User talk:Arnoutf/Archives/2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Bosonic Dressing
Dear Arnoutf, if you check the history on the talk page for EU, you will see that I originally placed Bosonic Dressing's comments underneath my own, not wanting to delete them. I also told Bosonic Dressing that he/she may quote from me, inserting their comments. I think I have behaved reasonably.The Spoorne (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My comments were placed as needed, at my discretion and in accordance with Wikiquette. This horse is dead.  You do not move or delete my comments at your discretion, the latter of which is disruption and vandalism.  If you attempt to do so any more, I will escalate administratively.  (Sorry, Arnoutf.)  Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Arnoutf! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Nico Frijda -

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

BGillespie edits
Hello, I don't know who you are, and I'm new on Wiki, so I don't know the ropes yet.

I am the author of Machiavelli and The Mayflower: published in 2009. Establishing links and references to Wikify the homepage; this follows a request from Wikipedia to do so. This book has a very wide span of reference covering European culture and history as both impact upon today's behaviour; the conclusions extend also to North Americans. Please check the book itself prior to any removal of links. All of the links I have establishe are perfectly justified. Thank you, Bgillesp


 * See response on your own talk. Also please sign posts with four tildes and add new posts to the bottom of the page. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking me to do. The publisher has asked me to put the book on Wiki and the request has been confirmed by numerous readers; the approach to understanding European thought is original; the grid containing the Republican; Monarchical; Reformist; Romanist "jargon" possibly needs better explanation with the grid itself appearing on the page along with a Wiki index. It meets point 3 and 4 on the guidelines because it approaches today's Europe both from a religious and a political viewpoint; it is set coursework at Sussex University and at INSEAD, with Oxford, Cambridge and Princeton professors considering it. Both Hofstede's and Trompenaars's work is built on by the book and completes their own work. Are you working in Cultural Geography? I will read through the instructions and clean up the article, in the hope that this meets your requirements; the book can be leafed through as it is on Google Inside the Book programme. Kind wishes, bgillesp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Euhm that your publisher asks you to post stuff on Wikipedia seems a conflict of interest. Arnoutf (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the page and some comments are coming in from others; I have added some graphics. I hope this is better. I have moved your request to remove the page to the bottom but have left it in as required by the guidelines. Concerning you objections, I have some of my own:

1 The request to add links as I said came from someone Wikipedia, not come from me; I followed the instructions and placed links to all relevant material I could find concerning European culture as it relates to religion and to politics; that is a wide area; 2 I don’t know what “orphaned” means, but this was not relevant to implementing what appeared to be an instruction; I am also unaware of the maximum number of links you expect to a topic: what is the number? 3 The fact that this is new work and that others say that it is influential and original material does indeed mean that it deserves an article in Wikipedia; this is open media and yours is no more or no less of an opinion than that of others, and for the moment you are in the minority; 4 The novelty and the complexity of the work means that I, as the writer, am indeed the best qualified to launch the article to ensure that the base correctly reflects the work; as time goes on, it will be added to by others; 5 You have not read the book and until you do so are unqualified to talk about it; you do not know how the content relates to the work of Hofstede or of Trompenaars, so your opinions on my use of the word “complete” are both gratuitous and personal opinion; my opinion and that of others is that it does in fact complete their work and there is statistical analysis in the book to prove this; 6 The article seeks not to promote the book, but to illuminate thinking on European cultural typology and the ideas are totally new and dissociable from the name of the book; 7 I am not sure what power you hold over the future of this article, but I assume you mean it in your home page when you say in you are in good faith; you are forcing me to go to the dispute resolution procedure if you insist on destroying this work. --Bgillesp (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)BGILLESP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgillesp (talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC) --Bgillesp (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp--Bgillesp (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your problem; besides placing commments on top of my talk repeatedly against my explicit and polite request not to?
 * You are ranting about alleged actions by me, yet I have not done anything but removing your book from a number of pages where it is not clear it has been influential (yet). That maybe because the book is new, but still, not influential yet.
 * Notability, it is up to you to make sure the article text reflects notability, it did not, so I could not determine notability.
 * Without you having any knowledge of the relevant procedures there is no use continuing this. E.g. you might want to check Dispute resolution first so you know what you are doing. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Rijksmonuments
Hi, re your tagging of the article as incomplete - the lede clearly states that the list is for those Rijksmonuments which have articles on Wikipedia. All such articles where it is verified that the building is a Rijksmonument are included in the list. I suspect that there are many more buildings which have articles and are Rijksmonuments, but the article does not state that fact. You mention the Dom Tower. The article does not state that it is a Rijksmonument. The list is dominated by windmills because I've been creating articles on surviving Dutch windmills, and adding those that are listed as Rijksmonuments to the list. This has been aided by the fact that the De Hollandsche Molen website gives the RM number on each webpage for a windmill where the mill is listed. The solution is to source the fact that a builing is listed, add that fact to the article, add the article to the Category:Rijksmonuments and then add to the list. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Best this is discussed on the talk page of the list. I'll copy much of the text over for convenience. Mjroots (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rijksmonument template
Yes, it's a good idea. Go ahead and create the template. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I respect your advice, but I do not support Unilever
I respect your advice, but please do not tell me to hide the truth about Unilever. This is a big Multinational CHEAT. Do you understand? Don't you know about these companies? The world was far better off without these big moneymaking companies. You're Dutch, but I am sorry, I had to speak the truth. Here come the four tildes. Mayurvg (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your, or indeed my, opinion does not really matter. We should give a balanced and objective overview of the facts (for what it's worth, I am a bit sceptical about multinationals myself, but as a scientist (and Wikipedia editor) my opinion/feeling must take second place after verifiable facts). Arnoutf (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fungus the Bogeyman
Could you tell me why this apparently good-faith attempt to add proper citations is vandalism? Thanks. Rodhull andemu  18:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shit happens, as they say. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fethullah Gulen biuography
Your Removing text from Fethullah Gulen's talkpage IS vandalism. Stop it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.83 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As explained in the edit summary, the text has not been removed, but archived. Three weeks ago already. Arnoutf (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

