw" of the brain's function, but it is also its main tool. Hegel saw it much more clearly: A thesis because it delineates, also keeps out and rejects what's outside of its scope and field, creating an antithesis, hence conflicts, contradictions and... "edit wars" on Wikipedia.

One meaningful possible split: The history of the Christ Myth genesis from Bauer to Drews
One meaningful split I am seriously now considering is creating a sub-article for the section on "Origins of the Christ Myth thesis: from Hegel, Feuerbach, Bauer, and Marx to Drews". Hegel was of course at the source of all the major 19th-century intellectual developments. This was the era of the discovery of History as a divine principle of motion and progress. It is an exciting story of the tremendous difficulties Bruno Bauer encountered to publicize his scholarly conclusions that Jesus never existed, but was a construct from Antiquity. This story adds a lot of life and color to the article, but it could make a good sub-article, without enervating the main article.

Splitting or condensing for its own sake is detrimental to the integrity of an article
The Wikipedia essay does make the point that length per se is no argument for knee-jerk splitting and reducing. Of course, any article can be reduced and condensed. Cliffsnotes do it nicely. The old Reader's Digest built its magazine empire on doing it with any book, any publication. But for a solid Wikipedia article, it is the integrity of the article and the encyclopedic value of the info for the world-wide readership, lay and expert alike, that count. Mechanical rules have to be tempered by a judicious thoughtful understanding of the subject matter.

Hoffmann unsatisfied with Bart D. Ehrman's book, Did Jesus Exist?
I know that R. Joseph Hoffmann, a top NT historian in the States, is preparing a new book, to remedy what he deems is a deficient presentation of the claims of Jesus historicity by Bart D. Ehrman in his famous book Did Jesus Exist?. (A title copied from many previous books, including G. A. Wells, but Ehrman is excused, because there are not that many title variations imaginable on the same theme, and all of them have already been staked out in thousands of publications. So better select the most meaningful one available and stick with it.)

Hoffmann focused on taking on Arthur Drews
Hoffmann is going to center his polemic against Drews, of all Jesus deniers. The other Christ Myth advocates are worth knowing, but they are not essential. Drews is the cornerstone and "the creator of the flashpoints" of the Jesus Non-Historicity thesis. Hoffmann does not think much of the contemporary products anyway, (calling most of them, amusingly, "rabble"), although I suspect he still respects Robert M. Price's honesty and scholarship. Hoffmann has been ironizing about the poor quality of the "Christ Myth Theory" article. I have found it essential to keep this article Arthur Drews strictly separate in its own right, preserving its scholarly integrity, squarely focused on Drews, and undiluted by whatever happens in the Christ Myth Theory article. This article on Arthur Drews has to respect Drews's totality, and stay in the same sphere of high-level scholarship that Drews was accustomed to. Hoffmann can sniff up at once any lack of true scholarship, any egregious mistake or nonsense, which usually wins his unmitigated distrust. I am curious to see if this Arthur Drews article shall escape his biting barbs.

Hoffmann, the super-scholar in NT History
Hoffmann likes to present himself as the super-scholar. He is entitled, being one of the world's experts in this field. Hoffmann's interventions are always of the highest interest, especially to all the specialists in the Jesus historicity debate, and in the history of religion, because of his serious erudition, his inexhaustible sense of wit, and beautiful command of the English language (his years at Oxford did pay off.) He is always first-class entertainment in a rather tedious and drab field, and always a source of invaluable insights and hints, even if always with a strong POV.

Hoffmann can now have at his disposal a complete review of Drews's life, thoughts and actions, with all the quotations immediately ready at hand. Hoffmann is deeply immersed in a very interesting kind of "love/hate" relationship with Drews's Christ Myth, but that would be the subject of a thorough article on R. Joseph Hoffmann, for which the timing is not yet right. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Raven
`Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!' I shrieked upstarting - `Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore! Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken! Leave my loneliness unbroken! - quit the bust above my door! Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!' Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'


 * Edgar Allan Poe, "The Raven" (1845)

--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)