User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2010/July/3

Addition to the Supreme Court page
I've reverted your renewed addition about religion on the Supreme Court of the United States page; there is already an extensive section on the subject at Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, and there were, again, several problematic sections with your proposed addition: no reliable source for the assertion that Kagan considers herself a Conservative Jew, There is a rather weasely "some are asking...", the comment about the "Catholic seat" is incorrect (see the Demographics article for some comments on that; the not-really-observed tradition dates from before Brandeis's appointment), and no citation for the entire comment on Catholic and Jewish seats (ignoring the fact that the Court had no Jewish members from Abe Fortas's resignation until Ruth Bader Ginsburg's appointment). Magidin (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your complete reversion is offensive and inappropriate. While you may not think this is an important issue, there are others who do. Just do a search on Google and you will see a host of articles on the subject on very reputable sites. You are certainly entitled to put "CN" flags where needed, and to add some of your dissenting observations with appropriate citations. It is inappropriate for you to flagrantly revert the entire topic on the basis that you consider the additions as "problematic." That's why we "fix" each others' work when we can in a cooperative fashion, not a my-way-or-the-highway approach that you are taking. It's obvious that you are well informed on the subject. Please use that knowledge to improve the section, not obliterate it. Thank you. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you check the article that already addresses these issues? Note that it is not up to the reader to do a google search in order to find reliable sources, it is up to an editor who wants to include information to include those reliable sources. As for discussions, you might want to check out the talk page of the article, in which it was discussed when you first attempted to include the information. The information is not "obliterated", the information is in the appropriate article, namely the article on demographics of the Supreme Court.
 * Let me also correct you on something else: I am not entitled to add my dissenting observations. Editors are not supposed to put in their observations or their biases. That's why additions need to be reliably sourced, and why weasel words like "others think it is important", and most especially "some are asking", are inappropriate. I might also suggest that you use some of the templates to provide citation, such as cite web and cite news. Your citations right now are pretty lousy; your link to Politics Daily does not link to the post/article you claim to be citing, and the date is wildly incorrect; the article in question was published May 10th, not July 7th. The proper link is http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/10/no-protestants-a-new-order-in-the-supreme-court/ Certainly, a single source hardly qualifies for such a poor opening as "Some are asking..." (used twice'!) But I'll leave it alone, so you can see that it is not me alone who thinks this is a poor addition. Magidin (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Redemption & resurrection
Hi, no worries, my message was about Resurrection of Jesus, and I already fixed it all and in the process wrote Resurrection of Jesus in Christian art, which taught me something interesting:


 * In the wreathed Chi Rho the death and resurrection of Christ are shown as inseparable, and the Resurrection is not merely a happy ending tucked at the end of the life of Christ on earth. Given the use of similar symbols on the Roman standard, this depiction also conveyed another victory, namely that of the Christian faith: the Roman soldiers who had once arrested Jesus and marched him to Calvary now walked under the banner of a resurrected. Christ. ref=The passion in art by Richard Harries 2004 ISBN 0754650111 page 8

I thought the irony was nice. By the way, what are good/easy remedies for Wikihounding? I am getting Wikihounded by some new editor, and I do not want to start a big fight, as discussed in mentoring here. Any ideas? She just keeps tagging articles I have written. Anyway, Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)