67.201.93.20
I've got my eye on this IP, but it isn't in the same state as any previous IP that has been identified as Philscirel. For now, you should assume that it is a separate editor.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IT COULD ALL BE LIES
... er, well. actually. It could be! I'm referring to this edit that you reverted. The editor doesn't gain any credit for style— but he has a point of sorts: The entire section is full of uncited statements of fact. It could all be lies. The section links to another article which is more or less entirely unsourced. Rather than vandalism our anonymous contributor may have found some of the statements in the section dubious and recognized the lack of supporting evidence, but without an in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia procedures he was unable to effectively communicate about the article's shortcoming. Or maybe it really was just vandalism... in either case, I think converting that kind of poorly stated complaint into the appropriate meta-tag is the best action if the complaint looks at all reasonable. It also avoids offending someone who was simply trying to help in the chance that it wasn't vandalism. Cheers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, looked bit vandally to me because of phrasing; which has not place in the article, but your point is well taken. Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Emotion-footer
Hello, I think you might be interested in my recent edits to Template:Emotion-footer, along with the note I posted on the talk page. Btw, the first thing that caught my eye was the "OR" tag you added, which I moved to a slightly different (and I think better) location. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I noticed and I think this is an improvement. Not that hidden messages have ever stopped editors before, at least not frequently but it can do no harm. Arnoutf (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Alitalia
Hi! I noticed that back in May 2009 you downgraded the article Alitalia to a start-class status. Owing to recent improvments, I think it may be worth reconsidering this judgement. The same argument could be valid for the article Air One Smart Carrier. Thanks!85.27.110.254 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Newspapers
Hi Arnoutf,

Thanks for your support on this issue. If the user reverts your edit once more, I will try to get some editorial assistance. In the mean time, the Peace of Westphalia and Peace of Münster do relate to the Dutch Republic and the Holy Roman Empire (in the Peace of Munster totaly incorrectly stated that this was the treaty that the DR gained its independence from the Roman Empire, which stood there for years and I have changed). I've been reading a lot on this, and the line is tricky, there is still a link with the Holy Empire, but I base myself mainly on Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 and text from the German Wiki, which states: "Die habsburgischen Niederlande, die etwa das Gebiet des heutigen Belgien und der Niederlande umfassten, wurden durch den Burgundischen Vertrag von 1548 zu einem Gebiet mit verringerter Reichspräsenz gemacht, beispielsweise aus der Gerichtshoheit des Reiches entlassen, was aber keine endgültige Entlassung aus dem Reichsverband bedeutete." I have not yet figured out how to change the peace of westphalia part to satisfaction... maybe better to leave that as it is, although it does send a confusing message Joost 99 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The Holy Roman Empire collapsed de facto around 1250, and had no power after about 1550. The rest was just a formality (although it lingered on for a few centuries). Arnoutf (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Emotion

 * Yeah, I agree that I've been a bit shaky in trying to define emotion. Thanks for the encouragement though. Wolfdog (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Christ Myth Theory
Here's a list showing the almost universal rejection of the CMT.

---


 * [T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.
 * G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218


 * It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed.
 * G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986) p. 27


 * "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain"
 * Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179


 * "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' [to engage the Christ myth theory seriously]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."
 * Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?


 * Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
 * Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii


 * In the last analysis, the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence.  Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question.  For me to adopt such a pretence would be sheer intellectual dishonesty.  I know I must, as an honest man, reckon with Jesus as a factor in history... This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence.
 * Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) pp. xxxiii & 54


 * The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence... The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question.
 * Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77 & 269


 * If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.
 * W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", George Mason University's History News Network, 2004


 * [The non-Christian references to Jesus from the first two centuries] render highly implausible any farfetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be the part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score.
 * Christopher M. Tuckett, "Sources and Methods" in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (London: Cambridge University Press, 2001) p. 124


 * [A]n attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by G. A. Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins of Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better. For of course the evidence is not confined to Tacitus; there are the New Testament documents themselves, nearly all of which must be dated in the first century, and behind which there lies a period of transmission of the story of Jesus which can be traced backwards to a date not far from that when Jesus is supposed to have lived. To explain the rise of this tradition without the hypothesis of Jesus is impossible.
 * I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (rev. ed.) (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004) pp. 15–16


 * A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese.
 * N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48


 * A school of thought popular with cranks on the Internet holds that Jesus didn’t actually exist.
 * Tom Breen, The Messiah Formerly Known as Jesus: Dispatches from the Intersection of Christianity and Pop Culture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) p. 138


 * I feel that I ought almost to apologize to my readers for investigating at such length the hypothesis of a pre-Christian Jesus, son of a mythical Mary, and for exhibiting over so many pages its fantastic, baseless, and absurd character... We must [, according to Christ myth advocates,] perforce suppose that the Gospels were a covert tribute to the worth and value of Pagan mythology and religious dramas, to pagan art and statuary. If we adopt the mythico-symbolical method, they can have been nothing else. Its sponsors might surely condescend to explain the alchemy by which the ascertained rites and beliefs of early Christians were distilled from these antecedents. The effect and the cause are so entirely disparate, so devoid of any organic connection, that we would fain see the evolution worked out a little more clearly. At one end of it we have a hurly-burly of pagan myths, at the other an army of Christian apologists inveighing against everything pagan and martyred for doing so, all within a space of sixty or seventy years. I only hope the orthodox will be gratified to learn that their Scriptures are a thousandfold more wonderful and unique than they appeared to be when they were merely inspired by the Holy Spirit. For verbal inspiration is not, as regards its miraculous quality, in the same field with mythico-symbolism. Verily we have discovered a new literary genus, unexampled in the history of mankind, you rake together a thousand irrelevant thrums of mythology, picked up at random from every age, race, and clime; you get a "Christist" to throw them into a sack and shake them up; you open it, and out come the Gospels. In all the annals of the Bacon-Shakespeareans we have seen nothing like it.
 * Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare,The Historical Christ, or an Investigation of the Views of J. M. Robertson, A. Drews and W. B. Smith (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2009/1914) pp. 42 & 95


 * Today only an eccentric would claim that Jesus never existed.
 * Leander Keck, Who Is Jesus?: History in Perfect Tense (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2000) p. 13


 * While The Christ Myth alarmed many who were innocent of learning, it evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment, who were confident that Jesus had existed... The Christ-myth theory, then, won little support from the historical specialists. In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin. The importance of the theory lay, not in its persuasiveness to the historians (since it had none), but in the fact that it invited theologians to renewed reflection on the questions of faith and history.
 * Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) pp. 231 & 233


 * It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed...it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus...
 * Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2 (2nd ed.) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) pp. 80 & 166


 * We do not need to take seriously those writers who occasionally claim that Jesus never existed at all, for we have clear evidence to the contrary from a number of Jewish, Latin, and Islamic sources.
 * John Drane, "Introduction", in John Drane, The Great Sayings of Jesus: Proverbs, Parables and Prayers (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 1999) p. 23


 * By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.
 * Rudolf Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels", Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research, Rudolf Bultmann & Karl Kundsin; translated by Frederick C. Grant (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962) p. 62


 * Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.
 * Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner, 1958) p. introduction


 * It is the nature of historical work that we are always involved in probability judgments. Granted, some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed and really was crucified, just as Julius Caeser really existed and was assassinated.
 * Marcus Borg, "A Vision of the Christian Life", The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, Marcus Borg & N. T. Wright (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2007) p. 236


 * To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.
 * Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200


 * I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest.
 * N. T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", in Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Vargese, There is a God (New York: HarperOne, 2007) p. 188


 * Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.
 * Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) p. 121


 * The historical reality both of Buddha and of Christ has sometimes been doubted or denied. It would be just as reasonable to question the historical existence of Alexander the Great and Charlemagne on account of the legends which have gathered round them... The attempt to explain history without the influence of great men may flatter the vanity of the vulgar, but it will find no favour with the philosophic historian.
 * James Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 7 (3rd ed.) (London: Macmillan, 1919) p. 311


 * We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced), that he was a Jewish teacher in Galilee, and that he was crucified by the Roman government around 30 CE.
 * Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 1999) p. 38


 * [T]here is substantial evidence that a person by the name of Jesus once existed.
 * Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997) p. 33


 * Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel.
 * Will Durant, Christ and Caesar, The Story of Civilization, 3 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972) p. 557


 * There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity.
 * E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane, 1993) p. 10


 * There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.
 * Richard A. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) p. 34


 * Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.
 * Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) pp. 14 & 16


 * No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.
 * James H. Charlesworth, "Preface", in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) pp. xxi–xxv


