User talk:DionysiusThrax

/Archive 1

Mary
Do you want to post an opinion to the Blessed Virgin Mary Content Fork straw poll/vote? --Carlaude (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish to thank you sincerely for your consideration, in offering to include me in this poll; all the same, I think I will leave this matter to others who may be better qualified to make a judgment than am I. Thank you kindly, once again, and Peace. DThrax (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus
Hallo! As I mentioned on the talk page, I support your edit and I dropped a line by a few friends just to get a bit more input. I will revert back your edit tomorrow assuming all are agreeable.

Anyway, just one or two remarks about the issues you raised.

looking at Josephus, Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other sources, to propose that in late Second Temple times there really was quite a bit of diversity within Judaism..

Joesphus's "four philosophies" (I though three) were meant to parallel the Greek Epicureans, Stoics, and Pythagorians, and thus to make Judaism look more "civilized". As such, they shouldn't be taken seriously. Josephus does report that the majority of the common people were with the Pharisees, with the Sadducees as a small aristocratic movement and the Essenes as a small group of fanatics (who happened to leave over a lot of writing). Therefore, the "diversity" of the Second Temple period is effectively minimized.

It would be very easy (though it would not express my *own* POV) to claim justification for an article that says it is "the view of Christianity" that Torah, Written or Oral, is an oppressive system by which the ancients re-enslaved the Israelites upon their exodus from Egypt...

There really does exist an article called Criticism of Judaism (and a similar one about Christianity and Islam. That is how WP works. Many articles about (OT) Biblical figures DO have the type of criticism questioning their "historicity" (See for example the academic views section of the Moses page.)

My point is that by its nature, WP WILL include views that are offensive to believers and other groups and the only way to respond is to include responses within those articles from your own POV based on reputable sources (For instance Mosaic authorship responds to the Documentary hypothesis page).

In any event, I apologise if I've been a bit over-long but I did want to point out (since you seeem to know quite a bit on the subject) thatcontributions from the POV of the believer really would enhance WP and I hope you continue editing. Wolf2191 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, a lot later! Forgive my very lengthy silence, but I decided to stay away from Wikipedia for quite awhile, in hopes of avoiding pointless fights with those few users who imho can become overly aggressive -- certainly this does not include you!! -- but I think there were two or three people in that discussion (one very "in-your-face" seemingly omnipresent "ninja-lady"; and one or two other guys I might hazard to interpret as "politely uncompromising". Perhaps I should not opine so much; so in advance please forgive me if you find it harsh), ... two or three, who no matter what, were going to insist that they could presume to speak for all religious Jews, regarding an extremely narrow selection from among the many, many conceptions there are of this ancient man commonly referred to as Jesus of Nazareth. (Obviously, I was offended...  Maybe I should grow a thicker skin.)  I appreciate all your comments; you seem like a very reasonable and friendly person who acts in good faith.  "May your tribe increase", as some are wont to say.


 * I was going to add that I don't think there should be articles which similarly presume to speak, for example, on behalf of all Christians, or on behalf of all Muslims, with regard to these loosely-defined groups' presumed monolithic view of any-or-all forms or aspects of Judaism (or regarding anything else, for that matter). However, on reflection and even the lightest perusal of any of the subject areas at hand, as articles about them proliferate throughout Wikipedia, bloating it unstoppably, I must admit that this ideal of mine doesn't seem at all realistic.  (To me it seems like a way people have of imposing their POV ownership -- in spite of the WP rules -- by staking out turf in a greater number of redundant articles than can ever be managed by discussion and consensus.  You have been very honest, far more honest and realistic than most I think, to state frankly that "the only way to respond is to include responses within those articles from your own POV based on reputable sources".  I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that WP is officially in denial about this -- in so many words, at least.  Maybe WP should state either more explicitly or more prominently that POV is OK when reasonably supported.)


 * So, instead of tilting any further at windmills, I will simply sign off, reiterating my thanks for the good will you have brought, and wishing you peace now and always.DThrax (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics
Hello, I am trying to bring WP:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics back to semi-active status. Toward that end, I have moved all members who have not posted to the project page in the past six months to a section, "Inactive members." If you wish to be active in the project, I hope you will move your name back to the section, "Members." You may also remove your name if you are no longer interested in the project. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)