 * [Robert] Price thinks the evidence is so weak for the historical Jesus that we cannot know anything certain or meaningful about him. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Is the evidence of Jesus really that thin? Virtually no scholar trained in history will agree with Price's negative conclusions... In my view Price's work in the gospels is overpowered by a philosophical mindset that is at odds with historical research—of any kind... What we see in Price is what we have seen before: a flight from fundamentalism.
 * Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) p. 25


 * The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church.
 * Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8


 * There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century.
 * Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009


 * I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.
 * Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008


 * What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.
 * Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007


 * Richard [Carrier] takes the extremist position that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, that there was no such person in history. This is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship.
 * William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", debate with Richard Carrier, 2009


 * The alternative thesis... that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him.
 * James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985) p. 29


 * This is always the fatal flaw of the 'Jesus myth' thesis: the improbability of the total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galilee. [Robert] Price is content with the explanation that it all began 'with a more or less vague savior myth.' Sad, really.
 * James D. G. Dunn, "Response to Robert M. Price", in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009) p. 98


 * Since the Enlightenment, the Gospel stories about the life of Jesus have been in doubt. Intellectuals then as now asked: 'What makes the stories of the New Testament any more historically probable than Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales?' The critics can be answered satisfactorily...For all the rigor of the standard it sets, the criterion [of embarrassment] demonstrates that Jesus existed.
 * Alan F. Segal, "Believe Only the Embarrassing", Slate, 2005


 * Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.
 * F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (6th ed.) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) p. 123


 * Jesus is in no danger of suffering Catherine [of Alexandria]'s fate as an unhistorical myth...
 * Dale Allison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) p. 37


 * An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis.
 * Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, translated by John Bowden et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) pp. 435–436


 * In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
 * Paul L. Maier, "Did Jesus Really Exist?", 4Truth.net, 2007


 * The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. On such logic, history is no longer possible. It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus. I know not one. His birth, life, and death in first-century Palestine have never been subject to serious question and, in all likelihood, never will be among those who are experts in the field. The existence of Jesus is a given.
 * Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) p. 32


 * While we do not have the fullness of biographical detail and the wealth of firsthand accounts that are available for recent public figures, such as Winston Churchill or Mother Teresa, we nonetheless have much more data on Jesus than we do for such ancient figures as Alexander the Great... Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message... Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio.
 * Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) pp. 8 & 23–24


 * You know that you can try to minimize your biases, but you can't eliminate them. That's why you have to put certain checks and balances in place… Under this approach, we only consider facts that meet two criteria. First, there must be very strong historical evidence supporting them. And secondly, the evidence must be so strong that the vast majority of today's scholars on the subject—including skeptical ones—accept these as historical facts. You're never going to get everyone to agree. There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they're on the fringe.
 * Michael R. Licona, in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) p. 112


 * If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption. I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.
 * John Dominic Crossan, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, 2000


 * A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.
 * Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) p. 168


 * When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, 'Do you really believe that?' Act as though you've just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator.
 * William Lane Craig, "Question 90: Jesus and Pagan Mythology", Reasonable Faith, 2009


 * Finley: There are some people in the chat room disagreeing, of course, but they’re saying that there really isn’t any hardcore evidence, though, that… I mean… but there isn’t any… any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist except what people were saying about him. But… Ehrman: I think… I disagree with that. Finley: Really? Ehrman: I mean, what hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed? Finley: Well, this is… this is the same kind of argument that apologists use, by the way, for the existence of Jesus, by the way. They like to say the same thing you said just then about, well, what kind of evidence do you have for Jul… Ehrman: Well, I mean, it’s… but it’s just a typical… it’s just… It’s a historical point; I mean, how do you establish the historical existence of an individual from the past? Finley: I guess… I guess it depends on the claims… Right, it depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence on society... Ehrman: It’s not just the claims. There are… One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust?
 * Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008


 * The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. For some it's simply too horrific to affirm. For others it's an elaborate conspiracy to coerce religious sympathy. But the deniers live in a historical dreamworld.
 * John Piper, Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006) pp. 14-15


 * I just finished reading, The Historical Jesus: Five Views. The first view was given by Robert Price, a leading Jesus myth proponent… The title of Price’s chapter is 'Jesus at the Vanishing Point.' I am convinced that if Price's total skepticism were applied fairly and consistently to other figures in ancient history (Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, Cleopatra, Nero, etc.), they would all be reduced to 'the vanishing point.' Price's chapter is a perfect example of how someone can always, always find excuses to not believe something they don't want to believe, whether that be the existence of Jesus or the existence of the holocaust.
 * Dennis Ingolfsland, "Five views of the historical Jesus", The Recliner Commentaries, 2009


 * The Jesus mythers will continue to advance their thesis and complain of being kept outside of the arena of serious academic discussion. They carry their signs, 'Jesus Never Existed!' 'They won’t listen to me!' and label those inside the arena as 'Anti-Intellectuals,' 'Fundamentalists,' 'Misguided Liberals,' and 'Flat-Earthers.' Doherty & Associates are baffled that all but a few naïve onlookers pass them by quickly, wagging their heads and rolling their eyes. They never see that they have a fellow picketer less than a hundred yards away, a distinguished looking man from Iran. He too is frustrated and carries a sign that says 'The Holocaust Never Happened!'
 * Michael R. Licona, "Licona Replies to Doherty's Rebuttal", Answering Infidels, 2005


 * Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming.
 * Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008


 * An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth.
 * Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002) p. 164


 * An extreme view along these lines is one which denies even the historical existence of Jesus Christ—a view which, one must admit, has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare.
 * Edwyn Robert Bevan, Hellenism And Christianity (2nd ed.) (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1930) p. 256


 * When all the evidence brought against Jesus' historicity is surveyed it is not found to contain any elements of strength.
 * Shirley Jackson Case, "The Historicity of Jesus: An Estimate of the Negative Argument", The American Journal of Theology, 1911, 15 (1)


 * It would be easy to show how much there enters of the conjectural, of superficial resemblances, of debatable interpretation into the systems of the Drews, the Robertsons, the W. B. Smiths, the Couchouds, or the Stahls... The historical reality of the personality of Jesus alone enables us to understand the birth and development of Christianity, which otherwise would remain an enigma, and in the proper sense of the word, a miracle.
 * Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1926) pp. 30 & 244


 * Anyone who talks about "reasonable faith" must say what he thinks about Jesus. And that would still be so even if, with one or two cranks, he believed that He never existed.
 * John W. C. Wand, The Old Faith and the New Age‎ (London: Skeffington & Son, 1933) p. 31


 * That both in the case of the Christians, and in the case of those who worshipped Zagreus or Osiris or Attis, the Divine Being was believed to have died and returned to life, would be a depreciation of Christianity only if it could be shown that the Christian belief was derived from the pagan one. But that can be supposed only by cranks for whom historical evidence is nothing.
 * Edwyn R. Bevan, in Thomas Samuel Kepler, Contemporary Thinking about Paul: An Anthology (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950) p. 44


 * The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position.
 * Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) p. 9


 * Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably* started the process that became Christianity…
 * UNQUESTIONABLY: The proposition has been questioned, but the alternative explanations proposed—the theories of the “Christ myth school,” etc.—have been thoroughly discredited.
 * Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) pp. 5 & 166


 * One category of mythicists, like young-earth creationists, have no hesitation about offering their own explanation of who made up Christianity... Other mythicists, perhaps because they are aware that such a scenario makes little historical sense and yet have nothing better to offer in its place, resemble proponents of Intelligent Design who will say "the evidence points to this organism having been designed by an intelligence" and then insist that it would be inappropriate to discuss further who the designer might be or anything else other than the mere "fact" of design itself. They claim that the story of Jesus was invented, but do not ask the obvious historical questions of "when, where, and by whom" even though the stories are set in the authors' recent past and not in time immemorial, in which cases such questions obviously become meaningless... Thus far, I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism."
 * James F. McGrath, "Intelligently-Designed Narratives: Mythicism as History-Stopper", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010


 * In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime. Even if we assume for a moment that the accounts of non-biblical authors who mention him - Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others - had not survived, the outstanding quality of the Gospels, Paul's letters and other New Testament writings is more than good enough for the historian.
 * Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? (Oxford: Lion, 2005) p. 23


 * To describe Jesus' non-existence as "not widely supported" is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, "It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened." There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method.
 * John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23.


 * When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories [i.e. the Christ myth theory] he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels.
 * Morton Smith, in R. Joseph Hoffman, Jesus in History and Myth (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1986) p. 48


 * Of course, there can be no toleration whatever of the idea that Jesus never existed and is only a concoction from these pagan stories about a god who was slain and rose again.
 * Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: Menorah, 1943) p. 107


 * Virtually all biblical scholars acknowledge that there is enough information from ancient non-Christian sources to give the lie to the myth (still, however, widely believed in popular circles and by some scholars in other fields--see esp. G. A. Wells) which claims that Jesus never existed.
 * Craig L. Blomberg, "Gospels (Historical Reliability)", in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight & I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992) p. 292


 * In the 1910's a few scholars did argue that Jesus never existed and was simply the figment of speculative imagination. This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today.
 * Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎ (New York: Ktav, 1974) p. 196


 * Dr. Wells was there [I.e. a symposium at the University of Michigan] and he presened his radical thesis that maybe Jesus never existed. Virtually nobody holds this position today. It was reported that Dr. Morton Smith of Columbia University, even though he is a skeptic himself, responded that Dr. Wells's view was "absurd".
 * Gary Habermas, in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1989) p. 45


 * I.e. if we leave out of account the Christ-myth theories, which are hardly to be reckoned as within the range of serious criticism.
 * Alexander Roper Vidler, The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) p. 253


 * Such Christ-myth theories are not now advanced by serious opponents of Christianity—they have long been exploded ..."
 * Gilbert Cope, Symbolism in the Bible and the Church (London: SCM, 1959) p. 14


 * In the early years of this century, various theses were propounded which all assert that Jesus never lived, and that the story of Jesus is a myth or legend. These claims have long since been exposed as historical nonsense. There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine in the first three decades of our era, probably from 6-7 BC to 30 AD. That is a fact.
 * Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1976) p. 65


 * There is, lastly, a group of writers who endeavor to prove that Jesus never lived--that the story of his life is made up by mingling myths of heathen gods, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, etc. No real scholar regards the work of these men seriously. They lack the most elementary knowledge of historical research. Some of them are eminent scholars in other subjects, such as Assyriology and mathematics, but their writings about the life of Jesus have no more claim to be regarded as historical than Alice in Wonderland or the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
 * George Aaron Barton, Jesus of Nazareth: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1922) p. x


 * The data we have are certainly adequate to confute the view that Jesus never lived, a view that no one holds in any case
 * Charles E. Charleston, in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p. 3


 * Although it is held by Marxist propaganda writers that Jesus never lived and that the Gospels are pure creations of the imagination, this is not the view of even the most radical Gospel critics.
 * Bernard L. Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1999) p. 159

---

I hope this clears things up. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands 2e kamer diagram
Good morning and thank you for your suggestion. While I was aware that cabinet formation does not have an effect on seating position per se, my suggestion that the item in question be modified after the discussions are completed was to effect a somewhat long standing preference in relation to these sorts of diagrams in which parties forming the government are shown amalgamated together even if they do not physically sit adjacent to one another. Examples of this may be seen at Riksdag or Bundestag; having said that, there is no hard and fast rule in this sort of thing and I will modify the present diagram in accordance with the very interesting brochure which you were kind enough to attach. Unfortunately I am certain that it loses some of its nuance in translation, though my university roommate was Afrikaner so I suppose my limited working knowledge of Afrikaans is better than nothing at all! (-- Aricci526 09:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC))
 * As a quick update I'd add that if you can find the current post election information I'd love to see it, as I could make the diagram almost perfectly accurate, as of now it is only an estimate, albeit, now a more informed and educated estimate. (-- Aricci526 09:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Your contributed article, Causes of the Dutch revolt
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Causes of the Dutch revolt. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Dutch revolt. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Dutch revolt - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your point in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
I am answering here because this discussion is almost irrelevant to the Reliable source issue. I respect a lot your POV. It is hard to argue against asking for the best and, at the least for application of meditation in clinical settings, I trust that, indeed, the Jadad scale is excellent. It is not like it rejected all studies and, therefore, it should be possible to achieve that level of quality with many more studies. We have no disagreement thus far. However, I would have a serious problem with the concept of a single unique best scale that would apply to all settings, such as for personal development of individuals in a general context, in schools, in clinics to treat anxiety disorders, etc. In a way, the different criteria for quality assessment are like different questions that we can ask about the controlled variables. There is no such a thing as the best question. The best question depends upon what you want to know, which depends upon the setting in which the information will be used.

More importantly, to say that no conclusion can be drawn from available studies in general because a specific question that was asked in a meta-analysis could not be answered is a misunderstanding of how statistic should be interpreted. Even if it is true that it was the best question to ask for application in a given setting, you can only say that this specific question could not be answered. Consider the simple requirement for a control group. If you did not have a control group, many questions would be left unanswered. For example, you would not know if the effect would still be there if you selected the subjects in exactly the same way, but then did not apply the therapy and only waited before evaluating the effect. The point here is that perhaps the effect was all in the selection process, not in the therapy itself. Even in such a case, it would be false to say that no conclusion can be drawn from the study. Ok, it is true that you do not know if the effect is from the therapy or the selection process, but you know that, if you do both the selection process and the therapy, you have an effect. Of course, for simplicity, I took here an extreme example. The JADAD scale is a much more subtle criteria than only the existence of a control group and there are plenty of excellent studies with control group that are excluded by this scale. The other meta-analyses, which included these studies, might not have answered the question that is the most adapted to clinical settings, but to say that their conclusions are not valid is a misunderstanding of how statistic should be interpreted. These other meta-analyses have been published in peer-reviewed journals. A conspiracy theory that the TM organization could corrupt the review process is more ridiculous than the opposite conspiracy theory that the corporations of the health industry could corrupt the AHRQ and have it adopt an inadequate scale.

However, this discussion is not so useful to determine the prominence that we should give to the various reliable sources and even to select these reliable sources. The point is that it makes no sense to use the criteria that are used inside some meta-analyses to exclude other meta-analyses. Their purpose is not to accept or reject meta-analyses for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is taking these criteria out of their context. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree with a lot you say. The points I wanted to make are
 * If you want to claim scientific evidence for the clinical (medical) quality of your method, you will have to give good arguments about that quality. The Cochrane procedures (and Jadad scales etc) are currently the leading best practice in that field, so to claim evidence you will either
 * Have to live by current best practice
 * Have to argue your method in detail
 * If your claim is the much weaker claim that there are indications (and those examples you give are indeed indications something maybe going on) you can get away with less strong evidence. But you need to be much more modest in your conclusions. Arnoutf (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you above, as long as when you say "If you want to claim scientific evidence ...", you address yourself to someone who writes a paper about its own meta-analysis, not to a Wikipedia editor. My point is that it is the job of the authors, the reviewers and the editors of the meta-analysis to make sure that the principles that you mention are respected. It is not our job as editors in Wikipedia to check those points. We cannot use them to reject a meta-analysis that was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Otherwise, you are saying that we should redo the job of the secondary sources, which would be original research.


 * Personally, I assume that the authors, reviewers and the editors of all the pro-TM meta-analyses have done their job correctly and honestly. In taking editorial decisions in Wikipedia, this must be assumed. It is not the place for conspiracy theories. To do otherwise and exclude any of these meta-analyses would require that we provide very strong evidence of a lack of reliability.  We would need to show that the editors and the TM organization colluded or something like that. Certainly, it is useless, even inappropriate, to argue against the scale that was used in the meta-analysis because, again, this would only be pushing original research.  Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology
I admit I was too hasty in introducing this quote. I thought as the quote related to Chinese superiority in methods of weapon production, it was not involved with the earlier quote about technology. Now that I have thought about it, it seems too similar ot the previous quote. I apologize for any mishaps this could have caused. I promise not to make another edit like this without prior discussion again.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Military history
I appreciate your efforts at negotiating a reasonable course of discussion, but I'd advise you to take a closer look on the history again: I've been reverted around a dozen times in the last days, and so you and others have been - relentlessly. By contrast, I did not revert Teeinvestor a single time, except for the necessary tag. Note that being neutral does not mean that both sides should be given an equal part of responsibility for the problems, but that everyone should be judged according to his actions, even if that means that one side gets the major share. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully request you to stop removing quotes from Chinese dynastic histories cited from Temple's book. The language is not Temple's, he is quoting official Chinese histories such as the History of the Song Dynasty and Needham (you could probably tell from the fact I stated specifically before that these were dynastic histories); these are quotes that would fit under your first category of quotes that should be included. These quotes are valuable to help the reader understand and are from reliable sources.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, GPM has moved this discussion to ANI (see below).Teeninvestor (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 answers WP:MOS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT. If you don't get this then per WP:AGF I arrive at WP:COMPETENCE; if you don't WANT to get it I arrive at WP:DISRUPTIVE. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you. Teeninvestor (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought you might be interested that Teeninvestor is misrepresenting you and your edits, as I take it, behind your back: 09:58, 5 August 2010. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental meditation
A user has commented on your position here stating "some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information". Wondering if you could clarify your position at the RfC Thanks  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing Tags
Just wanted to thank you for your help on the Todd White- Artist piece I've been working on. Some new tags have been posted once again and I wanted your advice on how to prevent this from reoccurring in the future, what changes you think should be made to the article. The facts written are 100% accurate, the sources I've sited however do not seem to appease some of the editors. Suggestions? Thank you so much!! LindsayCervarich (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning World War II (overview article), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Schuilkerk
I see that you know something about Schuilkerk and, of course, the one in Amsterdam is charming. I am writing because I think that the article name should be moved to Clandestine churches. Reasons are this is an English language encyclopedia. This was a Europe-wide phenomenon so a Dutch name is not really appropriate. and Clandestine churches is the name Kaplan settled on in writing what is the best modern source on the phenomenon. I don't like to upset people, do I though I should talk this over with you before making the change.AMuseo (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Vrijburg, I started it, but do free. You undoubtedly know the building better than I.AMuseo (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dutch height
Hi Arnoutf, I posted this message to Woodstone who originally reverted me:. Because it is not my intention to edit war, I added "among". All averages are based on selected groupings and I accept that 17-year olds do not constitute the population. I contend however that 17 year olds continue to grow somewhat at the 20+ category in Montenegro/surrounding area is taller. I hope this is all right with you. Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also the Dutch sources are self-reported while the Dinaric is measured. Evlekis (Евлекис) 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but in your version you compare population of the Netherlands (Male = 180) to adolescents of the Dinaric alps (Male = 186). And that is just bad practice as Dutch adolescents are 184 or so. One other huge problem with your claim is that you report people from one ethnic group, while the Dutch average includes the average of all ethnicities living in the Netherlands. To your claim self-reported, that can mean three things (1) no difference from measures (in which case the argument is moot (2) systematic overestimation of length (which would support that the Dutch are not the tallest) (3) systematic underestimation, which would invalidate your measurements. Can you tell which it is?
 * Your compromise seems fair. Also, these kind of content discussion is perhaps better suited for the talk page of the Netherlands, as there may be more editors becoming involved.Arnoutf (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that too, but it is not something for the talk page as such, talk pages are for discussing the article and something that does not need mentioning in it is not a topic for discussion either. I think however Dutch people might be where it belongs, as Netherlands is more about the state. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt the information on the Dutch as I know they are a very tall nation on average, certainly bigger than the British with whom I am most familiar as I live in the UK. I have always ignored the 1.80 figure for Holland looking more at the 1.84 as realistic. I don't think however that this included migrants and former colonial persons, I know that Dutch policy (except if you are with Geert Wilders!) is to accept all citizens as Dutch but when variation exists, it is normally stated. That's how we know that northern Dutch are taller than southern Dutch, and where there would seem to be a difference among various ethnic groups, that too is given. Holland is about 20% non-Dutch in ethnicity and you know that most of these are Turks and Moroccans and I can't see the one of five of these groups lumping a young average up to 1,84. I have had Dutch acquantances with whom I have discussed this subject and they've all made relatively sensible remarks stating that if something is lowering the average, it is not the inclusion of non-whites as much as the point that many people are part-Dutch, part-foreign, and this causes a sticky point. As for the Dinaric Alps itself, it may be of interst to you to know that it is not one ethnicity as such, though in another sense, yes it is. I'll explain: you know how ethnicity is a status that reflects an individual's identity and as such, it is declared by that individual; the people living in the Dinaric Alps across the tall zone identify as Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosniaks/Muslims and Yugoslavs. You may thing "ah, that's all Slavic", however, apart from Montenegro which is entirely within the region, the other nations all extend to lands away from the Dinaric region where their own nationals are shorter on average. Then there is the fact that another group included in this tall category is the Albanians of the Dinaric Alps, that means Albanians of Montenegro and those in north-east Albania, chiefly in Shkodër. Albanians are not Slavic. Naturally, there is a race of people to be found that is short among the tall and that is the Roma, I guess this is because they settled in later centuries. But again, some Roma have mixed with some locals down the years and that has made a difference, but where communities appear to be "wholly Roma", the shorter average is visible. The actual belief is that the big people of our region have in them genes from the Dinarian race that lived millennia back on the territory; the Slavic character of the people simply reflects the influence that has proven strongest. So there are a lot of factors for thinking about in all scenarios in both regions we mention. Evlekis (Евлекис) 02:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The CBS does not distinguish on ethnicity, they consider everyone whose parents were born in the Netherlands as Dutch. So a third generation immigrant would be part of the population these statistics were done. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WWII Aftermath
Dear Arnoutf, Upon meditation I realised your draft needs some modification. Can you please have look at the changes I made and leave your comments? Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Spain1648.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spain1648.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case
Communicat has a case before the ArbCom and, in discussion prior to the case being accepted by ArbCom, I mentioned that you had experienced negative interactions with Communicat. ''Let me start by naming others with whom Communicat has had similar negative interactions, as the Committee may wish to either involve them or review the interactions: Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. Those interactions have not been universally negative, though mostly so.''

This prompted Communicat to write the onus is on Habap to inform those editors that he has involved them, so that they may speak for themselves, if at all. at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. In the arbitration case, Communicat alleges anti-Soviet bias by the members of the WikiProject Military History, specifically naming Edward321, Hohum, Nick-D, Georgewilliamherbert and me. If you would like to present evidence, you would do so on the Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence page. If you disagree with my characterization of your interactions as being "mostly negative", it would be appreciated if you would state that on the evidence page to clarify the matter.

I apologize for involving you in this process as I am sure you have more enjoyable things to do. --Habap (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dutch arms
There is no official design.

"Op basis van deze beschrijving en de heraldische regels mag een tekenaar zelf bepalen in welke stijl en vorm een wapen gemaakt wordt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelbrecht (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ok you are right. perhaps we should add a link to the text of the on besl tothe image.Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (didn't see this discussion before; so maybe this is not necessary? but still: ) I suggest you discuss the issue here. L.tak (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Emotion-footer
Hi. I see you updated the links using a reference, but now there are many that are redlinked. Should these be removed, and replaced by some other links? I suggest incorporating both the emotions listed from the source and the ones that were formerly in the template that are relevant so we can still have a comprehensive list. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 15:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the redlinks is ok, the problem with adding relevant other emotions is that many "emotions" are relevant to the editor adding them. This leads to an endless disucssion what should be in, or out. Therefor I strongly suggest that each and any emotion added is listed as an emotion in a reliable source. Perhaps something to discuss at the article talk. Arnoutf (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the other links were mentioned in list of emotions. The problem in keeping only the ones mentioned in a source, however is that many previously-listed emotions already had the template in place and revamping the entire list requires changing which articles have that template attached. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN
Thank for you for a thoughtful, incisive and considered response. Regards and wishing you a Happy New Year, Wee Curry Monster talk 20:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)